NAD takes on the Krell Beast 1800 vs 6700??

One of my friends has a NAD dealership and he's told me that he can't give the S200's away. While I don't know what they sound like, my guess is that "audiophiles" are prejudiced against NAD products being best suited for "starter systems". It's hard to shake an image, even a good one like "great bang for the buck", when you want to change marketing strategy. Sean
>

As I own a Krell ksa-250 this old thread cought my eye, I thought, hmmm, the nad must be a pretty good amp in deed. I thought I should check the poster's system to see if he had bought one of these great amps, thats when I had to LOL, what do I find: He drives a hyundai so he can drive his speakers with an amp that was trashed in review and a search finds that many people on the forums agree with the review, I think I'll keep the old krell, they get trashed a lot for their sound ( or lack of it ), but I have never read anything about having to give them away at a dealership. Sell the Aleph 3 and buy the NAD, or go see sean's dealer friend and get the Nad for almost free.

Seems like people that can't afford Krell love to stomp it without even caring to see further where the bad sound comes from. OTOH, Krell owners can also feel pressed to 'justify' their purchases since Krell products, even used, are so expensive. But the same can also be said about some of us that buy 'best bang for the buck' product. We'd like to think that we are smarter than those people that can afford to and do buy big-buck gears by saying that our 'cheap' system can come close or stomp a much more expensive system.
IMHO, the newer Krell amps are more like a transparent magnifier, so the quality of the components upstream is very important. I think that's the caveat with all the big-buck, hi-end SS amps, they are so transparent that you hear all the beauty and all the garbage from your source and pre-amp and you can't help but buy CDP/'table, pre-amp, IC's in the same class.
And the NAD, being more 'budget-conscious', I believe, is not as transparent as the Krell and therefore the better sound may be caused by its coloration that somehow complements the kind of sound that's coming from the CDP and pre-amp and makes it more musical. I believe if you are using a Krell amp (and pre-amp as stated in the original posting), you shouldn't use an Adcom as your CDP. It is better to use a Krell CDP and an Adcom amp.
It's not a matter of better and worse, just your preference.

Another Krell owner that can hear without having heard, Amazing!

Transparency is NOT at all where the S200 is lacking, not in the least, it's actually one of its strong suits and it is a revealing piece. What the S-200 does wrong is on the minimal subtractive side, it does nothing offensive nor does draw attention to itself from any shortcomings. Actually listen instead of talking junk, you might be a bit taken aback....

sogood51-I find your personal attack on me in very poor taste.
You point out I drive a hyandai (not anymore) but regardless,does my ex-car really bother you.
You mentioned I have a amp that was trashed 'in review'Actually numb nuts, it was one review and I didnt notice "many people on the forums agreed with the review" Where did you read that!?
In all fairness.I also took my aleph-3 to listen to, along with the NAD and Krell.
The Aleph-3 was the clear winner.I didnt mention this before as my friend who has the NAD S-200 reads these threads and he and I dont like to judge each others gear.
The Krell 250 he had, he had borrowed and was thinking about buying it until he heard it.
BTW,numbnuts..the system you checked out in my virtual system is my old system.Pay attention.