I think Mfsoa makes a good point for the other side of the equation. The Krell does sound different. I think one man's shouty is another man's well-defined. First time I listened to Krell, I thought it was too forward. Later, after listening a couple more times I started to notice how dependent the sound from the Krell was on the source and recording. I was eventually won over and bought one.
It didn't hurt my opinion of the Krell when I saw a salesman drop on its corner a 400Xi from belly high onto a solid concrete floor. He looked extremely pained - even somehow cut his hand when it slid out and his boss walked in. He picked it up. You could barely see a mark on the corner where it hit and it literally chipped the concrete. They hooked it up, turned it on, and much to all of our amazement it worked like a champ. You would have had to see it to believe it. The build quality is incredible. Of course that doesn't make the sound.
I have Marantz and I'm familiar with the YBA. I think Marantz makes very good sounding equipment. I'm always on the lookout for a PM. They don't show up much.
The YBA - I can't think of any other way to describe it - has *sweet* sound. It's much like a sweet piece of candy, great at first but then cloying. It's all sweetness but somewhat lacking substance IMO.
After I bought the 400xi I kind of thought something wasn't right about the bass. I a-b'ed it against my top of the line NAD separates and the bass was just as good as the NAD but the mids and highs were so different that in contrast it had made the bass sound different. After that I started doing some critcal listening to the Krell.
I was struck by two things. First I heard things in very familiar music I had never heard before. Good things. Secondly I noticed clear separation of instruments that was far ahead of the NAD and even the Marantz. I eventually figured out the Krell took whatever I gave it and laid it out in spades. In other words revealing. Bad disks sounded worse and great ones sounded, well, great - better than they ever had before. Especially acoustic and classical.
I concluded the NAD was very forgiving but at the expense of definition and clarity. You could throw on about anything and sound was decent.
The Marantz was gentle but lacking soul. It not bad though. I would put the sound near Levinson and not far from Ayre. Some of the reference stuff I think might be very good.
I would compare Mfsoa's listening test to the Pepsi Challenge back in the 80s. If you recall "The Pepsi Challenge" alarmed Coke executives to the point that they thought they had to reformulate Classic coke to new coke. Pepsi was legitamately winning the taste tests. Coke executives thought they need something sweeter. What they didn't consider and what resulted in the New Coke debacle was the sweeter Pepsi was winning a *sip* test. A single sip of something sweet will always win that kind of Challenge. What Coke executives didn't consider was people buy a Coke to drink 12~16 ounces. That much of a sweeter soft drink wasn't good. People didn't want that much of a sweet drink. It just made 'em feel yucky. Whence the New Coke disaster.
Krell I think is an acquired taste. That's why you have all these Krell diehards. They know what they like. Of course you have others who can't understand how anyone like Krell with its "shouty" sound. No doubt it sounds different from other equipment out there.
All the amps listed have a different sound. And all have their followers. Probably the best thing to do if you can't audition them is buy one used based on what you think you might like and then resale later. Or buy several integrateds and resale what you don't like. If you're married, you have to think about placating the wife. Wives don't understand why we need so many pieces of equipment. :)
regards, David
