After the sound settled down with burn-in I decided to compare 3 DACs that I now have available on the office rack via ROON READY. The AMT3SE and Benchmark DAC3B are connected by fibre optic streaming. The internal DAC on the Krell is connected by RJ45 Ethernet CAT5. I listened to all 3 via ROON with my ROON CORE Parametric EQ settings enabled for the RAAL SR1a. As mentioned before these settings are minor adjustments to the digital signal before it hits the DAC.
The internal DAC in the Krell sounded OK. I was a little bummed that the loudness of the DAC (maybe called GAIN?) was set so high. I have to lower the volume whenever I used this DAC. Compared to the Benchmark DAC3B it seemed a little more congested and slower. An OK DAC but one where I would be thinking of upgrading. I had 0 fatigue listening to the internal DAC, which was a huge win. I was also using the internal DAC to play the unit for burn-in. I will once day connect HDMI on this DAC to a TV that I recently salvaged.
The Benchmark DAC3B connected to a RCA input on the Krell was a bit surprising. Compared to the internal DAC, the soundstage seemed bigger, the sound harder hitting, and faster. I really liked this combo. The same combo with the CODA was a little bit more fatiguing. The Krell and Benchmark seemed to work in better harmony than the CODA and Benchmark. There was also 0 fatigue with Krell.
My main goal for all of this testing was to find something that is not fatiguing with the RAAL SR1a. So I had decided to listen to Heavy Metal music. The same albums and tracks from Black Sabbath (Heaven and Hell), Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and some BeeGees just for the heck of it.
With the tubed based AMT3SE DAC the sound was a little softer on top than the Benchmark DAC3. Everything else seemed the same. With the CODA the AMTSE was a match made in heaven. I thought that was the best I had heard the CODA. The Krell and the AMTSE was very similar in greatness but the Krell seemed to sound a bit smoother while the CODA sounded richer (if that is a proper way to describe sound). Maybe like a richer or moist cake. The Krell was not dry but I kept thinking "like butter", real smooth. I loved both of them with the AMTSE. I also loved the Krell with the Benchmark DAC3B, not the CODA.
Another difference I noticed between the CODA and Krell was that the Krell seemed to have a bit more detail or clarity. I generally like that but I also loved how the CODA sounded with the AMT3SE. However, both seemed to fall a bit behind in the clarity or detail department to the Benchmark DAC3B | HPA4 | AHB2 system, my reference.
Long term I will keep the Krell. Even though it is a big over spend for my RAAL SR1a needs. I may move to a more accommodating house in the future and the Krell will be very useful then. The LS50's sounded excellent (given the placement) with the Krell.
I should also mention that I think there maybe more bass on the Krell over the CODA. I should really test this out on the Thiel CS3.7 to be certain.
I am listening to some Emmylou Harris as I type this and damn it sounds so good. One good and bad thing with the SR1a is that when it sounds right I have to stop and listen. I cannot work with them on. I have the Meze Empy for late night work. I cannot do that with the RAAL, it is just too good.
The internal DAC in the Krell sounded OK. I was a little bummed that the loudness of the DAC (maybe called GAIN?) was set so high. I have to lower the volume whenever I used this DAC. Compared to the Benchmark DAC3B it seemed a little more congested and slower. An OK DAC but one where I would be thinking of upgrading. I had 0 fatigue listening to the internal DAC, which was a huge win. I was also using the internal DAC to play the unit for burn-in. I will once day connect HDMI on this DAC to a TV that I recently salvaged.
The Benchmark DAC3B connected to a RCA input on the Krell was a bit surprising. Compared to the internal DAC, the soundstage seemed bigger, the sound harder hitting, and faster. I really liked this combo. The same combo with the CODA was a little bit more fatiguing. The Krell and Benchmark seemed to work in better harmony than the CODA and Benchmark. There was also 0 fatigue with Krell.
My main goal for all of this testing was to find something that is not fatiguing with the RAAL SR1a. So I had decided to listen to Heavy Metal music. The same albums and tracks from Black Sabbath (Heaven and Hell), Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and some BeeGees just for the heck of it.
With the tubed based AMT3SE DAC the sound was a little softer on top than the Benchmark DAC3. Everything else seemed the same. With the CODA the AMTSE was a match made in heaven. I thought that was the best I had heard the CODA. The Krell and the AMTSE was very similar in greatness but the Krell seemed to sound a bit smoother while the CODA sounded richer (if that is a proper way to describe sound). Maybe like a richer or moist cake. The Krell was not dry but I kept thinking "like butter", real smooth. I loved both of them with the AMTSE. I also loved the Krell with the Benchmark DAC3B, not the CODA.
Another difference I noticed between the CODA and Krell was that the Krell seemed to have a bit more detail or clarity. I generally like that but I also loved how the CODA sounded with the AMT3SE. However, both seemed to fall a bit behind in the clarity or detail department to the Benchmark DAC3B | HPA4 | AHB2 system, my reference.
Long term I will keep the Krell. Even though it is a big over spend for my RAAL SR1a needs. I may move to a more accommodating house in the future and the Krell will be very useful then. The LS50's sounded excellent (given the placement) with the Krell.
I should also mention that I think there maybe more bass on the Krell over the CODA. I should really test this out on the Thiel CS3.7 to be certain.
I am listening to some Emmylou Harris as I type this and damn it sounds so good. One good and bad thing with the SR1a is that when it sounds right I have to stop and listen. I cannot work with them on. I have the Meze Empy for late night work. I cannot do that with the RAAL, it is just too good.