2. amps-preamps
  3. 166337-1209

Pathos Classic One MkIII vs. Krell S-300i

How does one decide which amplifier they prefer?

For a little background, my system started with an Integra 50.1 receiver (still have).  My first amplifier upgrade was to add a Yaqin MC-30L integrated tube amplifier to my setup using a switch.  The Yaqin MC-30L was clearly an upgrade to the Integra, but also had a very similar sound.  My audio journey then took me to a Cambridge Audio Azur 840A that I simply never liked the sound of so to make a long story short I traded it in to a local audio shop and picked up a Pathos Classic One MkIII that I have really enjoyed.  The Pathos was once again a clear upgrade to the Yaqin and again had a similar sound.  From the Integra to the Yaqin to the Pathos there was never a question about which one sounded better because each seemed to simply be a better version of the previous one.

Enter the Krell S-300i that has really upset the balance of my audio world.  It's not unexpected, but the Krell and Pathos have very different sounds and very different sound stages.  The Pathos has more pronounced and clear highs and the Krell has more detailed bass (there is a bit of a mid-bass hump that isn't pleasing).  In line with the Fletcher Munson Curve, the Pathos sound better at low levels and the Krell starts to move ahead as the volume is increased.

Sometimes I wonder if the majority of my "dislike" for the Krell is simply that it sounds different than the sound that I've had as long as I've had my system.  There's some music where the Krell is absolutely superior and some that I clearly don't prefer it.  I think the Krell has allowed me to hear difference between Redbook and SACD that I've not heard before and I have greatly enjoyed the sound I get feeding it with the Integra through the home theater bypass feature.

My system is far from being setup ideally, over even well, but that's just the reality of living in a 1,400 sq-ft house.  I honestly believe that most of my gear is well above the setup making it somewhat pointless to try and really evaluate them.

I could keep both of the amplifier and have them both connected to my overall system, but they also represent funds that could be used to try out a new pieces of gear.

I realize that this is kind of an open ended question like ramble, but it's a new experience to truly not be able to pick a favorite.  In the few A/B tests my wife and kids tend to prefer the Pathos (they also prefer lower listening volumes which make sense) and the Pathos is clearly a better looking piece of gear (WAF), but the home theater bypass feature on the Krell allows it to be fully integrated and could eliminate the switch.

Anyone else have the experience of not being able to choose a clear favorite?
mceljo
mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
alexatpos - In the future I may be more interested in upgrading my sources, but as I mentioned in my first post my system is absolutely limited by setup and I can honestly say that I've heard very little difference, if any, among the various sources that I've used.  The difference between the Krell and Pathos, on the other hand, is quite obvious.

The other source that I am currently using is a Bluesound Node 2 through a Maverick Audio TubeMagic D2 DAC that has all of the offered upgrades.  I consider the SACD player to be superior simply because it has SACD capability, but the solid state output on the DAC sound identical to Redbook CD to my ears.

One thing that is interesting with the DAC as a source is that with the Pathos the difference between the tube and solid state outputs was simply a slight softening on the high end which I almost never preferred but didn't find objectionable.  I used it at time for general listening to take the edge off since my wife is volume sensitive.  With the Krell, the tube output on the DAC sounds awful to my ears.  I ended up putting a splitter between the DAC and Pathos and Krell so that I could use the solid state output for both.  The DAC is my casual listening source and the SACD player is directly connected to the Krell currently for best results.

You've probably picked up on the numerous less-than-optimal things in my systems ranging from the physical setup on the speakers to having a switch between the amplifiers and speakers, and splitters in the source connections.  I can certainly see how one could be driven nuts if the system was able to be setup optimally where it was easier/possible to really evaluate the more subtle differences in components and such.  Maybe a blessing in disguise for me...
mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
mesch - I can only imagine the look on my wife's face if I told her that I wanted a second Pathos!  I had to shoehorn the Krell in and there's simply not a reasonable configuration that would allow for another Pathos as fun as that sounds.
mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
After a little more run time, I've settled on the Pathos being the more pleasing amplifier to my ear.  My friend came over for a listen and he described the Krell as sounding like a great recording and the Pathos sounding like live music.  We both agreed that the Krell is king for just about any music that is supposed to sound like a recording particularly if it's powerful music.  It's not an audiophile album, but a great example is Hillsong Who You Say I Am.  The Krell is currently setup to be a power amplifier in my home theater setup.
mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
As it turns out, the solution to deciding if I preferred the Krell or the Pathos was time and tube rolling.  As noted previously, over time I realized that I enjoyed the Pathos sound more even though I think I wanted to prefer the Krell.  Then I upgraded the tubes in the Pathos with some Mullard tubes and now I can't imagine anyone not choosing the Pathos as the clear winner.
More to discover