Why Is Krell Not Considered Hifi?

I have only heard Krell at a local dealer that uses Monster cable so I do not think that really counts as fair listening session, it still did not sound bad. I just can not imagine that equipment that looks to be very of good build quality and design could sound as bad as some people claim. I think some people just don't want to have the mainstream hi-end like Krell or Levinson, they want that oddball stuff you can not find anywhere,(same people bashing Carl on the MIT) and probrably will not be able to get service on in 3 years much less 10.

You have it all wrong--Krell sounds very hi-fi, as opposed to musical, and that's exactly the problem. It sounds surgical, precise, analytical, call it what you will, but it does not sound musical. You can mask its annoying high frequency shrillness with filters diguised as IC's, and that will at least make it listenable. The lows are solid, but very electronic with no sense of timbre or space, just pure slam. If that's what you enjoy, Krell is perfect. It is a stable company with LOTS of different models from which to choose, and there are LOTS of used ones available. Take that as an indicator of what happens to most Krell owners after they live with the stuff for a while, after that showroom glow, the Krell mystique, has worn thin.

Nope, you have it all wrong. It definitely doesn't sound "very hi-fi", and does indeed sound like real music. It has the lifelike feeling of macro-dynamics that tube amps of similar price (to my particular Krell) do not have (my tube amp is better with micro-dynamics and micro shadings of detail retirieval, but at the expense of a lifelike ease with large dynamic swings, that's why I have both). It also isn't all "slam", it has finesse. The one I have has about one fourth the damping factor of the Full Power Balanced series. You're just being smug, and don't know what mine sounds like, that's for sure.