From Krell to McIntosh - Anyone?

I have not heard either Krell or McIntosh in a good while now, but I do care about music reproduction in the home. I do not post much because I seem to identify very little with the majority of descriptions I read here (or on the Asylum). Mine does not not necessarily hold merit over anyone elses, but my position would be that the amplifier which imposes the least amount of its own character on the signal is the better amp.

To compare, remember some of the characteristics of live performances that were captured in memory. We may not have tremendous aural memory, but we should remember character (sights, sounds tastes, etc.) I may not exactly remember the sound of a bass, but I do remember the character of that sound, even as I struggle to describe it. I have never heard live music sound, whether vocals in a great chapel, symphonies in an auditorium, blues in a club, or rock in an arena, anything like some of the descriptions I read about the sonics of audio components.

Another help might be to understand something of the recordings. I am not a recording engineer or any expert, but I have performed for live audiences and been recorded. Also, when I assisted someone recording symphony concerts, the placement of the mics made it rather impossible to have a mid-hall perspective (or even 3rd row) from any system approaching neutrality. The mics were placed above and just forward of the stage, well before the first row. When sitting in the audience, I noted the bite and edge of the orchestra when it reached musical climax. I also heard that bite and edge (and somewhat close perspective) while listening to the mic feed though headphones.

Of course in reality I can be flawed, but I really enjoy good performances of various kinds of music. Not all performances are good (many just suck) because it takes a real connection to lyrics/melody, or to a violin [for instance] to be able to communicate the message. And that's what I want to hear - the real message. I do not want to anger or offend anyone. Believe me, I am a nobody, but I want to encourage equipment manufacturers to strive for honest neutrality. Not every recording can sound like a live performance, they are, after all, a recording. But they should come close to capturing the intent of the music (the artist's intent). Oh, and manufacturers should bring your prices down.

I appologize for the semi-rant and length.

Hmmm.... Kinda seems like we're discussing right wing vs left wing politics here. Obviously, these are personal preferences and tend to bring out the fanatics on both sides. Too bad nobody seems to be able to find something in the middle that combines the best attributes of both.

At the price of the gear that we are talking about here, things shouldn't be quite so polarized. It either sounds good, makes music, performs reliably OR it doesn't. Since everyone seems to agree that there are relatively HUGE differences in presentation between these brands of gear, at least one, if not both of them, must have major design flaws. After all, if you can put identical signals into both brands and get COMPLETELY different presentations, they are obviously doing something VERY different internally.

If such is the case, and neither can be shown to be verifiably superior to the other in consistent fashion, it all boils down to choosing the lesser of the two evils. At this price point, "evils" shouldn't even have to be thought about in the field of audio reproduction.

At the kind of prices we are talking about for a system full of these brands of gear, the band REALLY should be in your room. This would allow you to ask them just how it really should sound. My guess is that it would be neither Krell or Mac like, but something more in the middle of the two. Sean
>

Hi Sean,

I personally do not think there is a middle ground in audio equipment. It's like what you said (right wing or left wing), either you like it or don't. With me, when I demo equipment, I usually hear two things. Detail and Presentation. Detail, I have usually been impressed and that includes McIntosh and Krell. On presentation (I believe this is the main attribute that seperates each audio equipment), I found Krell always presented the music like here it is direct and to the point, where as McIntosh presented with almost like a calming and smoother presentation. I personally like McIntosh and would not trade it in for something that has Krell features just because I don't like the Krell sound. Why would I if I already love the sound of a Mc. Having said that, I have not demo-ed every audio piece out there, I have not heard Sim Audio (which is suppose to be dark and neutral)

Shucks, did not intend to imply which of the MAC or Krell was actually more correct or better. As I wrote above, I havent't heard the latest Krell stuff, or any McIntosh in too long. But if I choose (when comparing) based on my criteria (which is real accuracy), I should choose the one that's actually the better design. Now, if my criteria were a specific "sound" and presentation, then I might choose differently. Sure, I think that the original event should be the criteria. But even my methods for identifying which is more correct is bound to be somewhat flawed - it is possible that due to recordings, nothing can be accurate and still recreate the original event...I don't really know. And there are probably other reasons too. But I have to have some basis to start with.

Another criteria I use is to determine audible differences between various recordings - if every recording I use in auditioning sounds too similar, it is wrong and I move on. True, during classical concerts, I did not hear any significant "layers" of sound, or a floating in space 3-D rendering of individual instruments, or great amounts of "air" around performers. Just wasn't there. However, the sound was smooth, timbres were full (though not necessarily rich or thick), not screechy or grainy, and very coherent. Also, the thwacks on tympani were quite dynamic, but very quick too. I could zero in on more prominant (or louder) performers if I wanted, but certainly not each and every instrument. This was somewhat easier to do via the mic feeds though (mics were just fwd and above the stage).

I do not know which I would prefer between a MAC or Krell. Hopefully, I would like niether because of the cost. Most of my system is solid-state, but my phono pre, though very modest, does have a tube. I made sure my wife saw it, "hey honey, come look at my tube!" (nothing dirty). Whatever works and I can afford.

I am going to shut up now. Cheers everyone.

Since I have never owned either, take this with the appropriate amount of salt. First of all, I don't think either of these manufacturer's gear necessarily conforms to a house sound. Mac works with both tubes and solid state. I will grant you that perhaps Mac's rather unique use of output transformers on some of their ss gear may negate what might otherwise be percieved as an automatic presumed difference. IMHO, Krell's gear has not maintained a house sound either. To my ears their home theatre, intergrated and class AB gear is significantly inferior to their pure class A stuff, and some of their gear, even in within their class A range, have obvious differences. FWIW, the better Krell stuff is amongst the best I've ever heard and I find the sound of most Macs neither attractive nor repulsive (most of the Mac gear certainly has a classic visual beauty though) .