Krell 400xi vs. BAT VK-300x vs. McIntosh MA6900

Jc........ at least we can agree on one 'Mac'.......your computer of choice. If you are, indeed, an Apple computer user, you can't be ALL BAD! A bit of a ball breaker, but that's OK. I've been using and loving Mac's for 8+ years without a problem.

MacIntosh (Audio).......the brand Jc loves to hate!

Nwavesailor-I mean no personal ball-breaking to you or any other McIntosh owner here on AG, just my thoughts on the matter is all-sorry if they come across strong. I guess I was just expecting more from McIntosh equipment.

Either way, doesn't matter..Krell is far perfect thats for sure, it does have its sonic weaknesses. To name a few, I can't stand their whole position on CAST. Sure it may sound a smidge better and all that, but one thing is for sure- It is a crafty way for you to buy more of their stuff-silly if you ask me. Given my druthers, & money being no object, I don't know that Krell is what I would own either. If that were the case it might be VTL from top to bottom, Siegfried's, 7.5 etc. Or, Shindo, Kharma, Nagra etc..But I am lowly Serf, so I must settle on Krell, sigh....

I am in fact recent PC convert..I adore the MAC computer in every way. I can't move around in it like I can a Windows PC yet, but I am hoping this just takes time. It is doubtful I will go back to PC for the home-Apple has me hook, line and sinker. Considering AppleTV at the moment for the UI on my TV to control my music. I bet I could learn a thing or two from you on the MACbook. 8 Years makes you a MACvet. ;)

This may be of little help, as the MA 6500 and 6900 are different animals indeed, but I had the 6500 and a 400xi in my system recently, and found the Krell much more dynamic, but sometimes to a fault (little midrange bloom). That being said, I upgraded (IMHO) further to a used Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista Integrated, and for the same price of a new 400 or 6500, it is in a totally different sonic league, in my system. Not colored, laid back nuetral sound. Not sure of the relation of MF with Wilsons, but I would not write of the upper-end MF integrated gear. Good luck. BTW, I like the Mac sound as well - yes, it is colored, but it's all in what your ears and mind enjoy. My old MA5100 is a gem coupled with an MR65 tuner.

I recently did a week-long at home audition of the McIntosh MA6900 against my 3-year old Krell KAV-400xi. It was a tough decision because these two Amps sound as different as two solid-state amplifiers can sound. The Krell has great dynamics, imaging and mid-bass punch. The McIntosh has a refined, smooth and full sound, with good deep-bass and a wide sound-stage. I felt that the Krell was the more neutral of the two, even though it could have a bit of a bite to it on less than ideal Discs. In the end, the Krell simply sounded closer to live music, the Instruments and Voices had realistic weight and texture to them. The McIntosh sounded like a very good Stereo System, a nostalgic sound when compared to the current house sounds of Krell, Ayre, BAT or Mark Levinson. I will say that McIntosh gear does sound very different from anything else out there, with a unique house sound, I could understand their loyal following, since their Customers would have a hard time finding this sound from another solid-state manufacturer, the rest do tend to sound more-or-less the same.

I agree that McIntosh is quite different from most other SS amps and if you like it, little else will do. I suppose that is why they are the oldest hifi manufacturer in the world - they always retained part of the market somehow.

McIntosh SS will appeal to people who like tube amplifiers. For people who like the "classic" SS sound, they will be surprised at how McIntosh amps sound, and thus will probably not like them. Human judgement is solely based on personal familiarity.

Having said that, I have yet to hear a good SS amp that can beat a good tube amp for the reproduction of mids and highs. The McIntosh SS amps come as close as I have heard but still not quite there. But then again, this is only valid from my point of view.

I find that "realistic weight and texture" mainly comes from system synergy and design rather than a single amplifier. There are some bright systems where the McIntosh would have been the one with realistic weight and texture. It is all relative afterall.

Although, I have to admit that I have never heard a stereo that could reproduce a live production exactly so those comparisons may not be very meaningful anyway. They are mere objective details which are always very difficult to reproduce whether you speak of cooking, painting, hifi, or whatever. Not to mention they can sometimes overshadow the bigger picture.

Recreating the emotion and the energy of a live production, however, IS possible with a very good stereo and that is what I strive for. To that end, the McIntosh SS amps overall are excellent at conveying this type of information IMO. So are most tube amps and vinyl rigs.

Arthur