Krell KAV 250a opinions?
jple...@shore.net
I'm firm on wanting solid state (so even if you prefer tubes, your
opinions on solid state choices only--if you please) and I use a Rotel
971 CD Player for source. I have a big double room (19x19 w/10'
ceilings with an 8'x9' opening to a duplicate room). I listen to all
types of music but 80% of the time it is Jazz (usually 3 or 4
piece--acoustic) I have to stay under 5K. Opinions appreciated.
1) Krell KAV 250a and 250p
2) Proceed HPA2 with Adcom GFA 750
3) Levinson 383 integrated
4) Bryston 4B ST and BP 25 Preamp
5) Various Rotel
There is a limit to what I can audition and lug around, so I'm going
to pick a pair from this list (I've hit my limit). My opinions and
pref:
5) Harsh with a flat soundstage
4) Also a bit harsh (though not as bad as the Rotel). Not engaging.
3) Sterile sounding. Uninspired. Ok soundstage. Not so good on bass
with these speakers
2) Good control of bass, very clean, accurate, ok soundstage.
1) Krell: This pair is controlled and seems accurate. Great control
throughout the range. Great dynamic response. Best of all VERY
engaging.
Here is what I want to know: Have any of you had any problems with
Krell or with this pair in particular? Any reactions to this pair? Ok
be kind, everyone.
Greg Parrish
<jple...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:%1QL4.761$lL2....@news.shore.net...
Stewart Pinkerton
As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
about an ideal combination. The 804 is very transparent but is a
difficult load and needs a powerful but very clean amp with lots of
'grunt'. Basically, it's a perfect match for a big Krell. Despite not
being a 'proper' Krell, the KAV250a is one of the finest power amps on
the market, and a relative high-end steal at the price. I'm sure you'd
also be very happy with the Bryston combo.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
> As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
> about an ideal combination.
I think I'm going to be ill. Even Krell aficinados stay away from any product
that says "KAV" on it.
Stewart Pinkerton
Only if they're stupid label snobs like you..............
The KAV250a is an excellent product, regardless of the label, as are
the Bryston 4BST, the Adcom 5802 and the Meridian 557.
Trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
> >> about an ideal combination.
> >
> >I think I'm going to be ill. Even Krell aficinados stay away from any product
> >that says "KAV" on it.
>
> Only if they're stupid label snobs like you..............
>
> The KAV250a is an excellent product, regardless of the label, as are
> the Bryston 4BST, the Adcom 5802 and the Meridian 557.
>
>
What part of 'rat cack' is confusing for you?
jple...@shore.net
anything with KAV on it. Obviously it isn't of the quality of the
higher end Krell, but IN ITS PRICE RANGE, is there anything wrong
about it? Right about it? Problems?
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>Trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>> As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
>>> about an ideal combination.
>>
>>I think I'm going to be ill. Even Krell aficinados stay away from any product
>>that says "KAV" on it.
>Only if they're stupid label snobs like you..............
>The KAV250a is an excellent product, regardless of the label, as are
>the Bryston 4BST, the Adcom 5802 and the Meridian 557.
>--
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> Trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
>> >> about an ideal combination.
>> >
>> >I think I'm going to be ill. Even Krell aficinados stay away from any product
>> >that says "KAV" on it.
>>
>> Only if they're stupid label snobs like you..............
>>
>> The KAV250a is an excellent product, regardless of the label, as are
>> the Bryston 4BST, the Adcom 5802 and the Meridian 557.
>>
>What part of 'rat cack' is confusing for you?
I'm barbecuing salmon and chicken tonight, but you just eat whatever
takes your fancy!
OTOH, it would seem that you've had little Exposure to really good
high-power amps.............
Stewart Pinkerton
>So let's hear from the Krell aficionados: What don't you like about
>anything with KAV on it. Obviously it isn't of the quality of the
>higher end Krell,
Hmmmmmmmm. I'd love to see the results of a double-blind test of the
KAV 250a against the FPB-300.................
> but IN ITS PRICE RANGE, is there anything wrong
>about it? Right about it? Problems?
--
Laura
I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
for an amp and am considering the 250.
Perhaps Mr. Pinkerton Trotsky meant that the 250 is not a real Krell
in the same sense that a Proceed, unlike a Levinson, is not a real
Madrigal.
L
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:18:17 GMT, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>Trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>> As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
>>> about an ideal combination.
>>
>>I think I'm going to be ill. Even Krell aficinados stay away from any product
>>that says "KAV" on it.
>
>Only if they're stupid label snobs like you..............
>
>The KAV250a is an excellent product, regardless of the label, as are
>the Bryston 4BST, the Adcom 5802 and the Meridian 557.
>
trotsky
>
> I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
> for an amp and am considering the 250.
What I meant was that I have spoken to numerous people, approximately
half a dozen, that have expressed complete disappointment over the KAV
series from Krell. The one time I heard it I thought it was awful, too,
and requested to the dealer to switch to a different amp. (In that
particular instance the other amp was a Rowland, which was far more
musical.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Pinkerton Trotsky meant that the 250 is not a real Krell
> in the same sense that a Proceed, unlike a Levinson, is not a real
> Madrigal.
>
Excellent point. I believe that Krell even has a different distribution
policy for the KAV products, such that almost any audio dealer can sell
the stuff if they request to.
Laura
>Laura wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
>> for an amp and am considering the 250.
>
>
>
>What I meant was that I have spoken to numerous people, approximately
>half a dozen, that have expressed complete disappointment over the KAV
>series from Krell. The one time I heard it I thought it was awful, too,
>and requested to the dealer to switch to a different amp. (In that
>particular instance the other amp was a Rowland, which was far more
>musical.
>
>
Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific - awful in what areas?
What other components/speakers were in use when you heard it?
Thanx
Andrew MacGowan
>>Laura wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
>>> for an amp and am considering the 250.
>>What I meant was that I have spoken to numerous people, approximately
>>half a dozen, that have expressed complete disappointment over the KAV
>>series from Krell. The one time I heard it I thought it was awful, too,
>>and requested to the dealer to switch to a different amp. (In that
>>particular instance the other amp
>was a Rowland, which was far more
>>musical.
>>
>Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific - awful in what areas?
>What other components/speakers were in use when you heard it?
>
I agree with Mr. Singh about the Krell KAV series. I listened to some of the
line extensively at a local dealer, and while the stuff isn't exactly awful, I
didn't see a huge difference between this somewhat expensive gear and mid-fi HT
receivers from the likes of Nakamichi, Yamaha and Denon (although I do admit
the Nak is very good for the money). I heard a KAV-150 integrated with a Krell
CD player (I forget which one), coupled with Thiel CS1.5s, Thiel CS6s,
Martin-Logan SL3s, and Linn Av5150s. It sounded OK...a bit aggressive in the
treble, and the bass wasn't up to the other Krells. The dealer obviously agreed
with me on this assessment, because he inserted an old used Krell KSA-100 into
the system, and all of the sudden it sounded great. More control in the bass,
better transients, more detail, bigger soundstaging, more precise imaging. He
was selling the KAV-150 for $2350 (I think), and he was ready to sell me the
used (and mint) KSA-100 for $1500. If I had been in the market that day, it
would have been obvious what choice to make (but there are other amps I like
even better than the KSA-100...Naim NAP250, Audio Research Classic 60,
conrad-johnson MV-55, every Spectral I've ever heard, etc.)
Trotsky
Laura wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:43:11 -0500, trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> wrote:
>
> >Laura wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
> >> for an amp and am considering the 250.
> >
> >
> >
> >What I meant was that I have spoken to numerous people, approximately
> >half a dozen, that have expressed complete disappointment over the KAV
> >series from Krell. The one time I heard it I thought it was awful, too,
> >and requested to the dealer to switch to a different amp. (In that
> >particular instance the other amp was a Rowland, which was far more
> >musical.
> >
> >
> Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific - awful in what areas?
> What other components/speakers were in use when you heard it?
>
The system I listened to was a Wadia preamp/cd player (an 860, maybe?), the
KAV250, and Aerial 8's. I don't know what wires were used. The system sounded
somewhat harsh, lacked detail, and was poor in midrange definition. The change
to the more expensive Rowland (I don't know the model, but I believe the retail
was $5700) alleviated most of these problems. The speakers weren't particularly
well set up, and sounded very muddy in the bass--thus it was impossible to gauge
the quality of either amp's performance in that area. The Rowland was
definitely smoother and more open in the direct comparison. I have never been a
fan of Krell products, so I didn't really feel justified in denigrating this amp
until I heard others with the same conclusion. Stew Pinkerton, on the other
hand, goes through life placeboed by the name Krell, presumably because it is
far cheaper than drugs.
Stewart Pinkerton
>>From: Laur...@excite.com (Laura)
>
>>>Laura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to know what Trotsky thinks is wrong KAV-250a. I'm shopping
>>>> for an amp and am considering the 250.
>
>>>What I meant was that I have spoken to numerous people, approximately
>>>half a dozen, that have expressed complete disappointment over the KAV
>>>series from Krell. The one time I heard it I thought it was awful, too,
>>>and requested to the dealer to switch to a different amp. (In that
>>>particular instance the other amp
>>was a Rowland, which was far more
>>>musical.
>>>
>
>>Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific - awful in what areas?
>>What other components/speakers were in use when you heard it?
>>
>
>I agree with Mr. Singh about the Krell KAV series. I listened to some of the
>line extensively at a local dealer, and while the stuff isn't exactly awful, I
>didn't see a huge difference between this somewhat expensive gear and mid-fi HT
>receivers from the likes of Nakamichi, Yamaha and Denon (although I do admit
>the Nak is very good for the money). I heard a KAV-150 integrated with a Krell
>CD player (I forget which one), coupled with Thiel CS1.5s, Thiel CS6s,
>Martin-Logan SL3s, and Linn Av5150s. It sounded OK...a bit aggressive in the
>treble, and the bass wasn't up to the other Krells. The dealer obviously agreed
>with me on this assessment, because he inserted an old used Krell KSA-100 into
>the system, and all of the sudden it sounded great. More control in the bass,
>better transients, more detail, bigger soundstaging, more precise imaging. He
>was selling the KAV-150 for $2350 (I think), and he was ready to sell me the
>used (and mint) KSA-100 for $1500. If I had been in the market that day, it
>would have been obvious what choice to make (but there are other amps I like
>even better than the KSA-100...Naim NAP250, Audio Research Classic 60,
>conrad-johnson MV-55, every Spectral I've ever heard, etc.)
I egree with your statements above, but what has this to do with the
KAV-250a? I have in the past critricised several KAV components,
notably the KCD-30 and the KAV-150, but the KAV 250a is in a different
league. Sometimers there are great lines, sometimes there's just the
occasional killer product.............
I haven't heard the top of the line Krell HT power modules, but I
suspect they will be similar to the 250a rather than the KAV-150, from
the reports coming out on them.
Scott
All I have to say on this subject is that I recently got a Dynaco
ST-70 tube amp from the early 1960's that sounds much better driving
my B&W Matrix 804's than ANY Krell amp ever did.Actually,the Dynaco
ST-70 sounds better IMO than any amp that I have ever tried on B&W
Matrix 804's.Go figure?Dynaco ST-70's can be found used for around
$300.00 or under all over the net.
Scott
>As it happens, I've heard the KAV250p/a driving the 803, and it's just
>about an ideal combination. The 804 is very transparent but is a
>difficult load and needs a powerful but very clean amp with lots of
>'grunt'. Basically, it's a perfect match for a big Krell. Despite not
>being a 'proper' Krell, the KAV250a is one of the finest power amps on
>the market, and a relative high-end steal at the price. I'm sure you'd
>also be very happy with the Bryston combo.
>
Andrew MacGowan
Sorry...I forgot to include the part about others in the KAV line I've heard.
The 150 stuck in my mind because I spent the most time with it. I did not
listen to the KAV-250a. And I can't remember the specific models of the others,
but I'll call the dealer and see if he remembers (it's been a couple of years).
I just remember a certain sameness to the sound of the KAV line between the
certain models. But I'm apparently wrong about the 250a.
jple...@shore.net
I purchased the Krell KAV 250a. I've been listening for a day and a
half. I'm no audiophile, but my ears are good. I'm a jazz guitarist
by avocation, and at one time tuned pianos by ear. This Krell is
awesome with the N804s. The bass is natural and full. The dynamic
range is amazing, and the mids and highs are perfect. I'm still
working on the soundstage, which has been changing as I experiment
with speaker placement, but generally it is broad and deep. What's
not to like? Trust your ears. I did, and they didn't let me down.
I'm keeping this amp. JP
htal...@nycap.rr.com (Scott) wrote:
>Scott
>>>throughout the range. Great dynamic response. Best of all VERY
>>>engaging.
>>>
Stewart Pinkerton
>All I have to say on this subject is that I recently got a Dynaco
>ST-70 tube amp from the early 1960's that sounds much better driving
>my B&W Matrix 804's than ANY Krell amp ever did.Actually,the Dynaco
>ST-70 sounds better IMO than any amp that I have ever tried on B&W
>Matrix 804's.Go figure?
Sure, no-brainer really. The ST-70 has a very soft top end, the old
804 has a ferocious tweeter, and you don't like excess treble. The
N804 bears virtually no relation whatever to the old Matrix 804, that
model is perhaps the most different between old and new ranges.
>Dynaco ST-70's can be found used for around
>$300.00 or under all over the net.
The used market is a great finder of true value.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Well, thank you all!
>
>I purchased the Krell KAV 250a. I've been listening for a day and a
>half. I'm no audiophile, but my ears are good. I'm a jazz guitarist
>by avocation, and at one time tuned pianos by ear. This Krell is
>awesome with the N804s. The bass is natural and full. The dynamic
>range is amazing, and the mids and highs are perfect. I'm still
>working on the soundstage, which has been changing as I experiment
>with speaker placement, but generally it is broad and deep. What's
>not to like? Trust your ears. I did, and they didn't let me down.
>I'm keeping this amp. JP
Glad you like it. Happy listening!
Scott
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>htal...@nycap.rr.com (Scott) writes:
>
>>All I have to say on this subject is that I recently got a Dynaco
>>ST-70 tube amp from the early 1960's that sounds much better driving
>>my B&W Matrix 804's than ANY Krell amp ever did.Actually,the Dynaco
>>ST-70 sounds better IMO than any amp that I have ever tried on B&W
>>Matrix 804's.Go figure?
>
>Sure, no-brainer really. The ST-70 has a very soft top end, the old
>804 has a ferocious tweeter, and you don't like excess treble. The
>N804 bears virtually no relation whatever to the old Matrix 804, that
>model is perhaps the most different between old and new ranges.
>
Actually,I have found that most B&W speakers in general have a
ferocious tweeter with excess treble.I originally auditioned the
Dynaco ST-70 on a pair of Nautilus 805's.It was the only time that I
found that I could deal with the extra bright Nautilus 805's.Ifind
that the Nautilus line is way too bright for my tastes....even
brighter than the Matrix line.The softer mid-range and top-end of the
Dynaco makes both lines of B&W speakers very pleasant to listen to
IMO!
>
>>Dynaco ST-70's can be found used for around
>>$300.00 or under all over the net.
>
>The used market is a great finder of true value.
>
Ain't that the truth!
Scott