Separates vs. Integrated?

[walter duque]

Does that integrated unit have direct pre-out and amp input loop so you can insert an external processor between the internal pre-amp and internal amplifier sections? If not, it's a really limited unit, and you totally miss out on the vast SQ improvement that can be achieved by using a device like the DCX2496.

-Chris

I could'nt tell you any of the above, since I am not into Krell at all. I just called for the price to see what wholesale is on that unit, it's less than $1250.--. Besides my last intergrated amp was in the mid 70s. I think it was a Sansui. IMO there is a lot better than Krell, Mark Levinson, Conrad Johnson etc. on the market for a hell of a lot less money. Even with a preamp and poweramp I always liked to use a DBX-Dynamic Range Expander. On highend preamps is NO tone controll that's why I used the DBX.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I'm actually considering the Krell. I'm also looking at three other amps. The NAD M3, the Musical Fidelity A5.5, and the Vincent SK 236 MKII Hybrid. Any input? It's a very competitive price point!

I like Musical Fidelity products, but cannot comment about this particular model. Just Google it for reviews.

As for NAD, I'm not a big fan personally.

And last, Vincent, I know nothing about them.

 

[3db]

It amazes me to see people jump just at a simple frank and valid suggestion to Jason, our OP.

Of course Bryston make some excellent integratred amps too. And their warranty is unique. And it's made in my own country, close to where I was born.

But for God sake, what's wrong with my opinion about this nice Krell integrated amp?
People cannot respect a simple suggestion anymore, or what?

A separate amp and a pre-amp takes more room in your rack, and you still have to buy interconnects between them.
That Krell was build with a definite purpose in mind, and it is simplicity with top notch performance. And that's what some people are after.

I rest my case.

I apologize if I sounded somewhat harsh.... I did try to lighten up at then end though. Krell is good and looks good and there is nothign wrong with them. I just can't get my head around the fact that if one is going to spend so much money on electronics, why not put it behind a company that really stands behind their product. That warranty is worth the price of admission into the big leagues. Thats all I was driving at.
Take it for what it's worth, just an opinion. Peace dude!!

 

[ski2xblack]

Ah, yes.... the audiophile that likes EQ(by way of the very high output impedance of the tube amp) but does not know it, and actually will not use a REAL EQ where one can precisely adjust the modifications to the response to preference instead of putting up with the singular one caused by the electrical reactance interface.

-Chris

So critical of the tube!

The high output impedance of tube amps, particularly of the SET flavor, does indeed color sound, but that is not solely responsible for their sound. The output stages of simple SET amp topology is inherently more transparent than any pp tube amp or class AB ss amp (and also happens to be why they don't reject 2nd order harmonics, as pp amp topology does). This is one of the primary reasons SET amps sound so darn good, despite the distortion inherent in such designs. PP amps, tube or ss, just can't get around the fact that output stages reverse polarity between each swing of the musical waveform, resulting in the ever so slightest of smearing of sound, reduction in percieved depth of soundstage, inability to precisely localize instruments, and retreival of the most nuanced details within the recording. The degradation in sound from the hysterisis of alternating currents in output devices is greater than the 'degradation' from second order harmonics; one produces two dimentional, artificial sounding reproduction; the other has been proven to be consonant/euphonic and actually enhances the subjective enjoyment of music, and when combined to the immediacy of the output stage, results in truly lifelike music. To add to that, you simply cannot 'equalize out' such hysteresis coloration in output stages of such designs, and they will never be able to replicate the crystal clarity and speed of SETs. I will gladly accept the second order harmonics with the improved clarity, detail, and realism any day.

For $2K, the original poster could compile an entire system based around tube amps that would kick musical ***, so I don't think it is an option that should be disparaged in such an out-of-hand way, particularly if based on some sort of dogmatic belief in the inferiority of tubes or the misconception that harmonic distortion characteristics are solely responsible for the qualitiative differences between tube and ss gear. Those who have listened to them seem to find them superior to other approaches; I doubt they are all operating under the veiled desire for eq'd sound, they have simply found a method which more viscerally engages them to the music, and that's what it's all about, right?

 

[WmAx]

So critical of the tube!

The high output impedance of tube amps, particularly of the SET flavor, does indeed color sound, but that is not solely responsible for their sound. The output stages of simple SET amp topology is inherently more transparent than any pp tube amp or class AB ss amp (and also happens to be why they don't reject 2nd order harmonics, as pp amp topology does). This is one of the primary reasons SET amps sound so darn good, despite the distortion inherent in such designs. PP amps, tube or ss, just can't get around the fact that output stages reverse polarity between each swing of the musical waveform, resulting in the ever so slightest of smearing of sound, reduction in percieved depth of soundstage........,

Standard audiophile fiction. In blind testing, no one has yet shown a difference between properly operating amplifiers that measure flat, operating within their voltage/current limits, and with low enough distortion and noise as to not be noticed.

Most tube amps are indeed inferior/colored products with the exception of a very few that use very high grade output transformers with very low output impedance and low distortion through proper design. The failure of the amplifier to even provide a constant voltage to the speaker's load, thus causing audible equalization, is a major fault. Distortion does not even have to be that low, as you know to be inaudible, as long as the profile of the distortion spectrum is primarily 2nd/3rd harmonics.

Another major problem is the cost of a tube amp with sufficient power to handle large transients with average sensitivity speaker systems. A transparent high powered SS amp is reasonable to purchase. Not so with tube amplifiers. A high powered, transparent tube amp would cost a small fortune.

-Chris

 

[ski2xblack]

Standard audiophile fiction. In blind testing, no one has yet shown a difference between properly operating amplifiers that measure flat, operating within their voltage/current limits, and with low enough distortion and noise as to not be noticed.

Most tube amps are indeed inferior/colored products with the exception of a very few that use very high grade output transformers with very low output impedance and low distortion through proper design. The failure of the amplifier to even provide a constant voltage to the speaker's load, thus causing audible equalization, is a major fault. Distortion does not even have to be that low, as you know to be inaudible, as long as the profile of the distortion spectrum is primarily 2nd/3rd harmonics.

Another major problem is the cost of a tube amp with sufficient power to handle large transients with average sensitivity speaker systems. A transparent high powered SS amp is reasonable to purchase. Not so with tube amplifiers. A high powered, transparent tube amp would cost a small fortune.

-Chris

Have you even heard a SET/HE setup, or are you calling this fiction based on preconceived notions? I'll admit that the whole SET/high efficiency approach is a pain in the arse on many levels, several of which you mention, primarily because of the trends in mainstream audio, which have deviated from fidelity towards convenience on a broad level. When it comes to truly high end audio, the tube approach is as valid as any. Those who have tried it typically prefer it, and that is not fictitious, just a reflection of the fact that such systems do certain things no other can. Most of the concers you have listed can be addressed by judicious selection of amps and speakers. You don't, for example, need mega watts for proper dynamics. Low power and high sensitivity systems would give you a real education on dynamics; far superior to mega watt ss systems by far. In addition, low output impedance is typically gained by using negative feedback, which noticably flattens the sound. Low output impedance is not necessary, but it makes speaker choice critical, and thus tube SETs and speakers must be thoughtfully chosen together as a system. This runs afoul of the convenience trend, but it can be done, and at competitive cost to mainstream offerings. Plus it sounds far better.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Here'

I apologize if I sounded somewhat harsh.... I did try to lighten up at then end though. Krell is good and looks good and there is nothign wrong with them. I just can't get my head around the fact that if one is going to spend so much money on electronics, why not put it behind a company that really stands behind their product. That warranty is worth the price of admission into the big leagues. Thats all I was driving at.
Take it for what it's worth, just an opinion. Peace dude!!

Eh no sweat man. I was talking in general.
But usually, it's the people that don't particularly like a brand that like to express their opinion first.

$2,000 is small peanuts for a nice integrated amp like this Krell, well $2,500 retail.

"The Big Lebowski" again! Fine by me, it's one of my very favorite movie anyway. I think that's exactly what I'm going to watch tonight on HD DVD.
Thanks for the tip.

 

[Seth=L]

Have you even heard a SET/HE setup, or are you calling this fiction based on preconceived notions? I'll admit that the whole SET/high efficiency approach is a pain in the arse on many levels, several of which you mention, primarily because of the trends in mainstream audio, which have deviated from fidelity towards convenience on a broad level. When it comes to truly high end audio, the tube approach is as valid as any. Those who have tried it typically prefer it, and that is not fictitious, just a reflection of the fact that such systems do certain things no other can. Most of the concers you have listed can be addressed by judicious selection of amps and speakers. You don't, for example, need mega watts for proper dynamics. Low power and high sensitivity systems would give you a real education on dynamics; far superior to mega watt ss systems by far. In addition, low output impedance is typically gained by using negative feedback, which noticably flattens the sound. Low output impedance is not necessary, but it makes speaker choice critical, and thus tube SETs and speakers must be thoughtfully chosen together as a system. This runs afoul of the convenience trend, but it can be done, and at competitive cost to mainstream offerings. Plus it sounds far better.

No offense meant to you, but this isn't a debate. Sound science (no pun intended) will show this line of thought is only a line of thought. Designing and manufacturing a linear amplifier is childs play for audio manufacturers. SETs are often designed to color sound (deviate from linear playback). They don't "sound better" because amplifiers aren't supposed to "sound better" they are supposed to receive an input signal and amplify it without coloring the original input. A good amplifier can successfully do this by doing the following, handling any load without clipping while increasing the output of the source without introducing audible noise into playback.

SETs have a sonic signature that often makes them sound "warm". That's great if you like a colored sound toward the warm side, especially when you have speakers that are of inferior design that are exorbantly bright (Klipsch comes to mind). Because many Klipsch speakers are very effecient and easy to drive in most cases they sound smoother on SET amplifiers. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy this type of setup, just like I am not saying that they guy with 4-15" subwoofers listening to "Air Force Ones" in his car shouldn't enjoy rattling the teeth from his head.

SETs may sound better to you, but they are not "better" in terms of producing linear sound. WmAx has one goal, accuracy. If it's accuracy you are after SETs aren't the route you want to take.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Wow! That sounds like surprisingly affordable for a Krell product.

I just checked with one of my sources the Krell S 300i can be picked up for $1625.00 no tax.

Wow! This is a great find Walter. At that price, it's a bargain now.

Does that integrated unit have direct pre-out and amp input loop so you can insert an external processor between the internal pre-amp and internal amplifier sections? If not, it's a really limited unit, and you totally miss out on the vast SQ improvement that can be achieved by using a device like the DCX2496.

-Chris

Chris, the Krell S-300i produces a hearty 200 watts per channel, both channels driven into 8-ohm loads with less than 0.3% THD.
It befits of a heavily regulated design with lots of silicon real estate.
* And it virtually doubles it's power into 4-ohm loads!
* It still produces 300-plus watts into 2 ohms as well!
The topology of this integrated amp suggest that it is tilted toward the class A side of things.

* It includes iPod interface.

* It includes an aluminium remote, that even controls iPod.

* It has a Theater pass-through mode.

* It has 3 unbalanced stereo RCA inputs, 1 unbalanced XLR input, iPod cable, 3.5-mm jacks for 12-volt trigger in/out and IR in, RS-232.

* It has stereo speaker connectors, unbalanced stereo RCA line out.

* It measures 17 1/4 x 4 1/8 x 17 1/2 inches. And it weights 43 lbs.
It is a magnificent looker with it's unique volume level control, and it's nice midnight bluish front panel display. Looks very classy indeed.
And the performance follow suit.

Note: I know that you are the type of man too busy to read about stuff like that, and that's just too bad.

Bob

 

[WmAx]

Have you even heard a SET/HE setup, or are you calling this fiction based on preconceived notions? I'll admit that the whole SET/high efficiency approach is a pain in the arse on many levels, several of which you mention, primarily because of the trends in mainstream audio, which have deviated from fidelity towards convenience on a broad level. When it comes to truly high end audio, the tube approach is as valid as any. Those who have tried it typically prefer it, and that is not fictitious, just a reflection of the fact that such systems do certain things no other can. Most of the concers you have listed can be addressed by judicious selection of amps and speakers. You don't, for example, need mega watts for proper dynamics. Low power and high sensitivity systems would give you a real education on dynamics; far superior to mega watt ss systems by far. In addition, low output impedance is typically gained by using negative feedback, which noticably flattens the sound. Low output impedance is not necessary, but it makes speaker choice critical, and thus tube SETs and speakers must be thoughtfully chosen together as a system. This runs afoul of the convenience trend, but it can be done, and at competitive cost to mainstream offerings. Plus it sounds far better.

Oh, I have used SETs on high end speaker systems. So what? They are just not good amplifiers. A cost effective pro amp is superior functionally and far cheaper.

Perceptual science is well alive, even though audiophiles like to pretend it does not exist for the most part. There is nothing special about a SET other than I have already outlined in my prior posts.

As for 'truly high end audio', I have the highest standards possible. What most audiophiles consider great sound, I consider utter mediocrity and demand far higher level of sound quality. Fortunately, through thousands of hours (literally) of controlled experimentation(to reduce bias) and reading/research of credible published journal articles, I have been able to gain an extensive understanding of what is actually relevant to human auditory perception when it comes to speaker system measured behavior(s) and room acoustic(s) interface(s) and I have applied this to my own systems to great effect.

I won't even use high -end hardware(save for the turntable due to mechanical requirements) anymore and sold it off. I now use high quality pro amplifiers(my McIntosh amps were just for decoration in the end) and a medium end receiver(Yamaha RX-V2600) as a pre-amp, as it was more convenient/useful than my 'audiophile' pre-amp. Also, my speakers are now all fully active systems controlled by digital active crossovers, for maximum flexibility/sound quality. My room acoustics are controlled by a vast number of acoustic treatments.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Chris, the Krell S-300i produces a hearty 200 watts per channel, both channels driven into 8-ohm loads with less than 0.3% THD.
It befits of a heavily regulated design with lots of silicon real estate.
* And it virtually doubles it's power into 4-ohm loads!
* It still produces 300-plus watts into 2 ohms as well!
The topology of this integrated amp suggest that it is tilted toward the class A side of things.

I never argued with the power/performance of the Krell. I merely asked if it has the necessary direct in/out loop to insert an external processor like the DCX2496 into the internal pre-amp/amp circuit. I pointed out the reasons for the processor earlier; it's use will result in substantial SQ increase. If the Krell does not allow an external processor to be used, then this very important processing can not be accomplished.

-Chris

 

[Seth=L]

You should edit your post. Your quote says that I originally made the statement that you are replying to.

-Chris

Not my fault though! For some reason there was an offset due to someone not properly quoting a few posts ago, a little discombobulated.

 

[Seth=L]

There is nothing special about a SET other than I have already outlined in my prior posts.

Not to mention that "tube sound" can be recreated without bringing the expensive, unstable, and inefficient SET amplifier into the picture.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I never argued with the power/performance of the Krell. I merely asked if it has the necessary direct in/out loop to insert an external processor like the DCX2496 into the internal pre-amp/amp circuit. I pointed out the reasons for the processor earlier; it's use will result in substantial SQ increase. If the Krell does not allow an external processor to be used, then this very important processing can not be accomplished.

-Chris

I knew exactly what you were asking for Chris, I just thought of giving you more than what you bargain for.

"Processor"!, the less the better. I'm looking at it as a straight-jacket, without induced alteration or coloring. It is already a complete design, why butchering it?

Hey Chris, do you like the movie "Young Frankenstein"?

Bob

 

[Lordoftherings]

Not my fault though! For some reason there was an offset due to someone not properly quoting a few posts ago, a little discombobulated.

Ya, right.


* "Discombobulated", wow! Talk about being confused!

 

[Seth=L]

Ya, right.


* "Discombobulated", wow! Talk about being confused!

It's going to take a lot of adjustment for me to get used to your humor. *whew*, exhausted already, and I just woke up.

 

[WmAx]

I knew exactly what you were asking for Chris, I just thought of giving you more than what you bargain for.

"Processor"!, the less the better. I'm looking at it as a straight-jacket, without induced alteration or coloring. It is already a complete design, why butchering it?

Hey Chris, do you like the movie "Young Frankenstein"?

Bob

You must have forgotten about the critical issues like baffle step compensation and upper treble graduation that I outlined earlier. These things are out right critical to SQ. A processor like the DCX imparts far less coloration/distortion than most hardware (and it's degree of effect is far less than the human ear can detect) and it allows correction for these issues.

-Chris

 

[Lordoftherings]

It's going to take a lot of adjustment for me to get used to your humor. *whew*, exhausted already, and I just woke up.

"Discombobulated" is an amazing choice of word. I didn't know that word, I'm very glad that you used it. No humor in here. Bravo!

You must have forgotten about the critical issues like baffle step compensation and upper treble graduation that I outlined earlier. These things are out right critical to SQ. A processor like the DCX imparts far less coloration/distortion than most hardware (and it's degree of effect is far less than the human ear can detect) and it allows correction for these issues.

-Chris

Chris, I'm just not familiar with the DCX processor. I will Google it to learn more about.
But it seems to me that if you use some very accurate professional speakers with a great x-over and phase compensated, it would be even better, no?
Some Genelec speakers perhaps, or Dunlavy, or Egglestonworks, or Newform Research, or Revel, or Snell, or Thiel, or Vandersteen, just to name few of the very best.

Bob

 

[Seth=L]

No humor in here. Bravo!

What are you talking about, seriously? Are you trying to be funny or not? If you are being serious...mer mer mer, but if you joking I would appreciate you letting me know.

Chris, I'm just not familiar with the DCX processor. I will Google it to learn more about.
But it seems to me that if you use some very accurate professional speakers with a great x-over and phase compensated, it would be even better, no?
Some Genelec speakers perhaps, or Dunlavy, or Egglestonworks, or Newform Research, or Revel, or Snell, or Thiel, or Vandersteen, just to name few of the very best.

Of the manufacturers that you mentioned that I am familiar with all have known cabinet resonant issues, WmAx finds this must unacceptable (as do I, but I can't afford such nice things at the moment). Allow for WmAx to define "some accurate professional speakers".

Passive x-overs are generally inferior to active ones, which is where the DCX comes in.

 

[WmAx]

"Discombobulated" is an amazing choice of word. I didn't know that word, I'm very glad that you used it. No humor in here. Bravo!



Chris, I'm just not familiar with the DCX processor. I will Google it to learn more about.
But it seems to me that if you use some very accurate professional speakers with a great x-over and phase compensated, it would be even better, no?
Some Genelec speakers perhaps, or Dunlavy, or Egglestonworks, or Newform Research, or Revel, or Snell, or Thiel, or Vandersteen, just to name few of the very best.

Bob

The DCX will improve the SQ of any of these listed speakers, with the exception of some fully active ones like the higher end Genelecs, because these have variable BSC and treble graduation adjustments. But all of the passive ones will have great improvement by use of a device like the DCX to make these fine adjustments.

-Chris