Krell KAV 300 cd player, As good as its reputation or not?

[Cafad]

Part of the story of my acquisition of the Krell KAV 300 can be found on the thread below, the rest of this thread continues on from where it ends.

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/58949-krell-kav-300-cd-player/#entry1033192

 

I was fairly excited Friday afternoon, and why shouldn't I be?  I had a 'new' cd player with a serious rep all fixed and ready to go and no shortage of challenger players to put it up against, surely fun times would ensue.  

 

The first challenger (or 'comparison partner' if you prefer) was my old faithful, the Consonance cd120.  I started out using the Burson Conductor as a pre and Bills Arion S250 for the power feeding to my Lenehan S2Rs via Redgum speaker cables.  The differences were subtle, very subtle.  So damn subtle in fact that was forced to change cables between the Burson and the Arion in an effort to hear more and that caused far more difference that I was hearing between the players (which didn't help at all).  But the final death knell was sounded on this combination as I realized I didn't have a remote to use to switch from one player to the other, I had to be right in front of the gear rack to press the input button on the Conductor, so things had to change.

 

Out went the Conductor and in went the little Myryad Z240.   Any WTF's raised by that sentence?  The explanation is simple, I'd spent the day previous carting around floorstander speakers and while I knew I should just up the ante straight to the Halcros, well..., the Halcros are just so damn heavy, and the Myryad isn't.  So there you have it, laziness as a motivational factor should never be underestimated!

 

So with the little Myryad performing pre duties I could relax back in my recliner and switch inputs via the remote at will... or could I?

The Krell has this nifty little feature where you can program a play loop, you designate a start and finish via specific buttons on the remote and once you've done that it plays loop after loop until you tell it to stop.  Not a problem I thought, since I never really planned to use such a function, but (and this is a big but) by pure coincidence that loop function is activated by the input change function of the Myryad remote.

So, comfortable and frustrated is where I was (I seem to recall that laziness has placed me in this position in the past too) and with no meaningful results to speak of I was forced to man up and grunt and drag the Halcros into place.

 

The final set up.

 

There are one or two things that need to be said regarding this Krell too, and they don't necessarily have anything to do with sound quality. This cd player runs hotter than many amplifiers (and it remains hot in standby mode too, none of that power saving eco-friendliness to be found here) so anyone living south of the permafrost should note that this puppy does not want to live in an enclosed cabinet.  When I first started I placed the cd120 on top of the Krell (so I could place them on the same shelf) but I was forced to move it to a shelf of its own when the cd120 started to stew in its own juice.  Whatever the Krell is doing it definitely does it in class A.

 

Looks like I'll have to split this post up, Sunday lunch is calling.  I'll have to come back and edit in a couple of paragraphs later.

 

Edit:  Now that I'm far less hungry than before, time to continue.

 

So last night, starting just after 8pm, I sat down and I compared, swapping back and forth from one player to another several times within each song and hitting the rewind button quite a few times.  By 11pm I had worked my way through almost 10 songs (yep, 3 hours to get through 40 minutes of music, also half a pack of M&Ms, the remains of a packet of chips and at least a liter of Pepsi Max but none of those are really relevant to the task at hand) and was finally making some progress.

 

The cd120 has a slight forwardness to the upper mids and a slight emphasis on impact that gives it a slightly more dynamic feel when compared to the Krell.  This makes it, IMO, a player better suited to rock music.  That more immediate, more dynamic feel extends to the vocals as well by the way, it doesn't really come into play on softer vocals but on strong ones the effect is certainly noticeable and while it could be argued that this effect is artificial it certainly doesn't sound artificial, it makes rock music just a touch more so.

 

The Krell has a slightly more laid back, some would call it more natural, nature, it doesn't give the focus of the cd120 but it conveys a deeper sound stage and fills out the middle and decay of notes more effectively.  The Krell also has a slightly lower volume (or weaker signal) than the cd120 (probably more correct to say that the cd120 has a slightly higher than standard output actually) an adjustment of about 1db seemed to level them but those different impact characteristics actually made it fairly difficult to set the volumes by ear.

 

A good way to illustrate the difference between the two is, if the music contains a growling electric guitar then the cd120 will give you a 'Growl' effect, while the Krell will give you a 'groowwll' effect.

 

I'm going to keep listening and I hope to pick up more differences of note but my initial findings are simple.  The cd120 retails at about $1300 and the Krell (when it was new) retailed at about $3.5K.  While I see the Krell being better at softer music I don't see it being worth the difference.  

Now that you can pick up a new cd120 for the same price as a 2nd hand Krell then the choice becomes a little harder, but not a lot harder. The Consonance for listening that is upbeat and dynamic and the Krell for music that is slower (or less forward), it's really as simple as that.  

 

And now we'll have to wait and see if a few more days of familiarization manages to change my mind.  It has happened before.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Cafad

[Audionutz]

Thanks Cafad,

Interesting comments, as I have the Krell 300 also.

I've found it to be pretty accurate and dynamic, but only when matched well with everything else. Especially impedance/level wise. I've put it up against quite a few players now, and its always come out on top for me. Others mileage may vary of course.

Keep the impressions coming.

Just one thing, were they peanut M&M's ? Wondering if the crunching may have contributed to the loss of dynamics from the Krell

Cheers

'Nutz

[Cafad]

Hi 'Nutz.  No mate, I wasn't chowing down on any of your distant cousins or anything.  I prefer my M&Ms sans nuts.

 

Oh, one thing I did forget to mention, the change in performance when I swapped the Redgum speaker cables for Ribbontek cables (which happened after the first 3 or 4 songs I played on the Halcro gear) was somewhere in the order of 10 times the level of the differences that I could identify between cd players.  So if you are feeling the urge to update your cd player (or source), try upgrading your speaker cables first (it may save you some cash!).

Edited January 19, 2014 by Cafad

[Audionutz]

Good to hear !

I've used the Ribbontechs and they are indeed very good. Ultimately replaced them with the Goertz, which were similar but just a touch better in my system.

Currently using some ancient obscure Apature cables .... but hoping to do away with speaker cables altogether - when the DD ESL setup eventually comes together.

Cheers

'Nutz & family.

[Jone5y]

I think you're coming at this the wrong way cafad. In true 'things you're sick of hearing in the world of hifi' fashion, what you really meant to say was "The cd120 easily matches players up to two and a half times it's price" :-)

[DRC]

Nice review Cafad. I nearly bought a CD-300 on a couple of occasions a few years back, but it just never seemed to eventuate. Went for the Kps-28c instead. Which is for sale, as I have a Cipher and an EVO 505 (which I should sell too).

[Cafad]

OK, I'm into the third listening session now and I must admit that more "at ease" Krell sound does grow on you.  Also, once I'd managed to sort out in my head (and type up) the differences that i could hear I was able to hear them much more easily and I would go as far as to say that the cd120s "forwardness in the mids" was a bit bright as well.

Halfway through the second session I had made the decision that I had been a bit harsh on the Krell, it is piece of kit that is easier to listen to (I don't know if it is $2K easier to listen to, that would depend very much on the depth of the pockets of the individual listener).

So having made that decision, that the Krell was my preferred player of the two, a thought occurred to me.  The cd120 uses a pair of OPA2604 opamps and the Krell is all passive discrete, and since I have a pair of Burson discrete opamps sitting on a shelf I can mod things. 

 

So off went the top of the cd120, out came the OPA2604s and in went the Bursons.  I have, in the past, said that I have tried this before and could not notice any change, well that was in the past (with different speakers in a different room that was only one third the size) and now I can notice a change all right.

The newly Bursonized cd120 was a nice upgrade from the original, it lost maybe 30% of the forwardness in the mids and maybe 40% of the brightness as well.  It also gained a slightly fuller sound to each and every note, less impact and more follow through.  So in short, the Burson discretes moved the cd120's performance in the direction of the Krell by a significant amount.  If I was forced to talk in $$ terms I would say the $1.3K cd120 was now more of a circa $2K performer.  I still say the Krell is easier to listen to but the gap has been narrowed.

 

Unfortunately I was a bit impatient in the second listening session and didn't give the Burson Bits time to warm up, this may be responsible for a murkiness I could hear in the lower mids/upper bass.  I've left the cd120 running overnight so I'll see if this murkiness is still present later today, and probably tomorrow as well.  Audio is a journey after all.  I'll keep this thread updated as I go.

 

Oh, almost forgot, I have found out, because the little red light on the Krell told me, that I have a HDCD or two.  And on HDCD tracks the Krell excels, oddly enough the cd120 seems to pick up a little in performance as well but not as much as the Krell.  I guess HDCDs have slightly higher production values than standard ones because I am sure that the cd120 is not HDCD 'capable'.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Cafad

[Cafad]

That's the stuff, all warm and run in, the Burson discretes are go!  The murkiness is gone and been replaced with a sort of more-smooth and not-so-murky-any-more-ness.  I would say that we had gone up another half-a-$K but it may be more than that since it has gotten much harder to pick which player is playing.  I'd still say I prefer the Krell but since I can only really pick which player is playing on 3 out of 5 songs then I'd have to say that I prefer the Krell when I can tell the difference.  

 

So I would say the Krell is the "Quality of Sound" winner (by a nose)  but if you even consider thinking about starting a conversation that even remotely touches in the general vicinity of value for money then the circa $1.5K (now including the price of the Burson opamps) cd120 wins by about 3 furlongs.

 

And now I go back to the chair next to the coffee table with a pile of remotes on it.

[georgehifi]

  The cd120 uses a pair of OPA2604 opamps and the Krell is all passive,

 

 

You mean discrete, not passive.

 

Cheers George

[Cafad]

You mean discrete, not passive.

 

Cheers George

My apologies, I do indeed mean discrete.

 

Edit:  post now modified.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Cafad

[Willco]

Good listening there Caf-- yes my player is HDCD as well--nice to see the lights come on when detected--interestingly no longer itemized  on most CDs today

 

ie  Mark Knopfler, Chip Taylor

 

Willco

[Cafad]

Hey Willco, how you going?

 

I suspect the reason they no longer big note the whole HDCD thing is because the marketing department is embarrassed that they didn't manage to turn it into the next big thing and they don't like to be reminded of their failures  .  It's nice to know I've got something that I didn't realize I had but in the grand scheme of things it's small potatoes.

 

OK, so I've checked out the Krell vs the cd120 and that was interesting, and then the Krell and the cd120 with mods by Burson and that was even more interesting, but that's only 2 players (or 3, sort of), what about the others?  Next up is the Halcro EC800, it retailed for just over $4K I believe (and it does DVDs and video scaling as well as music, but that won't be part of the comparison).  I've got it warming up at the moment so later tonight we shall see what we can hear.

[Cafad]

I thought I'd play around a little in excel to try to illustrate some of the differences in the shape of the sound stage of each of the cd players.  You have to use a bit of imagination and transpose the colored shapes a little to the right so that the speakers are under the green egg.  The orange of the cd120 is the forward mids in picture form and the blue is where the Krell places some of its bass.

 

 

Does that help at all?

[georgehifi]

Having the equipment rack in-between the speakers like that can show off the system like it's on display at a hifi show, but it's absolutely not doing any favours for imagining or depth presentation.

I was amazed at just how much it effects when I shifted all my gear to the side and left nothing between the speakers and 6ft behind.

 

Cheers george

[THOMO]

Nice to see a discussion about soundstage shape.

Of course there is soundstage height as well.

A while back when I was playing with DACs I borrowed a Micromega Mydac which had a very peculiar soundstage presentation.It had no image height at all.Most CD players/DACS do lack a bit of image height but the Mydac was an extreme example of it.And yet Absolute Sound gave it a rave review!

The Krell has pretty good soundstage depth and height-normally a weak area for multi-bit players in my experience.

[Cafad]

Having the equipment rack in-between the speakers like that can show off the system like it's on display at a hifi show, but it's absolutely not doing any favours for imagining or depth presentation.

I was amazed at just how much it effects when I shifted all my gear to the side and left nothing between the speakers and 6ft behind.

 

Cheers george

I like the idea George, I also like the idea of putting all the gear in a separate room and just leaving the speakers in the listening room, but I don't think it's very practical.  I mean if I had the perfect set up and could wring every bit of imaging and 3D performance out of a piece of gear then that would be great but it wouldn't mean too much to someone who is interested in buying said gear and has no choice but to set it up in the traditional "lounge room" way.

Also, do you have the power amp nearby and run long ICs or is the power amp off to the side too so you have to run long speaker cables?  I can see potential issues with both of those options, I've already come across two amps that can't handle the load of a regular length of Ribbontek or cat 5 based speaker cable (and another 1 or 2 that can but run very hot on high capacitance cables), if I have to go from a 2.5m length of speaker cable to a 6m length then I may just let the smoke out of the next $500 integrated amp that I line up to test.  Everything is a compromise in this game.

You have got me thinking though...

 

 

Nice to see a discussion about soundstage shape.

Of course there is soundstage height as well.

A while back when I was playing with DACs I borrowed a Micromega Mydac which had a very peculiar soundstage presentation.It had no image height at all.Most CD players/DACS do lack a bit of image height but the Mydac was an extreme example of it.And yet Absolute Sound gave it a rave review!

The Krell has pretty good soundstage depth and height-normally a weak area for multi-bit players in my experience.

I have noticed one or two pieces of gear that do interesting things with the height of the sound stage THOMO but nothing about the Krell, cd120 or Halcro stands out as higher or lower than average.  I am hoping one of the other players will do something a bit more interesting with height or depth but we'll just have to wait and see.

[georgehifi]

I like the idea George, I also like the idea of putting all the gear in a separate room and just leaving the speakers in the listening room, but I don't think it's very practical.  I mean if I had the perfect set up and could wring every bit of imaging and 3D performance out of a piece of gear then that would be great but it wouldn't mean too much to someone who is interested in buying said gear and has no choice but to set it up in the traditional "lounge room" way.

Also, do you have the power amp nearby and run long ICs or is the power amp off to the side too so you have to run long speaker cables?  I can see potential issues with both of those options, I've already come across two amps that can't handle the load of a regular length of Ribbontek or cat 5 based speaker cable (and another 1 or 2 that can but run very hot on high capacitance cables), if I have to go from a 2.5m length of speaker cable to a 6m length then I may just let the smoke out of the next $500 integrated amp that I line up to test.  Everything is a compromise in this game.

You have got me thinking though...

 

 

 

 

It depends on your system.

 

If your poweramps (most tube) are not very low output impedance (low damping factor), then short speaker wires would be prefered.

If your poweramp (most solid state) are low output impedance (high damping factor) longer speaker wires can be used. 

 

If your preamp output impedance is high/ish say (most tube) over a couple of hundred ohms, then short interconnects are the way to go.

If your preamp output impedance is lower (most solid state) than say <50ohms, then long interconnects can be used.

 

You see, it depends on what you've got, wether you use long speaker wires or long interconnects.

 

What is your preamp and what is your poweramp/s I will try and find out which is the best way to go.

 

Cheers George

[Cafad]

Well the preamp I use tends to change 2 or 3 times a month, and the power amp weekly.  And what would I do with the TV?

 

Hang on, I've got an idea.  What say we shift this part of the discussion over to my 'Showcase Your System' thread so I can keep this one more about the cd players.

 

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/46732-my-room-of-audio/page-3

 

Give me a little time here George, I'm going to have to take a few pics and have a good, long think, there'll be at least 375ml of bubbly caffeinated beverage involved and probably a fair amount of chin scratching as well.

[georgehifi]

  And what would I do with the TV?

 

 

 

Two things could be done, a fold up bracket so it's flush with the roof, when your listening to your stereo system. And then fold down for 5.1 rubbish.

Or do what I did, satisfy the family and have separate TV room with a good s/h 5.1 system set up around the tv.

A keep this dedicated hi-end stereo room as YOUR man cave. Entrance only by invitation and must be accomapied by a good red.

 

Cheers George       

Edited January 22, 2014 by georgehifi

[Cafad]

The Halcro EC800 is an interesting player.  It is right up there with accuracy and detail, it doesn't give anything away to the Krell in the area of bass or treble extension and it has an iron grip on the sound stage.  Check out the pic below.

 

 

The music is only allowed to go where it is told to go and it will not stray outside the bounds of the box (which I am sure had its dimensions defined by a surveyor with a masters degree in mathematics).  

 

As far as the sound personality goes, the Halcro is more bland, more 'technically correct' in character and just a touch drier.  Which fits with the Halcro sound, clear, clean and technical.  

 

The big difference that is pretty easy to spot is in the vocals, the Krell has vocals that sound more like the people singing them while the Halcro has vocals that sound clear, clean and technical but still electronically reproduced.  

The smaller difference is that the Krell sounds just a bit more polished, it gleams a little more.  I guess you could also call it a little-less-technical and just that bit more emotive.

 

Both excellent players.  And of course the Halcro can be used to play my legacy DVD collection, a definite plus, but I think I'd be using the Krell to listen to cds on.

[Cafad]

The cd120 linear (or cd100 as mine is labeled) has had quite a bit of positive press over the last 10 years.  It has won all sorts of budget awards, a quick google will show up at least a dozen accolades and articles describing just how wonderful it is.  So, how does it compare?

 

There is no easy way to explain this so I'll just try one of the difficult ones at random.  The cd100 displays a lot of behaviours that would make a seasoned audiophile let out an agonized shriek before jumping to his feet and running for the hills.  It has an edgy, hashy brightness to it (no, nowhere near the level of Rotel brightness) and a brittle sound in the upper treble.  None of this makes it sound "bad" as such, but if you ask someone to describe the sound something similar to this description will come up.  

If anything the cd100 has too much airiness (and breathiness for that matter) in the sound stage, in fact it almost sounds as if the sound stage is full of swirling eddies and sometimes the performance seems to follow these eddies.  It is harder (OK, it's not like it's really hard, there's still a pretty fair amount of detail on display, but it certainly isn't as easy as it is with the Krell) to pick out details within the sound stage because the sound stage is full of other instruments and moving air.

I had quite an adventure listening to the cd100!  To say it sounded different to the previous three players would be a massive understatement.

 

So, it's not looking good for the comparison to the Krell.  But there are other things to consider as well.

 

That brittle sound makes the higher piano notes really stand out, it doesn't make them sound majorly brittle, just more brittle than I am used to hearing and in this case that is, to my ears, both a positive and a negative thing.  Good in that it stands out in my memory as sounding unique, bad because I don't think it's quite right but what the heck, I like the sound.  That airy, breathy, edginess, while it can be a bit much at times, can be a positive as well, for instance;

On the Evanescence song, 'My Heart Is Broken' Amy Lee's voice comes through strong and clear and clean on the Krell and sounds very nice indeed but play the same song on the cd100 and when she hits those high notes it sends chills down my spine that the Krell just can't match.

All that "incidental noise" on albums, noise that many (and I'm guessing here) players filter out, well the cd100 does not and the result is a much more emotive performance.  Resistance is futile, you will tap your foot, you will be drawn in by the 'more raw' presentation, you will enjoy yourself, you just will!

 

So, the comparison is very complicated because much of the likability of the cd100 comes from what it does with that 'noise' that most people feel should not be present.  It is similar in some ways to the differences between a straight laced experienced profession and a still learning the ropes but loving every minute of it enthusiastic amateur.

 

Which is the better player, well it would have to be the Krell, but this time a large part of me doesn't want to say it.

[Cafad]

I'm not quite out of players yet, next in line is the Myryad Z114.  This player is in many ways an opposite of the cd100.  The cd100 has all that 'incidental noise' that makes brushes on drums sound a bit harsh and lets any and all strings 'twang' and hum on through to a long decay, the Z114 allows none of that.  No incidental noise, no hash or brightness, at all, ever!  Now that could make things seem a bit dark and damp on some players but the Myryad still manages to sound rather good.  Vocals don't seem to be affected by this 'war on incidentals' and the bass performance is very strong and tight, though it lacks a little of the Krells depth and alot of the Krells naturalness.

 

The sound stage also starts further back, I would call the Z114 strong and, grey (as in has both dark and deep aspects but neither is overly so) sounding with just a little too much control on the bass.  

 

In this equipment configuration I prefer the Z114 to the unmodified cd120, the modified cd120 however is definitely a cut above the Z114. Now the Z114 also contains opamp chips which means it could be modified in the same manner as the cd120 but Myryad have soldered these chips directly to the PCBs (where as the cd120 opamps are pressed into sockets) so modding the Z114 is more difficult.  

Maybe one of these days I'll get around to it, maybe?

 

 

 

It is starting to look a bit crowded isn't it?

[Telecine]

Really like your diagram illustrating the soundstage and imaging delivered by the different spinners. It is very innovative and helpful, keep up the good work.

Do any of them produce a soundstage that stretches the full width of the room or to the back wall behind the speakers? Any difference in soundstage height?

[Cafad]

Hi Tele, yeah, the sound stage pic idea seemed like an interesting one at the time.  It also seemed to be an easier way of displaying the differences I could hear without mincing even more words (and it made me remember how to use Excel, always a good thing).

 

Nothing I've heard in this line up of cd players has done anything fancy that stands out above or below the height of the speakers (no more than the usual 6 to 12 inches anyway).  I have heard an amp or two that seem to give the sound stage added height but that's a pretty rare thing.  My ceiling height is only about 7 and a half feet so that may keep a lid (pun intended) on too much sound stage height being displayed.

 

 

Only one more spinner to go after the Thule Spirit 100, and a good thing I think, my enthusiasm for this particular project has started to wain a little.  That compilation cd that I just loved to bits at the beginning of the thread has started to get a bit old.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Cafad

[stephennic]

Hi,

 

Just to give another perspective. I wouldn't call the consonance cd 120 linear as edgy harsh or brittle. I feel it has a nice analogue smoothness to it. The reviews seem to suggest that too - Hifi +, stereotimes ,hifi world, tnt audio etc. I have compared it to many cd players - naim, creek, arcam, reg Apollo-r etc, and I found it more natural sounding than them. Comparing it to the rega Apollo- r it was more natural had a wider and deeper soundstage with more detail etc. Some suggest the consonance is more on the warm even woolly side, but I would say that either. I do think its slightly rolled off at the highest treble notes.

 

When I first bought it sounded harsh but after a long burn in 300-400 hours it was a different machine, maybe the Krell is a amazing machine even more natural sounding.

By the way what mods did you do to it?

 

 Anyway just my 20 c worth.

 

Cheers

 

Steve.