In Reply to: RE: About Krell KAV-400xi posted by Pakard on March 13, 2008 at 07:55:08:
and DF is where the Krells designer compromised (either that or he intentionally tried to make the amp sound more 'tubey'). I would guess the Rotel designer compromised mostly in the area of component and/or labour cost.
I haven't heard either amp personally so I can't say say which I would prefer. That said in my own experience any increase in control the amp has over the connected speaker/driver also increased the accuracy of the reproduction as compared to the original. Consequently my speakers are fully active, using amps with a fairly low output impedance. In a direct comparison between two identical amps, one was bridged the other wasn't, the difference between a DF of 200 and a DF of 400 was clearly audible using passive speakers. Subtle but clearly and repeatedly identifiable and in favour of the now lower-powered non-bridged amp.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Everything is a compromise - b.l.zeebub 11:41:17 03/18/08 (0)