|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Model: | KRC-3 |
Category: | Preamplifier (SS) |
Suggested Retail Price: | $4,800.00 USD |
Description: | Reference caliber line level preamp with fully balanced Class A circuitry. |
Manufacturer URL: | Krell |
Model Picture: | View |
Review by Bob W on October 30, 2000 at 19:08:19 IP Address: 207.54.148.93 |
Add Your Review for the KRC-3 |
The past four weeks have been interesting. Thanks to a most generous friend, I have had the opportunity to have a different preamp in my system, a Balanced Audio Technology VK-50SE. Since I've owned the Krell KRC-3 for about a year, this has been a great experience, and a real eye opener. I've had a chance to listen to what, in my opinion, are two top-notch preamps side by side in a controlled environment. I also don't have a ton of experience comparing preamps, so this review will of necessity compare and contrast a bit.The KRC-3 is a visually striking piece of equipment. Those folks from Altair bring with them a great sense of industrial design and ergonomics. The unit is fairly slim, has a large machined aluminum rotary volume control that is loosely tracked by a circle of red LED's, and has push-button input selectors.
Circuitry is purported to be Class A, fully balanced---and if detail retrieval and noise level is any indication, this is not just marketing propaganda. There is one balanced input, 4 single-ended inputs, one balanced output and one single-ended output; the RCA jacks are all TIFF style, solidly mounted. One of the single-ended inputs is configurable via a jumper for unity gain, which makes integration with a home theater system a bit easier. Popping the cover to flip this jumper reveals an extremely cleanly layed out circuit board, and a nicely sized toroidal transformer.
The SRT's in my reference system are bi-amped, so I made use of both outputs. The RCA outs drove the electronic x-over, while the balanced outs drove the Krell FPB-200c which powers the satellites.
The remote. Yeah, the remote is a solid chunk of aluminum. It's not backlit, it's not learning, it's massive, all markings are etched, and it just screams quality. This is the best remote I've used to date.
Most of my listening, contra what a pair of SRT's driven by a big Krell amp in a small room might leave you thinking, is done at a fairly low level, no louder than 85 dB. This is a great test of a preamp: does it's sound hold up at low level?
In the case of the KRC-3, the answer is definitely yes, and this is a definite strength. There is absolutely no change in soundstage size, stability or delineation at low levels. Timbre remains unchanged. In short, turning the volume down to my typical everyday listening levels takes nothing out of the signal that I can detect. Krell claims that this is due to the design of the volume control, which is a digitally controlled analog device that places a resistor in the circuit; there are 200 steps.
The volume control might be great sounding, but I think the ergonomics are a bit lacking. Since the LED's only loosely track the discrete steps of resistor insertion, it is difficult to find the same level multiple times. Additionally, the volume control steps seem a bit too spread out at lower levels: turning the volume up to an indicated halfway point is definitely playing the system quite loudly.
Higher volumes are a bit less of a good thing with the KRC-3. As I approached the 95-100 dB listening level--about halfway up--a bit of congestion sets in on the high frequencies. They lose some air, and sound a bit glary.
Dynamic range is also compromised at these higher levels: the attack of a sudden keyboard run loses it's edge in comparison the BAT driven to a similar volume. This doesn't strike me as a big deal: every product has to make some compromise, and since I rarely listen at this kind of level, this compromise went largely unnoticed.
At all levels, the soundstage is large, deep, and reasonably well lit. Individual instruments have their own space, and never waver. About the only thing missing, in comparison to the BAT, is a sense that there is a
homogoneous space that all instruments cohabit.There's a bit of high-pitched hiss that might obscure some detail. I wonder if this is responsible for the lack of shared space mentioned above? In any case, detail retrieval, while top-notch, is not in the same league with the BAT. With the BAT, realistic detail jumps out that I've never heard before: switching back to the KRC-3, I can oftentimes pick up that detail, but it never announced itself.
Detail retrieval: on Nick Cave's "Let Love In", Cave bangs the keyboards like only a man who is well and truly depressed can---the KRC-3 clearly resolves the sound of the hammer from the sound of the string, and even allows me to hear the sound of Cave's fingernails on either the keys or the backboard. That ain't too shabby. On Johnny Cash's "Unchained", there's one track (The Kneeling Drunkard's Plea) in which Tom Petty lends some background vocals: the KRC-3 clearly places Petty behind and to the side of Cash.
FWIW, I swapped out some interconnects, and feel that the Krell reacted well to Tara Lab's Air Ref 2. I did try some MIT's for the balanced connections, but heard significantly less detail.
I think the KRC-3 is fairly faithful to the source; I would characterize the KRC-3 as laid-back, not dark, but definitely not forward in my system. If you have a great source, that will come through; a crappy source will not be varnished, it will be revealed as crappy.
The KRC-3 is faithful to timbre. Ani DiFranco's live effort "Living in Clip" includes some spoken word. Heard from another room, on more than one occasion, I've been convinced that my friend Chris had walked into the house!
In general, I can't find any fault with the KRC-3's tonality.
So what does the KRC-3 do wrong? Well, in comparison to the VK-50SE (and keep in mind that I'm comparing a preamp that is twice the price of the KRC-3), it just doesn't quite make music as nicely. I'm not sure if the VK-50SE does better at microdynamics, but I find myself pulled into the music much more than with the KRC-3. There's a sense of liquidity, of organic completeness, of rightness that is missing from the KRC-3 by comparison.
I don't have the benefit of comparing other tube preamps, so I can't say if this sense of rightness is a function of tubes, or if---as I suspect---there's a bit of micro-dynamic compression occuring with the KRC-3. Overall, however, I've been quite surprised at just how well the KRC-3 acquits itself against the VK-50SE.
There is one glaring omission from the KRC-3: there is no Mono switch! When I first purchased the preamp, I thought, ahh, who cares. Since hanging out on the Lane, my tastes have matured (?) to include some quite a few mono recordings.
I believe that this preamp was Stereophile Class "B" recommended for a number of years, until Krell increased the suggested list price to USD 4,800.00 last summer. At that time, Stereophile dropped it's recommendation. I think that this price range is a tough range for manufacturers to design a product for. Let's face it: we're talking
some serious scratch for a 2 channel only, non-upgradeable preamp. There's a natural tendency for the consumer in all of us to expect perfection at this price level. However, every price level either entails compromise in design, or it is itself compromising. Overall, I think that Krell has done a good job, and I'm not unhappy that it was at home in my system for the past year.
Product Weakness: | No Mono switch! A bit of congestion at high volumes. Missing a sense of organic life. |
Product Strengths: | Faithful to source; sounds great at low volumes; good soundstage |
Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
Amplifier: | N/A |
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | N/A |
Sources (CDP/Turntable): | N/A |
Speakers: | N/A |
Cables/Interconnects: | N/A |
Music Used (Genre/Selections): | N/A |
Room Size (LxWxH): | N/A x N/A x N/A |
Room Comments/Treatments: | N/A |
Time Period/Length of Audition: | 1 year |
Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | N/A |
Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Your System (if other than home audition): | See Inmate Systems for description of system. |
Follow Ups:
...too bad the retail price 3 years ago when I auditioned it was only $3200. For some incomprehensible reason, about that time, Krell raised the price of their all their units significantly. I appears that this has continued. $4400 is alot of smackers. Can someone explain this?
The comparison with another product is especially helpful. It's always nice to know differences, even if the two products are far apart in price.So, are you going to give in to temptation and pop for the BAT?
RBB --
"Q-tips (tm) work great!"
Am I keeping the BAT? Yeah, that seems to be the question du jour in my household. My wife probably asks me daily. I think that she's planning her "revenge" purchase already.Answer: probably. For now, my friend is not asking for me to return it, so it's happy in my system. I'm going to pop the KRC-3 back in now that I'm pretty comfortable with the BAT, and see what I think. But the reality of the BAT's sound is hard to pass up.
One thing that this experience has reinforced for me: I just don't understand how people can listen to a piece of equipment for an hour in a dealer's showroom and walk away with an accurate idea of how it really sounds. I dunno, maybe I just have a slow ear or something.
The little voices told me to get back to work.
I doubt that you have a "slow ear." At the level of refinement that you're working with using these 2 pieces, I imagine the differences between them are pretty subtle. Subtle differences are not readily apparent; but they're there. This, BTW, is my biggest beef with the concept of DBT. DBT depends upon the subject's ability to recognize differences after a very short exposure to the DUT -- and not all differences are immediately apparent. Most DBT proponents claim that DBT shows there are no reliably perceptable differences between, say, 2 interconnects. What DBT really shows is that there are no differences that can be perceived within the time window that the subject was exposed to them. That's a different statement.On a more practical level, your experience points out the need for dealers to arrange for home demos of equipment for serious buyers of seriously high-end equipment. I gather from what you're say, if you walked into a store and listened to the BAT preamp for an hour, you'd be very unlikely to scrap your Krell and double your investment by purchasing the BAT. If you did so, it would likely be the result of "invalid" reasons like "tubes are better than ss" or "BAT is really cool; and this is the coolest of BAT preamps" or "Victor K is an active AA participant, so his stuff must be great" etc. etc.
Fortunately, for me, I'm on the lower end of the price-performance curve. So -- I suspect the differences between what I own and more expensive stuff would not be so subtle. I could probably walk into a store and easily hear the difference between my KAV-300i and a KRC-3/FB200 combination or a VK-50SE/FPB 200 combination. That's one reason I stay OUT of audio stores!
Now, I know why "the little voices are telling [you] to get back to work."
Good listening!!
RBB --
"Q-tips (tm) work great!"
Bob,
Thanks for the nice review. This came at exactly the right time as I'm presently thinking about acquiring a used KRC-3 to replace the KAV250p in my system, between the FPB200 and KAV300cd (all tied together with Transparent Balanced Super). My dealer has stated the 250p to be the component holding things back, so within the Krell hierarchy this is supposed to be the logical upgrade, bringing more system synergy.Can any of the inmates give me an estimate of the difference in quality and character between the KRC-3 and the 250p, if possible in relation to this system? Opinions seem to be strongly divided on the subject. FYI: The speakers are modified Magnepan 3.3R's, connected with Transparent Super speaker wire.
I'm not very good at putting this kind of stuff under words, but if I try I should probably characterize the sound of the system as having
strong and slightly "wet" (as opposed to dry) bass (still need some work on the acoustics, as my rooms emphasizes some frequencies too much which blurs the rest of the sound), open, detailed mids and sweet, extended highs in a convincingly three dimensional but somewhat narrow soundstage. Nothing really stands out (except for those bass notes in some recordings) and I usually soon forget about the system and simply listen to the music. But when listening closely and critically to the sound, it also seems to be a bit mechanical. Perhaps this is the same lack of liquidity that the KRC-3 is supposed to have as well (compared to a much dearer tube pre-amp in the review).
Others however have characterized the KRC-3 as sounding very much tube-like, so I'm a little confused. Of course I will listen to the KRC-3 before making any decisions, but any help on the subject is greatly appreciated.thanks,
hans
Heh guys,
Thanks for the advice. I was hoping some of you had used both pre amps and could give me first hand experience. You've helped me a great deal in deciding to go through with the upgrade.
regards,
hans
I think not!!!!A Krell is a Krell.Plain and simple.NOT a tube-like sounding piece whatsoever.
tube-like either, but at least I've heard the KRC-3. Have you?
Yes,I have heard the Krell KRC-3.It was God awful sounding.Bright as all hell,grainy,thin,2 dimensional with a layer of white noise that seemed to be added to the music."Holy Presence Batman!"Just my call though!The Krell KRC-3 has that same "Krell" sound that all Krell components seem to have.Sure there are slight variations but there still is that house "Krell" sound no matter how you slice it.
If that sort of sound works for you....GREAT!All that sort of sound does to me is the want to turn the music off and leave the room!
Just my $.02!
***Bright as all hell,grainy,thin,2 dimensional with a layer of white noise that seemed to be added to the music.***The above doesn't describe what I heard and my Krell KSA-200S doesn't sound like that unless it's picking up digital or power line grundge. I suspect that's what you heard.
A typical dealer statement(not saying that you are a dealer).You see Krell gear is a big cash cow for dealers.
They know that audiophiles who buy Krell will spend anything in order to get the Krell to sound good.Eventually,the Krell owners will trade
the Krell in after the Krell honeymoon is over and go with another brand...leading to the dealer making double or triple the profit!Yeah....I used to buy into all those sort of excuses when I owned Krell gear.Many times dealers will tell you that sort of thing in order to sell you expensive power line boxes(conditioners).Dealers will then tell you that you need some expensive power cord that is "worthy" of the Krell-In other words,the stock Krell power cord HAS to be upgraded in order to get the best out of your Krell....they will say the stock power cord is no good.C'MON!!!
I used to fall prey to this sort of advertising scam"Hook Line And Sinker"
The funny thing is I tried a Conrad Johnson PV10a pre-amp(with a lamp cord power cord of all things!)What happened was,all of those supposed "Power Line" grudge stories seemed to mysteriously go away.Hmmmm...go figure?Gone was the
supposed "power-line grudge" sound that you are talking about.
for 30 years. I've owned and currently own a variety of high end products. My Krell KSA-200S sounds nothing like your description of Krell sound. If it did, I wouldn't have purchased it. As such, you should not generalize beyond your limited auditioning.
Let's see....I owned a KSA100s for about 1 1/2 years,I owned a KST100,for a year I owned a KSL-2 pre-amp for 6 months,I owned a Krell KAV 300CD for a few weeks(IMO one of the the WORST Krell pieces ever made....well the KAV 250CD is even worse yet...),and a friend of mine had a Krell KAV 300i that I heard dozens and dozens of times.Every time that either one of us removed a piece of Krell gear(like a bad tooth)the sound of our systems improved greatly.I will say however that the Krell
gear was FAR superior in every aspect to that Classe(mid-fi in a fancy case)that I replaced with it!Your limited audition argument does not hold up.If you personally like Krell...that's fine!I just cannot be in the same room with a Krell piece of gear in the system anymore.It's too bad because Krell gear looks cool as hell and I wish that I could have kept it forever.I just could not tolerate the sound produced by Krell gear any longer!MAN....the battleship build quality was stunning!
If Krell sucks so bad, why did you own so much of it? Are you deaf?
Just giving my experiance.....not intending to create a flame war!
Of course I'm not politically correct and don't care!Just calling things as I hear them.You obviously call things different.That's cool....I respect your opinion!Yes,I was a big Krell fan at one time.There was a time when I wouldn't even listen to anything if it wasn't a Krell.I at one time thought that Krell was "GOD"!There just simply was NO substitute!
I had the EXACT same attitude as you do about Krell.Nothing anybody anywhere could convince me otherwise....I was sold on Krell......Krell
was "the best" in my mind!I HAD to have all Krell!This in turn made me broke and unhappy.I had all these awsome looking Krell components.It was like "WOW...look at that system!"Unfortunatley,I could only listen to a small handful
of recordings on that all Krell set-up.It got to the point where I
had to turn the music off and leave the room after about 20 minutes.
My ears bled!I was enjoying music more from the cassette tape deck in my car at this point....The Krell at home sure looked cool though!I tried dozens and dozens of tweaks in order to make the Krell listenable....No matter how much money that I pumped into my system at this point,I couldn't make it listenable....But I did have all Krell.....it looked sooo cool!
Thankfully,I came to my senses and relized that I was completely insane!Hello Scott????......It's about the music NOT the components!I started "downgrading"and wouldn't you know it,I got better sound EVERY time that I did!Getting rid of each and every Krell component improved my system's sound greatly.I'm glad that I'm done with the Krell phase of my life of my life!
Scott, we should all be so lucky to have your experience. Unfortunately, your wisdom has escaped me and I am the biggest fool dancing at the asylum.> > > Eventually,the Krell owners will trade the Krell in after the Krell honeymoon is over and go with another brand...leading to the dealer making double or triple the profit! < < < <
To date, I have owned 8 sepereate Krell components and plenty of other components from other high end manufacturers. Each one had its own feel and flavor. There is no denying that some of the krells had a glaringly bright top end at very loud volumes- which was obviously, a weakness. However, they each had some very desirable strengths and struck the balance that I was looking for at the time. My current system has 3 krell components which have absolutely no high frequency grain. They also don't have the slam that some of the previous krell components I've owned had. In fact, my newest krells do not even resemble ANY of the krells I've heard or owned in the past. I have never been so happy with the sound of my system and I've owned plenty of tube components as well. You seem to be full of prejudice in your posts towards certain companies which is fine with me as you are absolutely entitled to your opinion- just please stop generalizing all of us with you. I completely disagree with your version of audiophile bliss, but I'm not gonna tell you that you're WRONG and soon you'll see the light and sell all of your components as you've been blinded with sales tactics all along. Each of us is different, enjoy it rather than disparaging it.
....in different components.Some of us like to listen to music(myself) and some of us like to listen to components(people who like Krell).Other's just like to defend their purchases.
Jeez, my remark (or actually a quote from one of the assessments on audioreview) about the KRC-3 sounding tube-like apparently was taken as an offense of some kind.
Otherwise I can't explain this vehemence in your responses. But saying Krell owners are component lovers - not music lover - is like returning the offense, apart from the fact that it's total nonsense of course. You've owned a lot of Krell pieces, so you must have been a component lover yourself for a while. I'm no psychologist, but apparently you've been converted to another believe, which usually generates strong negative opinions about one's former position. I can understand that. So no offense taken. But you might consider putting things into perspective a little bit more.
Let me tell
Not to go back and forth with you here Scott, but your music vs. component listening comment struck a nerve. Unfortuantely for me, I probably listen to the worst quality recordings of anyone here at the Asylum. You see, I am a huge fan of live music and as such, over 80% of my listening pleasure comes from live dat recordings. DAT recordings transfered to cdr's have gotten much better over the past 5 years, but still are far behind a studio recording on wide release. Beleive me, the bloated bass of a Phish show or the crowd noise at a Charlie Hunter show don't really show off what any componenet is capable of reproducing. In other words, I could pick up almost anything, perhaps even a wide release cassete and get better performance thru my components. Once again, your lack of consideration and amusingly opinonated nature proceeds you.
Whew.I had the KAV-250p in my system over a year ago for a couple of weeks. The KRC-3 is a huge upgrade in nearly every way: soundstaging, dynamics, detail.
Keep in mind, that in my system, while the VK-50SE does sound better, the KRC-3 acquits itself quite nicely. The differences are not nearly as large as moving from (say) the KAV-250p to the KRC-3.
The little voices told me to get back to work.
The KRC-3 kills, mauls, destroys (choose your adjective) the KAV250p. The KAV250p preamp, along with the Krell 300i integrated are bright, tinny and harsh. The KRC-3 in comparison is much smoother and has a much better bass. I compared the KRC-3 with the CJ Premier 14 in my system, and although I chose the CJ (richer harmonics, more 3 dimensional), I could have lived happily with the KRC-3 as well. I think simply removing the Kav250p from your system is an upgrade :)
Seriously thought, I think you will find that the KRC-3 will make a huge improvement in your system, compared with your present setup.
KRC-3 has always been one of my favorite Krell preamps. IMHO, it sounds much better and more natural than several other Krell's more expensive preamps such as KRC. When it was cheaper, the KRC-3 would have been my choice among solid state preamps. OF COURSE, the BAT sounds more organic and engaging. A great tube amp using special Russian military tubes that is also "SE" version that costs twice more!
> There's a sense of liquidity, of organic completeness, of rightness that is missing from the KRC-3 by comparison. <Shouldn't this be a fatal flaw?
I certainly wouldn't consider it a fatal flaw. Rather, I would hope that the much more expensive preamp did something better. Note that I did say "in comparison". Maybe it's fatal if (a) money is no object and (b) you're trying to decide between the 2 products; otherwise, I would think not.Listening to the KRC-3, over a period of a year, never failed to satisfy.
The little voices told me to get back to work.
NT!
I had a KRC 3 for several years, and then, as a favor to my dealer/friend, I tried out the Blue Circle BC 3. The Krell was gone the next day. Enormous difference, in overall clarity and also, as you say in the life or death "organic completeness" and "rightness" departments. The KRC is a very decent compromise preamp in an age when compromise is no longer necessary.
I appreciated how you related your remarks directly to your listening style. I posted below about this. My opinion is that how listeners are coming to their listening experiences is more important than what their other components are, as far as determining whether their observations are of value to one. I too listen at very moderate levels, as a preference!, and i've also heard lots of other people's systems where they listen loudly, and really, we are talking about two different species of listening style. In fact, I would even go so far as to say two different kinds of hearing, at the physiological-psychological level.pcanis
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: