Krell SACD Standard "Mark II": Impressions & Review. Pics!

I've been plotting my next source move for a long time. While I am still plenty happy with my Sony SCD-555ES sacdmods "Hot Rod", I've been curious to see what else is out there at the price I can afford. (Here's a link to my over-long review of that unit: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52002).

The first candidate (in what I truly hope will NOT turn out to be yet another long and arduous quest to find what I want), is the Krell SACD Standard. It just arrived this morning, so I haven't yet had a chance to listen, I'll post first impressions later today. While used, it's barely used and not fully broken in, so I'll need to give it 10 days or more of continuous run-in to get her all the way there.

As you may or may not know, the first run of the SACD Standard used the now imfamous Phillips "Daisy" tray system/transport, the same one that failed on all those early Phillips SACD players. So too, did many of the early Krell SACD Standards fail, refusing to play discs or making horrible noises while attempting to do so. As a result, the Krell went out of production for almost a year while they re-ingineered it with a new drive/transport and made a few other very minor updates/upgrades (oh, yeah and bumped the price up $500 to $4500). The drive/transport swap and the other mods have (apparently)made some subtle sonic differences (for the better) according to people who've owned both. The new drive has no known issues to date.

The "Mark II" player (not an oficial designation, just to differentiate it from the original) began production around March of 2005. So any player made subsequent to that time has the new drive/transport.

The Standard is a multi-channel SACD player, but the circuitry for the two main channels (L/R) has better build quality than the remaining multi-channel outs (can't have it all at this price point). It has balanced outs, but as I use a Ray Samuels HR-2, which is single-ended, I can't use them.

OK, OK, so how 'bout some pics? Here they are, but with my crappy digicam, the quality is not great, and don't really do this sexy beast justice. It's extremely attractive and appears to have immaculate fit 'n finish.


Here's a front view:




Here's the rear:




Here's the slim remote:




And some more "professional" quality pics:




OK, impressions shortly.

 

What a magnificent monster!

 

It destroys worlds!

Seriously thou, what a beast.

 

I like your photos much better.

 

First Impressions of Player Operation
It loads very very SLOWLY. It takes 20 seconds for a CD to load and 10 seconds for an SACD. Annoyingly, it automatically starts playing the disc after it finishes loading, rather than allowing the user to hit "play" and decide when the CD should start.

The display is incredibly Spartan. It only dispalys the track number for a few seconds after you select it, then just shows you the elapsed time on the track.

The remote is OK, but not hyper-responsive. It works OK off-angles, but not quite as well as the remote for the Sony SCD-555ES Hot Rod. There is a slight delay in its response for switching between tracks, fast forwarding, or selecting a specific track on a disc. Not awful, but not instantaneous, as you come to expect even on the cheapest consumer models.

The lack-luster ergonomics/operation of the SACD Standard is par for the course with many "high-end" players, and one of my chief pet peeves with high-end digital. They tend to operate very poorly, and that seems just wrong to me when you spend so much on them. But I digress...


First Impressions of Player Sound
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

This player is MADDENING! It provides 4 separate "filters" for SACD playback and 2 for CD playback, each with slightly different way of crunching the digital bits. That would all be fine, except for the fact each filter raises or lowers the output level, which makes direct A/B comparisons very very difficult.

I've started out listening to SACDs, and am having a hard time concentrating on actual sound quality of the player while I flip between the 4 filters trying desperately to find the right one so I can just get that out of the way so I can properly evaluate the player. This is surely the 7th level of audiophile HELL; there is no clear "winner", even when levels are fully adjusted manually. Filter one is the baseline, filter two is .5 db higher, filter three is 5db higher and filter four 3.5 db higher. They all have differernt frequency response/high-end roll-off points.


Overall Impressions
Well, I'm going to have to wait until it's fully burned in before I post any results. I have a lot of questions about this player that knee-jerk, off-the-cuff impressions won't answer. Typically, I can tell within 2 minutes of listening to any component whether I like it or not, but the Krell has me scratching my head. I'm perplexed. Flummoxed. Confused.


Sorry for the tease, but this one needs time.

 

Wow, doesn't sound like so much fun but hey - better to have the options and not.

It's funny over time I've noticed the "crappier" the remote the more expensive and complex the transport/receiver/pre-amp, etc.

If you don't mind me asking, what did the krell set you back?

 

Ouch, and I though the Cary 303/200 with their upsampling feature and tube vs. solid state output was bad enough, that sounds like hell. Sometimes you just want to throw a CD in and hope good music comes out. Hope things work out and that you eventually figure out the best permutation for you to enjoy some music.

 

Mark, I went through the filter adjustment PITA on my SCD-1 for CD playback and decided that standard was the best/most neutral if that helps at all. I couldn't imagine it on the SACD layer as well. Congrats on a very cool looking unit.

 

Hi,

Come to Papa! Mamma Mia!

 

The thing is, I currently have $1600 Sony unit with $600 worth of upgrades (better clock, discrete output, etc.).


Proponents of upgraded mid-fi machines like mine argue that they provide performance on par with much more expensive gear at a fraction of the cost. You get a well-designed player produced at reasonable cost with all the economies of scale you get with a big manufacturer. Then, you just magically drop in better parts here and there and-- viola!-- you get a player that performs at a level much much higher than its cost would suggest. Too good to be true?

Based on what I'm hearing now, I'd have to say, no, not too good to be true. The Krell has a lot going for it, no matter what filter you are listening to. It's a great machine and very competent, and does what it does very very very well, if that's what you're looking for.

But, at this stage, my 555ES sacdmods machine has so much more guts, blood, gusto, verve, flavor, energy, palpability, zest, slam, etc.-- call it what you like. Yes, it's colored, I'll happily give you that. The highs are slightly exaggerated, and slightly frayed at the ends, but I can live with that. It's a bit "digital" and a bit forward, and the bass is perhaps overly hard and slammin'. Fair enough. For you, perhaps the Krell SACD Standard is a better choice. It's almost impossibly "neutral" and "fair" to the point of being "boring" to some (me?). The Krell is not grainless, but has microscopic-level grain all at the same size and texture, contributing to its even-ness of sound. If you listen long enough, you can forget it. I expect many many audiophiles would flock to this player, it's a high performer on many audiophile criteria.


Me, I'm attracted to sharply-focused, high-resolution, players with well-done (to you perhaps "over-done") bass and heft and slam. So far, my 555ES with sacdmods does a lot better than the Krell on my particular hot-buttons, YMMV.

 

The Krell Standard did get an excellent review from the TAS earlier this year. I have to re-read that review.

 

I would suggest you leave the standard filter )or non-filter if that's the case) active. That will allow the machine to burn in as the original design intended.

Krell generally has been a great sonic line for bass, often too much so in my opinion...you may just need more time on it.

 

Day 2 Listening Notes

OK, I'm now at that phase where I start getting over what a new component is *not* doing vs. what I have, and starting to hear what it *is* doing that my current component cannot.

The Krell is growing on me, though for some reason, I seem to be fighting it every step of the way. I can clearly hear now things it can do that I haven't heard before. Day 1's listening notes were mostly negative, and I didn't bother typing them up and putting them here yesterday, but I'll sprinkle in a few here that I still feel are relevant.

1. The Krell truly excels with SACDs. In his review when the Krell first came out, Fremer at Stereophile said he felt (to that point) he had heard no better SACD reproduction at any cost. I would have to say, that on balance (with my caveats about the Krell's overall tonality and weaker foundation) the Krell out-performs the sacdmods Sony on SACD. There is a slightly larger gap between CD and SACD performance apparent on the Krell vs. the Sony, where each format soounds a bit more alike.

2. The Krell is the weirdest sounding digital I've ever heard, which is taking some adjusting to. I have to admit, it's the most detailed, and highly-resolving player I've heard. But it's not "digital" or "crispy" sound that outlines tiny details in hard edges or throws a glaring spotlight on individual sounds, so it's deceptive, and you don't recognize the higher resolution right away. In fact, the Krell has no real edges at all, you know, those little spiky bits of distortion at the leading edge of transients that just tickle or excite the ear that tiny bit and create that sense of definition. The Krell does not outline sounds at all. This made me think it was overly soft at first, now it just sounds natural and real, and you come to see, it's not "missing" any information, it's just that a slight layer of grain and distortion has been removed. The level of grain overall on the Krell is substantially lower than that of the Sony. It has the most immaculately teeny-tiny uniform little digital granules I've ever heard, sometimes you don't even think they're there at all, which, if the unit's tonality were different (see #4), would make the player sound amazingly "analog-like".

3. Individual instruments or sounds are slightly more coherent on the Krell. They maintain more integrity even when multiple loud instruments are playing together, or if there's a very complex multi-track mix. Sounds hang together better without smearing or muddying up into one another. It's also easier to understand the lyrics to songs, so the Krell is more articulate, though not as much fun. It's more of a kick-back and listen reflectively rather than a dance around the room head-bobber.

4. Tonality. Besides the issues with the bass and impact, tonality is my biggest concern with the Krell right now. It's definitely not warm and analog or lush or rich. It errs a bit on the cold side. While it doesn't sound typically "digital", it can sound somewhat mechanical. It's a bit steely/tinny in tonality, and somewhat dry or arid.

5. The Krell has a very round soundstage, almost like looking through a fish-eye lens. Things in the middle appear bigger than those at the edges. This puts a bigger emphasis on vocalists, and places the musicians a step or two behind them relative to the Sony which has the singer on the same plane as the band. A side-effect of this presentation style is that you get a slightly greater sense of image/soundstage depth through the Krell than you get with the Sony.

6. The remote SUCKS. It often takes 3-4 attempt at pushing in the little plastic bubble to get the player tyo respond. Worst case scenario, if I decide to keep the player, I can always get a programmable universal remote and be done with it.

7. The Krell spat out both hybrid multi-channel SACDs I tried to play. Not a good sign.

8. Strangely, although the Krell has subjectively less top-end shimmer and presence than the Sony, I find I'm getting a teeny tiny bit of listening fatigue (not alarming) with the Krell over longer listening sessions, and I'm at a loss to explain why.

 

Mark,

Great write up and review! I've heard the SACD Standard, but only at a dealer. The fact that it spit out the MCH hybrids could be troubling.

If you are considering buying it, I would dig deeper into who makes the updated transport. My theory (paranoia?) about these multi-kilo buck optical players is that the transport will likely fail one day, and having a back up is cheap insurance. While it's not always possible, if you find out the background on it, a replacement can often be salvaged out of a cheap-o DVD player. Or, optical pickup parts can be ordered a la carte as in the case with the big, old Sony decks.

 

Hi SamS, it's another newer Phillips drive (no idea which model and what-not).

 

Too bad, my old Krell had a machined aluminum remote, with aluminum buttons. It was built like a tank and with extremely well.

 

Well, I've decided to go in a different direction. Much as I really love what the Krell does, because my system is based in the Sony R10, it needs whatever extra bass oomph a player can provide, however artifical or "hyped" like my sacdmods 555ES. The Krell is just too even and balanced across the band in my system, which is hardly a real criticism, is it? Anyway, I've put the Krell up for sale in the Classifieds. It will make someone very very happy.

 

nice pic!!! what a sweet monster!!!!!

 

The killer for me would be that it choked on both hybrid multi-channel discs you tried. That should not happen.

 

The Krell Standard was the SACD player I wanted to buy at the end of this year. Now I am not so sure after I have read the personal experience of a fellow forum member.

 

Well, it's certainly not any worse than most any other "high-end" player WRT ergonomics. They all suck, sad to say. It seems, you have to sacrifice ease-of-use for sound quality, which is probably a fair trade-off for hard-to-please audiophiles like us in the long run.

 

I think the Krell Standard does have a generous five-year warranty.

 

AFAIK it is only for the original owner and it is not transferrable. I think Krell made that change a couple of years ago.

 

The non-transferrable warranty does not surprise me. I rarely buy used electronics anyway. It is nice to have this peace of mind that if I do go for this rig, I will not have to deal with a skimpy warranty.

 

Mark, You know that I have the highest respect for your opinions, however, I cannot understand how you could ever sell a component that is too even and balanced (to me that is audio heaven). Did it ever sell in the classifieds?

P.S. As you may know I am an SCD-1 (no mods) man. I find its slow operation very pleasing, but then I am getting old and slow too.