Krell 400xi vs NAD M3 vs Music Fidelity A5 vs Naim


Hi,

I am an newbie, but I have been regular reader of the forums. I need to get an integrated amp to use with a SlimDevices Transporter and a pair of NHT Classic 3's,

I would like to choose between the integrated amps that I have been reading good things about.

Krell 400xi
Bryston B-100 SST
NAD M3
Music Fidelity A5
Naim Nait 5i

My musical preference is mostly rock, alternative rock and some classical.

Thanks,
Sunil
scherukat

Showing 2 responses by wireless200

I think Mfsoa makes a good point for the other side of the equation. The Krell does sound different. I think one man's shouty is another man's well-defined. First time I listened to Krell, I thought it was too forward. Later, after listening a couple more times I started to notice how dependent the sound from the Krell was on the source and recording. I was eventually won over and bought one.

It didn't hurt my opinion of the Krell when I saw a salesman drop on its corner a 400Xi from belly high onto a solid concrete floor. He looked extremely pained - even somehow cut his hand when it slid out and his boss walked in. He picked it up. You could barely see a mark on the corner where it hit and it literally chipped the concrete. They hooked it up, turned it on, and much to all of our amazement it worked like a champ. You would have had to see it to believe it. The build quality is incredible. Of course that doesn't make the sound.

I have Marantz and I'm familiar with the YBA. I think Marantz makes very good sounding equipment. I'm always on the lookout for a PM. They don't show up much.

The YBA - I can't think of any other way to describe it - has *sweet* sound. It's much like a sweet piece of candy, great at first but then cloying. It's all sweetness but somewhat lacking substance IMO.

After I bought the 400xi I kind of thought something wasn't right about the bass. I a-b'ed it against my top of the line NAD separates and the bass was just as good as the NAD but the mids and highs were so different that in contrast it had made the bass sound different. After that I started doing some critcal listening to the Krell.

I was struck by two things. First I heard things in very familiar music I had never heard before. Good things. Secondly I noticed clear separation of instruments that was far ahead of the NAD and even the Marantz. I eventually figured out the Krell took whatever I gave it and laid it out in spades. In other words revealing. Bad disks sounded worse and great ones sounded, well, great - better than they ever had before. Especially acoustic and classical.

I concluded the NAD was very forgiving but at the expense of definition and clarity. You could throw on about anything and sound was decent.

The Marantz was gentle but lacking soul. It not bad though. I would put the sound near Levinson and not far from Ayre. Some of the reference stuff I think might be very good.

I would compare Mfsoa's listening test to the Pepsi Challenge back in the 80s. If you recall "The Pepsi Challenge" alarmed Coke executives to the point that they thought they had to reformulate Classic coke to new coke. Pepsi was legitamately winning the taste tests. Coke executives thought they need something sweeter. What they didn't consider and what resulted in the New Coke debacle was the sweeter Pepsi was winning a *sip* test. A single sip of something sweet will always win that kind of Challenge. What Coke executives didn't consider was people buy a Coke to drink 12~16 ounces. That much of a sweeter soft drink wasn't good. People didn't want that much of a sweet drink. It just made 'em feel yucky. Whence the New Coke disaster.

Krell I think is an acquired taste. That's why you have all these Krell diehards. They know what they like. Of course you have others who can't understand how anyone like Krell with its "shouty" sound. No doubt it sounds different from other equipment out there.

All the amps listed have a different sound. And all have their followers. Probably the best thing to do if you can't audition them is buy one used based on what you think you might like and then resale later. Or buy several integrateds and resale what you don't like. If you're married, you have to think about placating the wife. Wives don't understand why we need so many pieces of equipment. :)

regards, David
Those were all on my short list.
Krell 400Xi - the one I went with. It has a Krell house sound that at first sounded overly forward but I grew to like it quite a bit and became a Krell convert. Very detailed and open soundstage. Clearly separates the instruments. Feels strong across the board and sounds great at low volumes.
Bryston - didn't hear one but have heard a number of people say the Brystons are lively and have a dull, leaden sound. I think they get a good rep because of the 30 year warranty or whatever it was they used to carry.
NAD M3 - had NAD separates and they are a step down from, say in every way from, say, the Krell. Looked at the M3 and it looked cheaply built on the face and all. The top of line NAD separates were also cheaply built hardware-wise. Good sound for the money I guess. Lows ok but not particularly detailed. Also didn't have the gas to drive my Aerials.
MF - Personally, I don't care for the MF house sound. It has a kind of false warmness or presence that take the detail out of the music. I think a lot of people like MF because it hides the harshness you hear on a lot of systems.
Naim 5i - Great sounding little amp. Nothing like their high-end stuff but very nice. Underpowered for anything but efficient speakers or an office or bedroom system IMO.

regards, David