TAS review of Krell SACD:why?

I also just finished reading the new TAS review, which finally gives this player the high-praise that it deserves for its Red Book CD playback (as well as SACD). Its interesting that even in the Mfg's Comments Dan D'Agostino points out how "it was extremely important (for Krell) to produce a machine that would give exemplary performance on Red Book CDs".

As far as the differences between the initial run and the current production, both use highly-regarded Philips transports and both according to Krell sound identical, the initial display shows the track # that's playing where as the current display does not.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a pre-owned "A Stock" Standard, even for CD only use now that the future of SACD seems uncertain at best.

BTW my Standard has performed flawlessly for nearly 2-years now.

I have owned the old player and currently use the new player. I had several problems with the original unit. The new player has had zero problems and does sound better than the original. I have several listening buddies who agree that the current player with the new transport has improved image focus and mid-bass weight.Tom

Hi, I have a question for Theaudiotweak. Did you compare the two units side by side or are you using your thoughts strictly from memory?

Memory.. Everything else was the same as before except for the air in the room and the air between my ears. So was the same for the other sonic witness.Tom

For the record, if I don't listen to my SACD Standard for 2-weeks or so, when I do play it, it sounds like a different machine, much better sounding than I remembered it being, the first couple of Discs are like a new listening experience all over again.

Sonic memories are funny that way.

Krell has stated that "side-by-side comparisons yielded no noticable sonic differences" between old and new transports.

For me, if Krell can't hear it, it doesn't exist.