Krell KAV-500 or Krell KSA-100

[quad121]

Hi I'm thinking of up grading my Amp but i've a chance of either one of these:-

Krell KAV-500 (£780) or
Krell KSA-100 (£740)

Please could you advise, which of these i should choose?

Thanks,

Q

[Mr Peabody]

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. The Krell KAV-500 is 100x5 and the KSA-100 is a pure Class A 100x2 amp. So it depends on whether you want 5 channels or 2. The KSA 100 watts is going to be much better watts than the KAV but if you are doing HT eventually, the KAV is a great 5 channel amp.

[quad121]

Thankyou very much for your input.

[AudioYumYum]

...it depends on whether you want 5 channels or 2. The KSA 100 watts is going to be much better watts than the KAV

I've been lurking for a few months and not felt compelled to post until now. Mr Peabody - what do you base THAT comment on? "...much better watts..."??? I find it unhelpful at best and misleading at worst!

Both KSA-100 and KAV-500 are quality amps. Focussing on the KAV-500, this can be run (at 8 ohms) as 2x120W, 3x120W, 4x120W or 5x100W multi channel set ups. Further, any two adjacent channels can be bridged to give you a TWO x 400W channels. With a massive 1000VA toroidal transformer, there is copious welly for the KAV-500 to draw on in handling transient peaks for a two channel set up. Much more than the KSA-100.

Krell don't state whether the KAV-500 runs in pure Class A - but judging by the heat a fully configured beast gives off, it won't be far off.

I have used both KSA-100 and the KAV-500 (and also A:B'd a number of alternative audiophile power amps) to drive my Duntech Princesses - and the KAV-500 in bridged mode is the star performer. Period. Coupled with multichannel flexibility if you want to go HT later, it is no contest. The KAV-500 is one of Krell's pre-owned sleeper models and the bargain price reflects this. Eight years after it's release, the bridged mode KAV-500 is STILL my preferred audiophile 2 channel amp; I would need to spend a lot more to change it and improve on its performance.

Quad121, you don't state whether your quoted KAV-500 is a 2,3,4 or 5 channel configuration, but I suggest if you can, try both amps in your rig and see what works best for you. Just don't let anyone sucker you into believing that the KAV-500 can't give "good watts", or is some kind of different class HT amp.

HTH
Al

(Edit for sp.)

[Mr Peabody]

Well, Al, glad I could compel you off the fence. I have heard both amps myself and I still prefer the KSA for sound quality. I heard the kav-500 in a dealer HT system and it is odd they didn't mention it being bridgeable, I had not read the owners manual. Pardon the oversight. The kav is still Krell's entry level gear, although still very good and better than most manufacturer's top of the line The ksa is still a highly sought after amp and out classes the 500. Why do you think a newer model like the kav-500 would sell used for the same price as a ksa-100 that could have been sold new as early as 1981? It held it's value, the market will still pay that price because it's not just a mere 100x2 amp, it's a higher quality amp that still has demand. The kav-500 is not Class A, it is Class A/B. Although the KSA is pure Class A it uses Sustained Plateau Biasing which holds the amp to using only what power is needed at the time. So if it was me, I'd still take the KSA-100 with the kav500 being bridgeable or not.

[AudioYumYum]

Well, Al, glad I could compel you off the fence. I have heard both amps myself and I still prefer the KSA for sound quality. I heard the kav-500 in a dealer HT system and it is odd they didn't mention it being bridgeable, I had not read the owners manual. Pardon the oversight. The kav is still Krell's entry level gear, although still very good and better than most manufacturer's top of the line The ksa is still a highly sought after amp and out classes the 500. Why do you think a newer model like the kav-500 would sell used for the same price as a ksa-100 that could have been sold new as early as 1981? It held it's value, the market will still pay that price because it's not just a mere 100x2 amp, it's a higher quality amp that still has demand. The kav-500 is not Class A, it is Class A/B. Although the KSA is pure Class A it uses Sustained Plateau Biasing which holds the amp to using only what power is needed at the time. So if it was me, I'd still take the KSA-100 with the kav500 being bridgeable or not.

My goodness. Sorry Peabody - no dice. You asked me, so I've loaded both barrels...

You cannot be serious when you say you "auditioned" the KAV in a "dealer HT" system - and then criticise it against a non HT KSA installation. C'mon - where is the stable A/B comparison where they are used in situ and as designed?? You say you have "auditioned" them - but clearly not on a like for like basis holding the same source, pre, cabling and speakers constant in a two channel set up. I HAVE done so and can detect no sonic "hoodoo voodoo magic" so mystically attributed to the KSAs.

KAV entry level? So your implication is KSA is somehow more "top end" today? Really?? I have no doubt that Krell's marketing department would proclaim that today's CAST technology is far superior to the KSA's uncomplicated Class A approach - leaving the KSA figuratively and in reality "last century's" amp".

You pose the assertion that the KSA is "highly sought after today and outclasses the 500" - but offer no evidence to support your basis of how a bridged KAV500 is "outclassed". The reality is that the KSA put Krell on the map many, many years ago - and thus was born a reputation which today affords them a near-deified status, seemingly deserving of worship amongst Krell diehards and would-be converts.

You disingeniously ask me why do I "think a newer model like the kav-500 would sell used for the same price as a ksa-100 that could have been sold new as early as 1981?" I would have thought that the answer was obvious: simple demand and supply. The demand for the KSA is constantly pumped in comparison to performers like the KAV because, for example, self-professed experts answer comparative questions from newbies by stating that "the KSA 100 watts is going to be much better watts than the KAV". And this is while admitting they were not aware the amp is bridgable into two channels, much less having AUDITIONED the amp as a bridged two channel device. This hardly does a service for the KAV in comparison to the KSA now does it? That neither dealers nor Krell actively promoted it means that very few people know or realise that the KAV500 is bridgable into a 2 x 400W device capable of outstanding performance - ergo low awareness and so even lower demand for the KAV in comparison. (THAT is why I referred to the bridged KAV500 as a "sleeper" model.)

Q: Is it the bridged KAV500 Stereophile Class A recommended? A: Who GIVES a rip?!?!
Q: Does it sound magnificent when stacked against a KSA100? A: You bet your sweet bippy it does.

I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack - it just annoys me when newbies ask for advice, self styled 'audiophiles' just pump out the same 30 year old dogma - without properly evaluating with their own ears - because it is safer to stay with the pack. Seriously now - auditions of stereo kit in "dealer HT" set ups just don't cut it.

I stand by what I said earlier - they are both great amps and any prospective purchaser should take every opportunity to listen to each model themselves with their own ears, in their own set up and with their own source material if they can. Only THEN can they decide which is right to their ears in their situation.

I'll step off my soap box now...

[Mr Peabody]

Well, it's actually Krell who makes the KAV stuff their entry level, and it was you, and only, you, who said KSA is Krell's top-of-line. Krell's CAST and Evolution stuff is obviously much better and I even prefer the monoblocks. Just because I said the 500 was in an HT set up doesn't mean it can't be played in stereo, and in stereo it was 100 watts vs 100 watts. You are probably like many who equate louder to better sound quality. I'm sure the 500 bridged will yield higher SPL than a KSA-100 in the same system. If you like the 500 better, so be it, there's no fine. Sonically, I still prefer the KSA.

I'm not sure what Stereophile says about any of the Krell amps, I don't pay them any attention. In the past they have given gear, "A" rating which I didn't think deserve it. That's because I do use my ears and don't rely on magazines to tell me what's good. Since, I am, my own judge of what pleases me, then I can't be wrong, regardless of your, or anyone elses, opinion.

[PeruvianSkies]

My goodness. Sorry Peabody - no dice. You asked me, so I've loaded both barrels...

You cannot be serious when you say you "auditioned" the KAV in a "dealer HT" system - and then criticise it against a non HT KSA installation. C'mon - where is the stable A/B comparison where they are used in situ and as designed?? You say you have "auditioned" them - but clearly not on a like for like basis holding the same source, pre, cabling and speakers constant in a two channel set up. I HAVE done so and can detect no sonic "hoodoo voodoo magic" so mystically attributed to the KSAs.

KAV entry level? So your implication is KSA is somehow more "top end" today? Really?? I have no doubt that Krell's marketing department would proclaim that today's CAST technology is far superior to the KSA's uncomplicated Class A approach - leaving the KSA figuratively and in reality "last century's" amp".

You pose the assertion that the KSA is "highly sought after today and outclasses the 500" - but offer no evidence to support your basis of how a bridged KAV500 is "outclassed". The reality is that the KSA put Krell on the map many, many years ago - and thus was born a reputation which today affords them a near-deified status, seemingly deserving of worship amongst Krell diehards and would-be converts.

You disingeniously ask me why do I "think a newer model like the kav-500 would sell used for the same price as a ksa-100 that could have been sold new as early as 1981?" I would have thought that the answer was obvious: simple demand and supply. The demand for the KSA is constantly pumped in comparison to performers like the KAV because, for example, self-professed experts answer comparative questions from newbies by stating that "the KSA 100 watts is going to be much better watts than the KAV". And this is while admitting they were not aware the amp is bridgable into two channels, much less having AUDITIONED the amp as a bridged two channel device. This hardly does a service for the KAV in comparison to the KSA now does it? That neither dealers nor Krell actively promoted it means that very few people know or realise that the KAV500 is bridgable into a 2 x 400W device capable of outstanding performance - ergo low awareness and so even lower demand for the KAV in comparison. (THAT is why I referred to the bridged KAV500 as a "sleeper" model.)

Q: Is it the bridged KAV500 Stereophile Class A recommended? A: Who GIVES a rip?!?!
Q: Does it sound magnificent when stacked against a KSA100? A: You bet your sweet bippy it does.

I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack - it just annoys me when newbies ask for advice, self styled 'audiophiles' just pump out the same 30 year old dogma - without properly evaluating with their own ears - because it is safer to stay with the pack. Seriously now - auditions of stereo kit in "dealer HT" set ups just don't cut it.

I stand by what I said earlier - they are both great amps and any prospective purchaser should take every opportunity to listen to each model themselves with their own ears, in their own set up and with their own source material if they can. Only THEN can they decide which is right to their ears in their situation.

I'll step off my soap box now...

I am with you on this one. Not only were you able to A. clearly address the issues and add good citations to your defense, but I also B. happen to agree with your findings in the issue as well. Thanks for stepping in.