Flo, interesting read

[Mr Peabody]

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Amplifiers.html

Read down to where he talks about Apogee and Krell. Also, notice what he says about the Levinson ML-2.

[Florian]

Its quite a good read, maybe not all is true..but thats ok :-)

The problem with Apogees is simple. They are source, amplifier, room and cable fussy. Of course a Krell KSA50, 100 etc... will never get any real sound out of a Fullrange or Scinitlla. To do this puppys right, you must use serious amplification. Krell KRS etc..

The DIVA is not as good as the Fullrange-. But if you take a Fullrange, drive it fully actively (0.2ohms) with 6 monoblocks.. you can get sort of close to what the Apogee Grand does. Its a ****ing good speaker. But they are not in a "normal" sense speakers. The requirements and price is sickenning....

Thanks for the link

[bobsticks]

Well Mistah P., that was an "interesting" read at the least...so, thanks.

I must say, however, that I quickly grew dubious and tired of reading about the secondhand impressions of his "associates".

[Mr Peabody]

He does step on the toes of Krell fans. I can see how a tube guy, especially SET wouldn't maybe like Krell but "thin" is not a word I would have used to describe them. I have to admit I'd really like to hear one of those ML-2's. He has more listening experience than many of us but at the end of the day it's just his opinion. I have to say he and I pretty much agree on ARC though. I found what he had to say interesting though.

[bobsticks]

Exactly. He can't be completely dispelled because of experience but, at the same time, it's hard to take him seriously when he references gears he admits to never having heard. The absence of digital medium from his "auditioning" is also suspicious.

He certainly wasn't lacking anecdotal variety and can throw names around with the best of 'em...sort of seemed like a guy that writes tax code trying to write a sequel to a John Clancy novel...all the factoids with none of the meat.

All in all, rather inelegant.

[E-Stat]

Read down to where he talks about Apogee and Krell. Also, notice what he says about the Levinson ML-2.
Beyond a certain point, it all boils down to preferences and system matching. I confess that I'm not a Krell fan, but then not everyone is a tube fan either. Different strokes.

rw

[nightflier]

300+ pages on that website! This guy has a lot of time on his hands. I did get some useful info from the site, though, particularly his reviews of phono cartridges that makes me rethink my analog setup. Would it kill to add a few pictures? My eyes hurt from reading all that.

[Mr Peabody]

One other thing he said about Krell that didn't mesh with my impressions is he said something about it being "gray". Older Krell especially had a background black as midnight and I can't see where he got "gray". More recent ARC gave me that feeling of "gray". But we know how adjectives to describe audio can mean different things to different people.

I have to admit once I heard the right tube gear for me I couldn't go back to solid state. If some one gave me a Krell 25s and a set of monoblocks I may be persuaded but I'd have to hear it and weigh it out.

I hope this comes out to where it's understood what I'm trying to say, I think tubes are actually a good value in audio gear for those looking for "high end" sound. Before I added a power amp and converted to monoblocks my pre and power retailed for about $5,500.00 which is modest when considering "high end". However, the micro and macro dynamics heard through this gear only ultra expensive solid state came close to. Of course, "tubes" is very general and the mid-fi area I haven't heard tube integrated amps in sub $2k to compare to solid state in the same realm. Also, this is based on only gear I've heard. Anyone agree, or not?