Jeff Rowland - No Exposure?


The magazines hardly review any Rowland gear. Why? What do these amps, like the Model 112, 10 & the newer digital 302 sound like? Very curious how they compare to others like Pass, Krell FPB, and tube gear.
kevziek

Showing 2 responses by kevziek

I'm hoping someone has compared the newer stuff to the older stuff and can describe the sonics. I'm especially interested in knowing what Rowland's digital approach to power supply design has done to sonics.
I listened to the Model 112. Hard to describe the sonics - It was clean, but lacking liveliness to the sound. Vocal overtones & vibrato were somewhat truncated. They didn't ring out the way they do on tube amps, or even other quality SS amps, i.e. Pass.

Switching to the partially digital Model 10 was a definite improvement. There was more sparkle, life. However, voices still lost some of their life. Perhaps the newer digital switching output models - 302, 201 - have a better sound, as Tora suggests.

Very interesting, as I then compared it to an ARC VT-100 Mk III (I own a Mk II). Tubes still have a more organic wholeness to their sound, albeit with the addition of some subtle texture, and some lack of ultimate resolution. Tubes especially sound superior on vocals, where all the elements of a human voice line up and sound as if you are hearing a real voice, as opposed to a facsimile, which describes what I hear from every solid state amp except the Boulder.

Piano also rings out more & longer with the tube amp. It just sounds more like a real piano in all respects - the attack of the hammer on the string, the resultant complex wave of the vibrating string, & a longer decay.

Overall, I was somewhat disappointed and was expecting more from the Rowlands. Keep in mind that I am a musician, and may be more keenly aware of nuances & elements of musical sound than most non-musicians are.