mcintosh vs jeff rowland

I recently sold a Rowland Continuum 500 and bought a McIntosh MA7000, driving a pair of Sonus Faber Guarneri Mementos. Thus far, I have not decided if I am happy with the transition. The Continuum was fully broken-in (and it did get better as time went by. . . it actually took several hundred hours of use to come into its own.)

The MA7000 is new, has minimal hours and I sincerely hope it will improve as it breaks-in. It does sound good, it just doesn't seem to equal the performance of the Rowland.

The main difference I have noticed is a lack of three dimensional soundstaging compared with the Rowland. The Mac does have an excellent soundstage, imaging is good, it just is not as transparent as was the Rowland.

I feel that things will get better as time goes by - I am just reporting on the here and now.

The guy, Jamiek. asked a question that started this thread. . . .

"Does anyone have an opinion as to which integrated amp is better between a mcintosh ma7000 and a jeff rowland concentra or continuum? Thanks"

And, yet, no one here seems to be interested in answering him. I sincerely doubt if more than a couple of us who have posted responses in this thread have ever heard either of the components in question, yet some of you have set yourselves up as experts in all things Audio. and have spouted your obvious lack of information to folks who could care less.

why are we talking about Lamm and tubed McIntosh separates in a thread asking about solid state integrated amps?

Try, for once, to stick to the topic. Lighten Up Folks!

I think you are both wrong. Three dimensional (3D) means height, width and depth. Any two channel system that is worth having or is not broken will have all three dimensions. Three dimensional does not mean having sound coming at you from all directions as you would on a busy street. 3D has nothing to do with surround sound or home theater. It is what it is!

Look up the definition please!

Three-dimensional: adjective
having or appearing to have length, breadth, and depth :
a three-dimensional object.

I think 3D is a good descriptor for a sound system, and should definitely be included in the TCTDA. Good two channel sound is very three dimensional, as is live music.

Brianmgracom,

I've been playing the MA7000 almost non-stop since I bought it and it is gradually improving. The holographic, transparent - - - YES - - - Three-Dimensional soundstaging has become much more well defined. I don't know if I am forgetting the Rowland's strengths, or if the MA7000 is improving to the degree that it has equalled what I remember about the Rowland. It does, now sound very, very good. One of the earlier responses told me that I should try single ended rather than balanced cables for the CD input - which I did - it changes the sound, but I'm not yet sure which I like better. I can switch the inputs "on the fly" as was suggested and there is a definite difference. I think that the single ended input narrows the soundstage slightly and makes individual instruments and/or human voices a little a little more defined. (It moves the position of, say a female singer slightly upward and a little more to the left and makes her mouth a little smaller). Probably an anomaly of the difference in the wires themselves. Maybe I should switch the wires right to left and see if she now moves to the right . . . . This never-ending tinkering is fun, but gets old as well.

For the benefit of those who question my ability to listen and describe what I am hearing. . . I have been a high end (often very high end) listener for over 40 years, have owned very good equipment, well set up in well treated, dedicated sound rooms.

I am currently using the McIntosh MA7000 in a SECOND system, driving a pair of Sonus Faber Guarneri Mementos. Sources are an Esoteric X-01 (heavily modified) player. CD and SACD, Vinyl played on a VPI Super Scoutmaster table with their arm and a Benz Ruby 2 cartridge. Mark Levinson No. 25 phono stage. I own over 14,000 LPs.

My main system consists of Spectral DMC 30SL preamp, Spectral DMA 360 monaural amps, Avalon Eidolon Diamonds or Audio Physic Caldera III speakers, Wadia 581SE player, Basis Debut Vacuum turntable, Graham Phantom arm with choice of Graham Nightingale, Clearaudio Discovery or Koetsu Pro-IV cartridges. PASS X-Ono phono Stage etc. etc.

I am terribly sorry to learn that what I have always though to be three dimensional soundstaging is a figment of an over-active imagination on my part. I guess I'd better start changing stuff out to see if I cant make my systems sound flat and one dimensional, and I'd surely better rotate my speakers inward and tilt them forward to stop the sound from coming from space well above the speakers and from, seemingly, from wall to wall well outside the edges of the speakers. I didn't realize that my systems were sterile and had no bass. Gosh, I've got $90,000 worth of speakers that must not sound like a flip because they have the ability to project a phony soundstage.

I also had better go more often to live performances - Heck, I only go to symphonies and Operas a couple of dozen times a year. I've got to go a lot more to find out what live music really sounds like. Maybe I should go to a few rock concerts to really learn to appreciate "correct" sound.

Actually, I think I'll turn on one of my boring, uninvolving, unreal sounding, utterly fatiguing, pile of garbage systems and listen to music, with no bass or no life.

What are these people talking about?

I read the AudioEnz review some time ago and, just as the reviewer found the Continuum amp to be "inconclusive", I found his review to be very much the same - inconclusive.

I do find it interesting that in another review,the same reviewer unhesitatingly found the Continuum to be superior to the Gamut DI-150 in several areas. ( http://audioenz.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=8099 ) Remember that Jonathan Valin said in TAS that the Gamut was the best integrated he had ever heard.

This guy aparently really listens and listens well. His evaluations are complete and well thought through. I guess that his findings are a result of his personal taste. As for myself, I did find the Rowland to be very emotionally involving - but then I don't have platinum ears like the Audio Enz reviewer. (I also liked the Gamut a lot).

What is my take on his review? A very good review - expressing another view on a very fine amplifier. I do wonder though if his amp was fully broken in. (several hundred hours of "normal to hard use" to make it come into its own.) My continuum really didn't become fully "musical" until I played it a lot, and then it became magic.