New Roland Continuum 250 vs. Simaudio I-7

I can't comment on the Rowland or Sim but I suggest you also consider the c-j CA200. It's a nice integrated with a sound I'd describe as sweet.

There are several good reviews online that you can google. It's also a current TAS Editor's Choice, Stereophile hasn't reviewed it.

My dynaudio dealer is also a simaudio dealer too. The first time I heard the sim with the C1's I just had to have the C1's (got em too). Great combo. I have a bryston b100 and have no reason to upgrade now. If now I had to choose between the 2 and there was no price difference I would go with the sim.
I only heard the rowland once but not against the sim or with the dyn's.

ro.W.land!!

I own the CA-200 and the Rowland C500. Without a doubt the Rowland is superior in every respect. Of course, you can by the CJ used for half the price, so it is very viable at the lower price point.

"Superior" is subjective of course. A financial interest will always skew one's opinion.

Another listener might view alternate products accordingly.

I've got a financial interest in the Rowland and the CA-200, since I own both, so Bill's point is well taken. I'd like to sell the CJ, but my need to be honest keeps me from describing it as equal to the C500 Rowland. Thanks Bill, for pointing that out.

BTW, I auditioned the Rowland in my system before I purchased it and A-Bd it vs. the very nice CJ.

Dave

My intent was not to single out Dave's post but rather to point out that products are system dependent. I have great cartridges, for example, that perform quite ordinarily in some tonearms.

I have no doubt that the Rowland is "superior" within the context of his component assemblage.

The same could be claimed in another system containing the CJ. For example Mrt, well known here for his soft sounding vintage style tube sonic affinities, may prefer the CJ in Dave's system.

And so it goes.
Thanks

Well, of course, Mrt would indeed likely prefer the warmer, thicker sounding of the CA-200 to the Rowland. I have to agree with you 100% on this one, Bill.

However, I do think, in this case it's not a system dependancy, it's an absolute difference, with the CJ having a sonic signature that strikes you immediately when you insert in almost any revealing system. Tie that to MrT's proclivity for euphonic warmth and you're led to the CJ.

Dave

Hi Dave, I have no doubt that the Rowland is a great integrated. and I have no problem with you prefering it to the c-j. You have heard both the Rowland and the c-j so obviously your opinion has merit.

I wouldn't describe the CA200's sound as warm and thick though. I find that audiophiles sometimes describe small differences as if they were huge. The reviewer at EnjoytheMusic described what you hear as thick and warm this way:

"the ultra-suave CA200 also has a deft and delicate touch with detail, space and percussion, and all without throwing brittle sheets of metal at your ears."

I can see that you are describing the same sound, but you have a more extreme description of that sound. I think the Rowland is probably more "neutral" than the c-j, but I don't think the c-j is so colored that most would find it objectionable. I don't want to change your opinion, I just thought Hessec might want to check out another option.

I just bought a CA200 (less than two days ago), and first impression is very positive.
Tried a long time ago and did not like Bow Wazoo and ML 383.

Tomcy6, your point is well taken. The sonic signature of the C-J is clear and it does strike you in the face on the first listen, BUT it doesn't cover the details, so the signature fades from the consciousness with long-term listening. Going from Rowland, Bryston or even Krell, you'll hear it immediately. It's not so smooth and round as some amps that would obscure details. You can read my review elsewhere on A'gon to see that I was quite taken with its detail.

Dave