Novice ears or unrealistic expectations?


I'm having a serious case of buyer's remorse.

Up until yesterday, my system consisted of an Arcam Solo CD with an iPod Rdock and B&W 683s. The sound was very nice, but I often felt the bass was a bit boomy and the mids somewhat hidden, especially at the lower volumes I typically listen. This was especially apparent when listening to TV/movies. I would have to crank up the volume to hear dialog, only to be blasted out of my seat by explosions, a loud commercial, etc. Music tended to be bottom heavy, to the point where I would spend more time worrying about my neighbors than enjoying the music.

(Just to address certain advice I might receive in advance, I live in a tiny NYC apartment. Due to space constraints, my speaker placement is set in stone. I have moderately priced cabling and am not looking to buy more. Tweaking bass/treble response may work for some songs, but not others...I prefer to leave them flat.)

I got it into my head, via web research only, that a separate power amp would help flesh out the mids, tighten up the bass and generally even things up. In my mind's eye/ear, I envisioned an amp enabling me to listen at low volumes, but achieve a fuller, more well rounded sound.

Given the tiny size of my apartment, Class D amps seemed to fit the bill. After talking to a couple of dealers, I swayed myself into buying a Jeff Rowland 102, and did so rather impulsively. I love the design BTW. The right thing to do of course, would have been to spend time auditioning amps, ABXing them with my Solo, etc. But I have an impulsive/instinctual streak, which more often than not serves me well. Unfortunately, it didn't serve me so well this time.

I got the 102 home and set it up, using the Arcam's pre-outs, bypassing the Arcam's amp altogether. I don't want to mess with bi-amping.

I was immediately rewarded with a nice fat right channel hum that I eventually narrowed down to my cable TV. My temporary fix for that was to unscrew the cable just enough to stop the hum without cutting the signal.

Anyhow, back to the amp. My second surprise was that I had to turn the volume up somewhat higher with the 102 to achieve the same listening level as the Arcam. I told myself I should attribute this to the 102 having a tighter sound. Hmm.

As I listened to familiar tracks I had played prior to hooking up the 102, I was was neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed. I was sidewhelmed. The sound is still great, but I was under the assumption that the difference would be night and day. There is certainly no loss in quality, but the contrast is more like late afternoon to early dusk.

Bass is a tiny bit less boomy. My floor doesn't shake quite as much during louder passages. But this seems to be at the cost of those occasional satisfying low dips, for example, in the pluck of an upright bass. Soundstage seems slightly wider, but only slightly. Highs have a less piercing quality by a small degree.

All in all these differences are nice, and a small step in the right direction, but not $1800 worth of nice, to me anyway, especially when I factor in the grief my girlfriend is going to give me when she comes home Sunday and sees this amp sitting there. When I replaced my B&W 602.5s with 683's, she was not happy, until I played them for her. The difference was remarkable and she went from unhappy to giddy. With the Rowland 102, I would have to try to explain the subtle differences, as A/B testing is not practical. And if I can barely hear the differences, she will certainly not be able to at all.

My feeling is it takes a VERY analytical ear to ascertain the differences between the Solo's built in amp and the 102.

My primary source of music is the iPod, with 320kbps files, via the Rdock. My old roommate, a long time audio dealer here in NYC, who has worked in nearly every high end shop, as well as for Mark Levinson, says that the iPod is the weak link, and that no amp, be it $1800 or $18,000 will do much to improve the sound. I defer to his experise, but I swear some of my AAC/mp3 files are all but identical in sound quality to the CDs they came from. He suggested using a CD in the Solo to compare the sound instead of the iPod. This makes sense on paper, but the fact is 99.9% of my listening will be done via the iPod.

I called the shop I bought the 102 from and inquired about a return, fully expecting to pay a restocking fee. I was politely told I was basically stuck with the amp unless I wanted a store credit. I don't really want to deal with that. So now I'm trying to sell it.

My question is, do I give up the search for an amp, or go for something more powerful and cheaper, like maybe a used 200W Acurus? I'm obviously a novice...

Another dealer, who sold me the B&W 683s said the right amp would "open them right up". That's enticing, but after reading the Richard Clark Amp Challenge, I'm beginning to wonder if I should just walk away and cut my losses. Maybe all the adjectives applicable to a higher end amp are just lost on my ears.

As a side note, the Rowland dealer (the shop's owner) suggested I invite my old roommate (who used to work there) over to "show me how to listen to the Rowland". I don't think I've heard anything quite so ridiculous from a retailer in my life.

Thanks for reading.

-Rob
rkny
Just an update...

Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to respond.

Some of you suggested new or different equipment was in order. My more financially responsible better half would absolutely have my head if I got new speakers or a tube amp. I can't afford them anyhow. The B&W 683s are more than enough speaker for an iPod based system IMO anyhow. And having already jumped headfirst into an amp and landing on my face would indicate that I don't know enough about this stuff to be exploring the even trickier and more finicky world of tubes.

All this said, I think I've had a bit of an epiphany today. I spent the morning ripping some Stevie Wonder CDs into Apple Lossless and replacing their 320kbps counterparts on my iPod. Nothing shows off a system like "All Day Sucker" or "Boogie on Reggae Woman"!

I played a couple of favorite tracks through the Arcam's amp. The lossless tracks showed a considerable improvement over the 320kbps files. I decided to take the comparison to the next level and hook the Rowland 102 back up.

It's very possible I've just lulled myself into these observations, in a psychoacoustic attempt to salvage the situation, but I feel I am now hearing some differences.

With the Arcam, highs on the lossless tracks sounded very bright. Cymbals had a distinct bite...I might even say a bit harsh. Louder passages sort of jumped through my body, causing me to sit up a bit, and sometimes even instictively reach for the remote to turn it down. All in all, I'd describe the highs as somewhat angsty.

The lows were very low indeed, but as I have experienced before, they were somewhat out of control. There were booms out of character with the rest of music, and sometimes even out of sync.

The mids sounded best, but were somewhat swallowed by the problems with the highs and lows.

After hooking up the Rowland, these lossless files are making a more and more convincing case for sticking with this amp.

The entire sound spectrum sounds more cohesive. True, the bass is not as sweepingly deep, but it's more in keeping with the rest of the music. It doesn't sound like a broken arrow on its own growling booming mission. The highs have lost much of their bite. Cymbals are not quite as shimmery or dimensional, but at the same time they're no where nearly as distracting. The angst is gone, both figuratively and literally.

Best of all, the mids I'm hearing seem to have been unleashed from the shackles of overly sharp highs and booming bass. Piano has more authority. Stevie Wonder's voice has moved to the forefront of the image. Before it literally sounded as if the band was playing in front of him. Now he sounds more like he's backed by the band.

Overall, I'd describe the sound as warmer. I've read that this is a signature sound of JRDG amps. It's nice to actually be able to relate to what that means.

One visual representation keeps coming to mind in comparing the sound...the slap of a racquetball hitting a wall (without the Rowland), and, with the Rowland, the sound of the same ball hitting the wall, but with the ball wrapped in a thin layer of very fine cashmere. Another image that comes to mind is the sound of splashing in a pool of water, vs. the sound of splashing around in a pool of mineral oil.

Not once since hooking it back up have I had that edgy feeling of needing to turn it down lest I offend the neighbors. Nor have I been jarred by a louder passage.

In a perfect world, I think I might prefer a slightly crisper representation than the 102 offers, but without regressing back to the harshness of the Arcam. Some have indicated that maybe a Bel Canto S300 might offer this. It never ends does it?

Regardless, I am happier than I was this time yesterday. Unfortunately, the majority of my music is not re-rippable into lossless, as it exists as digital files only. I worry that lower quality mp3s will not react as nicely to the warmth imposed by the Rowland.

Add to this a new problem I've discovered (which turns out to be all but ubiquitous amongst iPod Classic owners playing lossless files). The Classic, in addition to having a cheaper DAC chip than its predecessor, also has a small cache; 32mb vs 64mb. Several times today, listening to lossless files over 32mb, the iPod paused itself, in order to cache the rest of the file. :(

Nice report. You equipment is indeed too good for regular mp3s, as you've clearly discovered.

Positioning the speakers for serious listening will smooth out the both the highs and bass. You really can't avoid that. Anyway, you've made a step in the right direction. Sorry about needing to replace your mp3 library, but I'm afraid that you've hit on a pretty common ephiphany. (Don't listen to a good vinyl system, lest you have another epiphany).

Welcome to audiophilism. ;-)

Dave
The trouble with audio is thier is no end, Your at the beginning, I did the same thing as you. I changed my nad amp for a bryston at the time.I thought the sound was thin but it was just a lot clearer in every way, i have now moved on.My advise is to get the best source, forget mp3 50% loss of information,each part of the puzzle should be of the same quality expecially the source because thats the music after all.
I would think a fuller sounding amp like Musical Fidelity A308 would work better with B&W. If you can find one cheaper than the JRD amp. But your source is the weak link IMHO.
Have you been to In Living Stereo? They have some nice smaller speakers from Epos, Totem, and Rega. Any of those 3 would fix the brightness you're hearing from the B&W's.
Won't cost you anything to audition.
Good luck riding the merry-go-round.
A MF isn't going to sound any better than a Rowland (one of the best possible amps and a good match for his speakers).

Improve the source and get the speakers in the right place.

Dave