Thank you for the clarification!
So the 625 actually could be a refinement/evolution of Rowland's technology from both the Model 10/12 Amplifiers with some technology (e.g. power factor correction) from the Continuum?
I'm a non-engineer, so it is not so clear (to me) what may be new in this amp (compared to previous amps). I really liked the Model 10/12 Amps, which they discontinued just before I bought 201s. I've heard some people still swear by Rowland's Model 8 Amps... |
Hi Lougiants - I remember the Model 10's seemed more "lush" and tubelike, in comparison to the 201's. If there is one minor area lacking, the Model 10's did not seem to have as much bass control as the 201's.
I really liked "quickness", low level detail, mid-range and bass control of the 201's. I decided to go with 201's at the time, as I needed a meaty amp to control Thiel's. (And the 201's are nice and small...)
Hindsight being 20/20, I think I probably would have preferred the Model 10's (over the 201's) with a more efficient speaker. Subjectively, the 10's seem to have more "soul" or body than the 201's.
The 201's relatively is a more neutral amp, but nonetheless still musical. It's a matter of preference. |
Hi Kawika - My guess is that it may be an understatement that you're a big fan of the 625.
Just curious, how does it compare to amps such as the Audio Research DS450, Rowland Model 10/12 and Levinson 400 series amplifiers...? Is the Continuum 500 even close? Appreciate your thoughts. |
Palewin - Thank you! So there is hope yet for the DS450... |
My apologies. I had no idea this thread was revived in July!
- Audiozen, Guido or others:
Just curious, what are the key sonic differences between the Bel Canto 1000M and Rowland 625, other than raw power...?
I'd be curious if anyone has had a chance to listen to both amplifiers. Appreciate your thoughts.
Perhaps the 1000M is a bargain, in comparison? |
Guido,
Appreciate your comments, as always. I have the Rowland 201 monoblocks. I like them, but my main complaint is they seem a little bit "sterile". The music seems to have less guts.
Just curious, do 1000M's seem to have "soul" like the Rowland 625's, which keeping the musical detail...? As far as you're aware, are there big sonic differences between the Bel Canto "M" and "non-M" versions? Tks! |
Thanks Guido. I'll see if I can give the 1000M's a listen. It will be tough being in a small city, but maybe I can make it to RMAF this year...
Although I think many manufacturer's were attracted to the ICE modules because of their low power usage and cost effectiveness, I believe many found it (using ICE) to be a marketing nightmare.
Several companies had difficulty explaining why or how their ICE based amps were different from others, much less explain the price difference. To make matters worse, some audio magazines expressed an almost universal, perhaps irrational dislike for the "Class D" sound. Digital amps became a dirty word in some circles.
Maybe it's just me, but I noticed several manufacturer's seemed to have moved away from stating they use ICE.
This is or was unfortunate, because perhaps ICE could have raised the bar for affordable high power, low cost amps.
On my part, I try to be technology agnostic. In the end, hopefully, the proof is in the pudding or listening. |
Hi All,
I had the chance to hear the Rowland 625 for a second time, this time at RMAF 2011. I have to say this time I was a little bit disappointed. (The first time at CES 2011, I was wowed. Cannot remember the original setup.)
The Rowland 625 was setup with Thiel 3.7's Speakers, Rowland Aeris Dac (used as both DAC and preamp), and Bryston BDP-1 (Digital Player).
While it didn't sound bad, there seemed to be a "whitish" type high frequency coloration to the sound. There was much less mid-bass, than I would have liked. The overall sound was little bit "hard".
I was thinking that there may have been a few possible causes, assuming I listened correctly.
a) The 3.7's were not broken in yet.
b) The 3.7's sound is much better in a larger room,
giving the bass and mid-bass a chance to bloom.
c) The preamp section of the Corus is better and much
more forgiving than the Aeris DAC.
Any thoughts from others who were at RMAF?
I usually love Rowland and Thiel stuff, so I'm wondering how these hotel setups or demonstrations may effect the sound.
I heard the Bel Canto 500M's with the Joseph Speakers. It sounded pretty darn smooth... |
Guido, good to hear from you! For a while, I was worried that I was suffering from listening fatigue from the show, and hearing things. Yeah... setup seems to be super, super important. Even with the best gear, you can't always beat the room acoustics.
Vienna Acoustics Speakers, which I believe you may own, seem to have a pretty good synergy with Rowland. I think Rowland may have done a few demos with Vienna in the past.
I agree with you on the DS450M. They sounded extremely musical and dynamic. I honestly think we are reaching a point where amps (at a certain level/price point) may not necessarily sound better than the other. They simply sound different.
Just curious, what were your favorites from the RMAF show that really impressed you? (I'll probably try to start a different thread on this subject.) |
Guido,
I really like the Esoteric Dac's and CD players, albeit out of my budget. Is the K-01 or any of the other gear you liked at RMAF next on your review schedule?
All this is off topic -
What did you think about the M2 Tech Young 384/32 D/A Converter, which I believe was in the same room?
DACs in general seem to be better and better, and less different than each other with good source material.
I'm hoping they've refined the magic bullet of making bad recordings sound listenable...!
Tks. |
