This is the first I have ever heard of anyone claiming better build quality on one over the other; having owned the II, I don't know what JRDG could of done to improve upon the build quality, it was second to none. I am sure JRDG would refute this claim. I will throw in my hat as one who enjoyed the CN-II a lot, I know this doesn't address your question. Here is a reply from Rich Maez from JRDG in answer to a question I had for him in the past. "The CN I and CN II differ completely by power supply. The CN II has a much more powerful (50% more power) supply and therefore has much better control and power into low frequencies. It also has a separate front end supply that allows the unit to dedicate more power to large transients and make the CN II much more dynamic. High frequency distortion was reduced quite a bit with the second generation unit as well, so it has a much more open and extended high frequency response." |
This is the thread I was referring to. Take it for what it's worth. |
I'll be surprised if any company especially one with the reputation like JRDG, releasing a product like the Concentra II, poorer in overall quality that the previous version. I participated in the earlier thread which Onhwy61 was refering and did not even bother to reply to the person. Obviously, the truth is in the listening and you'll see most positive comments on the Concentra some going to the extent that its one of the best Integrated amp's around. You'll also see positive press from Absolute sound and it was very well rated by them. As far as I understand JRDG is not in the habit of building too much hype around its products nor getting extensive reviews of their products. However, you will still ee a lot of interest and with the recent range of 201, 501 and Concerto amps, prices have become more attractive |
I currently have or have owned JRDG Coherence preamp, Model 1 amp, Model 112 amp and Concentra I integrated. I think their products are wonderful and with the exception of the preamp bulletproof. The negative comments stated in the post I referenced do not reflect my opinion, but the opinion of someone else. My opinion on the difference in sound between the integrateds is based upon my experiences with the 112 (which according to Rowland is essentially the same amp as in the Concentra II) and the Concentra. Both are high current designs that with normal loads sound very similar except in the treble where the differences are easily heard, but not of an extreme nature. |
I've spent a fair amount of time at my dealer comparing the mega $$$ system of an all MBL monster amp setup and still prefered the Rowlands. I found them comparitively quieter and warmer than MBL although the MBL's possess the brute strength to drive the very inefficient 101E or 111B omni's. Whilst, awaiting the arrival of my Rowland 201 there was a stage whereby I used the Concentra II to drive my 111B (sensitivity 81db) and they certainly held their own under normal loads. Things only started to come apart with complicated Orchestral, choral and some jazz pieces whereby you could sense the amp could not keep up, the base lost its impact. With standard vocal and instrumental I could not discern too much of a problem. Of course, the new range of Rowland amp's (501 and 201's) IMO can certainly tame the beast and what I got now is still the Concentra II and 201 in a bi-amp setup. I've had offer to buy over my concentra II but they're here to stay. Onhwy61, in my haste it seems my reply may have given the impression that you were the owner of the negative comments, no offence intended :-) |
