Thinking of buying a solid state amp


I will be moving soon, my BAT 150SE might not work in the new environment due to hotter weather and smaller listening room. My speakers (Aerial 20T) requires lots of power so I can't go BAT 75SE route, I have not found other tube amps physically smaller to sound anywhere as good as BAT either.

So I have two options. Buy a good solid state and sell my BAT. Usual suspects are Pass 350.5, Bryston 14B-SST, McIntosh 501, etc. Question is will I be happy with anyone of them coming from BAT?

My second option is to buy some class D like Bel Canto or Nuforce and keep my BAT to use during cooler days.

I will rather have 1 (or 1 pair) amp than 2, but will any of the above (other suggestions welcome) make a tube guy happy? In my 20+ years of audio journey, I have owned 10+ solid state amps but they never lasted over a couple months.

Pre amp is an Einstein.
semi

Showing 2 responses by glai

Luxman are priced different in asia and worth a look. I used to own Rowland 312 and x350.5. Knowing your taste, I doubt you'll like the 312.

I will miss a good listening buddy.
Guido,

We have spoken on the phone regarding your positive experience with the Rowland. Many thanks for taking the time to share your experience. I was waiting on a VAC for so long so I ended up taking the plunge.

The 312 has a crystalline transparent quality while being exceptionally coherent and smooth. Other switching amps I have previously owned includes the rowland 201, Nuforce 9se. The 312 is way better. The pass lab did not have quite have the same crystalline quality but displayed a richer tonal balance. In my previous system with Avalon Diamond speakers and ARC Ref 3, the pass was able to portray a wider tonal spectrum. The sound of the violin, viola, cello were more differentiated. The different horns were also more distinct. I tried the Rowland into my previous second system with quad 2805 and results are similar. When I played vinyl, the subtle differences between different instruments are lost and that is the deal breaker for me. An unexpected benefit from the Rowland was that background noise form the record is less apparent. I suspect that switching amps need filtering and during the implementation, something musical was lost or obscured. X350.5 and 312 are equally dynamic with 312 displaying tighter bass. Both lost out to the Boulder 1060 on bass and macrodynamics.

I really wanted to love the Rowland for efficiency, looks and long successful history of the company. Unlike some of the other posters, I have never had treble glare. It was just too smooth. I left it on for 6 month continuously with music playing most of the time and also tried different power cords.

I absolutely do not have great ears and yours are way more trained than mine. I took your advise and visited the Sounding Room with Rod at RMAF. It sounded better than thru my system. If others would attribute my less positive experience to lack of break in, synergy with preamp or speakers or lack of care in other areas, I can accept it. Different folks or different strokes.