Why is there so much Rowland gear for sale?

Taters, so what stuff do you think is better than Roland in the same price area, that doesn't look as good but sounds way better? The Roland stuff is not followed closely by Stereophile (they rarely review it and thus don't put in the recommended components) but many rather qualified people feel it is some of the best equipment out there

I admit it, I'm a JRDG fan. I've owned the Coherence II preamp (the early 90s version), a Model 1 power amp, a Concentra integrated and a Model 112 power amp. All were purchased used or demo. Besides the great looks and build quality, Rowland has a wonderful sonic presentation. It always favors the musical performance over the hi-fi details. At some of the prices listed they're a bargain. Is there better sounding equipment out there? Of course, but there's always a faster gun (so to speak).

GamuT D200 or Herron 150 monoblock both for around $5K IMHO is better than any Rowland amps.

People are selling because of the economy. Just wish I have a lot of $$$ to pick up some of the good deals here.

As for Taters' comments, this is an mature oriented forum. When you make such statements of Rowland products, or any products in general, you should state facts supporting your point of view. Some or most may disagree with your personal taste, but at least they will still respect your opinion. Stating claims about a product being bad without supporting evidents is just not classy.

3chihuahuas, all the Roland guys and gals are lucky thats all he said. If the post would have been Krell (which I own) people would be crawling out of the woodwork to tell us how brite our amps sound. Heck, this mite even do it. I wish I had a dollar every time someone told a Krell owner how brite and dry his amps must sound. I have even read stories were people had to run out of the showroom it was so bad. Well I just thought I would bring this up so the Roland people would feel a little better, gotta get back to my brite system.