2. amps-preamps
  3. 1252463942

In search of the right SS integrated amp

My audiophile friend Greg brought over new Accuphase pre and power amps, successfully demonstrated that my GamuT D3 / D200 Mark III (which have served well) are no longer state of the art. But in my high-rise apartment I’m spatially challenged; what I’d really like is a top quality integrated, 2 channel, solid state (tubes/valves are intimidating), with at least 2 pairs balanced (XLR) inputs (for phono stage, CDP). Nowadays, happily, such exist. Here are some I’ve read about:

TOP TIER (no obvious drawbacks)
-- Boulder 865 – generally admired, beautiful square wave (how often do I listen to square waves?)
-- Chord CPM 3350 – heard Chord system once, much impressed; M. Fremer critical, but of older model
-- Pass Labs INT-150 – right features; high praise, low price; can it really sound as good as the others?

SECOND TIER (sound reportedly all right, but with superfluous features like tone controls)
-- Accuphase E550 – should sound about as good as Greg’s two boxes
-- Burmester 032 – gorgeous cosmetics, but more expensive than others; maybe not worth it?

THIRD TIER (technically proficient, but found emotionally lacking by reviewers)
-- GamuT Si 100 – descendant of my present amplifiers
-- Jeff Rowland Continuum 500 – reviewer may have used unsuitable speakers

Grateful for any comparisons, comments, recommendations.
nwickend
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
The Boulder doesn't hold up in comparison to the Rowland Continuum 500, driving the same speakers. At RMAF, several of us heard the 2060 driving Vienna Acoustic Die Muzik speakers, pushed by a Boulder preamp and Boulder CDP. The Boulder had bloated bass that muddied the mids and left the highs dry and slightly acrid. The Rowland 312 was substituted and cleaned up the bass and added richness and detail to the mids and highs that was very apparent.

For grins, we then put the C-500 in the chain, fed directly by the Boulder CDP and it still maintained the bass control and interior richness.

In a separate room heard GamuT's large monoblocks driving their large, tower speakers. I preferred that sound to the Boulder driving Die Muziks, but since the system was completely different it hard to say, other than the GamuT is top tier and by no means behind Boulder.

I think this "tierage" concept is very flawed, but, if you're going to do it, then Rowland would not be a couple of tiers below the Boulder unit.

I disagree with Guido about the C500's break in time. It runs warm compared to most Class-D amps and seems fully broken in at around 200-hours.

For full disclosure, I DO own the C500, but most in the room for the Boulder/Rowland comparison owned neither.

You can fly to Soundings in Greenwood Village, CO and hear the Boulder and Rowland side-by-side for yourself. A Southwest Airlines, weekend fare ticket is a small price when considering an investment like this.

Dave
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
I defer to Dave on C500 break-in. . . he owns one, and I do not. I was with Dave and several other people at Soundings when C500 was contrasted with Boulder 2060 + 2010. . driving the big Vienna Die Muzick flagships. the impressions Dave reported above seemed to be shared by all and sundry. G.
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
Guido said:
"the impressions Dave reported above seemed to be shared by all and sundry."

Particularly the "sundry." Notice that G is keeping his mouth shut, ever the cautious reviewer. I have no "standards" to live up to, so I say what I heard.

Dave
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Please do check out the CJ CA200; it has ended my search for the ideal integrated.
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
I've got a CJ CA200, which is very good, but not in the league with the Rowland C500, the Boulder stereo and the GamuT mono-blocks that I heard.

It's much less expensive and a very good value. It's got a slightly "golden" sound, it's not quite as deeply quiet and not as dynamic (understandable given the lesser power). The degree of difference at this level is very small.

Dave
More to discover