Rowland 8t in for audition

[docvale]

... M201 has no claims to being a reference product. Rather, it was JRDG first ICEpower amp .... Hence I am not at all surprised if you much prefer 8T over M201....

Unfortunately I've never listened to neither the old school JRDG nor the most recent 623.
Instead, I've listened a number of times to the Capri+201 combination and I was disappointed by the sound. Not objectively bad, but a side by side comparison with the Copland CTA405 (which I then purchased) had the Danish a clear winner. And the speakers were B&W 804S, which, theoretically, should had favored a SS design.
In the end, the 201 was just a Rotel in a luxury case.

A more interesting comparison within the JRDG product line may be 8T versus M312--M312 being the most mature and state-of-the art stereo amp of that company's ICEpower phase.

How does the 312 differ from a 201 (apart of stereo vs mono and the power difference)? The two IcePower modules in the 312 looked the same as the ones in the 201...
In any case, a reference product which is essentially composed of a circuit conceived and produced by third parts is not my cup of tea, rigorously IMHO

 

[DaveyF]

MEP, I agree with you about humm being annoying. That is one of the parameters that were no longer a concerned after selling my 1987 golden sounding Rowland 7M, whose low level humm came and went at will, in favor of current technology that I found to be dead quiet. The original M8 design, released in 1992, may have been suffering from similar issues. I guess that after 20 or 25 years, golden nostalgia may be enjoyed only at some "cost". I have not heard humm emitted from newer ML or JRDG equipment, but have occasionally experienced at RMAF a few amplifiers--mostly tubed--humming lustily, sounding like Buddhist monks throat-singing a mantra in some Tibetan monastry. Apparently that was part of their particular "mystique", or so I was told by the reps. G.

I too agree that hum is a bane. Luckily, my 8 has low enough hum that once the music starts to play, you cannot notice it. OTOH, a dead quiet amp would certainly be a better situation, IF the amp overall sounded better. Therein lies the rub, because like Jeff told me, when he changed the power supply to remove the hum issue, he also in some ways threw out the baby with the bathwater.
I have heard all of the various itinerations of the model 8 and IMHO, the original choke power supply model sounds better than the later T version all the way up to the Ti model. The high current version does have very slightly more dynamics. The battery power supplies that Jeff used with these amps was IMO a disaster, sounding slow and non-dynamic, even though I heard none of the dreaded hum.

 

[clab]

How does the 312 differ from a 201 (apart of stereo vs mono and the power difference)

the 312 has, among other differences, 2 built in PFC (Power Factor Control Units) ... it makes a huge difference !
the 312 is absolutely great sounding (perfect control, dead silent, sweet sounding like tube, high resolving ...)
I have heard it on different models of Avalon & Magnepan but ... the 625 is even better !

 

[flez007]

Hi clab - did you have the chance to compare it to other amps prior deciding for the 312?

 

[GuidoCorona]

You are right on Clad! The PFC based rectifiers make a huge difference in the M312 sound. It is my understanding that they may be the biggest reason why M312 sounds emotionally involving, while the M501 monos, that use exactly the same 1000 ASP modules, well.... do not sound very emotional instead. Needless to say, M201, which use the less powerful 500 ASP modules also lack PFC rectification, and it's easy to tell when you listen to them. Furthermore, M201 monos have the uncanning ability of running out of steem when music gets a bit dynamic on the modest MagnePan 1.6.... Conversely, M312, seem to deliver high authority on my Vienna Mahlers and Die Muzik. The M625 (original version) is as involving as M312, but has even greater harmonic refinement, controlled pitched extension at both top and bottom, and even better control of treble intermodulation. However, it delivers a slightly smaller stereophonic image, and yielding only 330W per channel over 8 Ohms instead of 500W, it can occasionally give the impression of "working for living" in extremely dynamic orchestral passages. I have noticed, in some situations, M312 may give the impression of "greater space" between instrumental images.... You can tell the difference in the string solos towards the end of the 2nd movement of Dvorak's 9th Symphony conducted by Bernstein with the Israel Phylharmonic. In general I however prefer the presentation of M625 over M312. It is my understanding that the M625 update addresses the minor transparency issue, while the M725 monos, with a 1500W PFC unit on each monoblock should generate even greater authority than M312.

 

[clab]

Hi flez007

I don't have the 312 ... I had no chance to compare it to older models like 8 or 9 from Jeff Rowlands

On the same system I could only compare it to the 625, the Ayre amp V-5X (harder and dryer) and Hovland Radia.

 

[flez007]

Hi flez007

I don't have the 312 ... I had no chance to compare it to older models like 8 or 9 from Jeff Rowlands

On the same system I could only compare it to the 625, the Ayre amp V-5X (harder and dryer) and Hovland Radia.

..and which one you liked the most?

 

[hongkongfoufou]

the 312 has, among other differences, 2 built in PFC (Power Factor Control Units) ... it makes a huge difference !
the 312 is absolutely great sounding (perfect control, dead silent, sweet sounding like tube, high resolving ...)
I have heard it on different models of Avalon & Magnepan but ... the 625 is even better !

I have Magnepan 3.7i with Jeff Rowland Model 625... They are in synergy.