Hi Andrew, on M625 and M725 the ball-footers are machined from Delrin blanks... Has this changed on M925? G.
Rowland M925 - The amplifier saga continues
- Thread starter AMP
- Start date
Rather than give a blow-by-blow of my progress with the 925s to date I'll try and characterize what they do.
Overall they appear to be pretty neutral with maybe a slight hint of warmth through the midrange. I really don't have anything to directly compare them to so this is more of a hunch based on my acoustic memory than any specific trait that I can point to. There definitely isn't any pronounced coloration through the audioband, but based on the richness of some instruments (violin especially) they do appear to be voiced more on the pleasant side than on the analytical.
Resolution is incredible, and likely the best I've ever EVER heard from any amp in any setting. If the front end is capable of pulling the information from the recording and the speakers a capable of reproducing it then the 925s aren't going to get in the way. I can't tell you how many times over the past couple of days I've been floored by some minute detail that I've never heard before. I'm not talking about musicians shuffling pages in the score or the soloist's movements causing the stage floor to creak a little. Yeah, you can hear all of that stuff, but the real payoff is in all of the musical details that are often lost in reproduction. The slightest intonations and variations, the soloist turning away from the microphone, the minor melody lost in the sea of the orchestra, the decay, the silence... it's all there. It's not pushed forward or emphasized nor is the presentation etched, it's just more information for the listener to explore. In a complex piece of music its easy to get lost in these little details and have a completely different listening experience as if you're listening to the performance for the first time.
As to be expected given the resolution the noise floor is extremely low. I read somewhere (might have been the Corus manual) that when the Corus is paired with "certain" Rowland amps the signal-to-noise ratio exceeds 140db. Based on the performance of my system I completely believe it. There is simply no noise beyond what's built into the recording itself and at idle there is nothing coming from the speakers. In listening I'm getting much more information about the recording venue with clearly defined echos and reproduction of reverberation. Decay from percussion instruments is incredible and I've never heard cymbals sound like this through my system.
Along with all of this comes a harmonic "rightness" which is giving instruments and vocalists a very textured and realistic sound. There's no embellishment and no emphasis of one aspect of the harmonic structure over another. Fortunately this textural richness doesn't come at the expense of transient speed and these are easily as "fast" any of the other top amplifiers I've heard.
The more that I listed the more I come to realize that they are going to take a long time to break in. Although they have improved considerably over their state in the first few hours there's still a long way to go. Right now there's a bit of shrillness on top (piccolos are especially bright) but this effect is diminishing with time. I've also noted a bit of dynamic congestion during complex orchestral passages. This is also diminishing, but at a slower rate. Neither effect is offensive nor unfamiliar with the break-in of a new component.
So far I'm very pleased with their performance and I look forward to getting to know them better over the coming weeks. So far I have only one real complaint about them and that is that the front panel LEDs are just too damned bright. With the lights off in the listening room there's an eerie white glow coming from the far side of the room.
The real surprise for me is the performance of the Aeris DAC. I've been feeding it from the coax output of the Wadia 571 and switching between it and the Wadia 9 series. Although the Wadia has a slight edge in resolution (very slight) the Aeris is matching it in every other parameter and even exceeding it in a few. Most notably the Aeris seems to have a much more pronounced rhythmic drive to it and with that it's a lot of fun to listen to. Given the cost delta between the two I'm seriously considering switching and walking away with some extra cash in my pocket.... and a lot of free space in my rack.
Overall they appear to be pretty neutral with maybe a slight hint of warmth through the midrange. I really don't have anything to directly compare them to so this is more of a hunch based on my acoustic memory than any specific trait that I can point to. There definitely isn't any pronounced coloration through the audioband, but based on the richness of some instruments (violin especially) they do appear to be voiced more on the pleasant side than on the analytical.
Resolution is incredible, and likely the best I've ever EVER heard from any amp in any setting. If the front end is capable of pulling the information from the recording and the speakers a capable of reproducing it then the 925s aren't going to get in the way. I can't tell you how many times over the past couple of days I've been floored by some minute detail that I've never heard before. I'm not talking about musicians shuffling pages in the score or the soloist's movements causing the stage floor to creak a little. Yeah, you can hear all of that stuff, but the real payoff is in all of the musical details that are often lost in reproduction. The slightest intonations and variations, the soloist turning away from the microphone, the minor melody lost in the sea of the orchestra, the decay, the silence... it's all there. It's not pushed forward or emphasized nor is the presentation etched, it's just more information for the listener to explore. In a complex piece of music its easy to get lost in these little details and have a completely different listening experience as if you're listening to the performance for the first time.
As to be expected given the resolution the noise floor is extremely low. I read somewhere (might have been the Corus manual) that when the Corus is paired with "certain" Rowland amps the signal-to-noise ratio exceeds 140db. Based on the performance of my system I completely believe it. There is simply no noise beyond what's built into the recording itself and at idle there is nothing coming from the speakers. In listening I'm getting much more information about the recording venue with clearly defined echos and reproduction of reverberation. Decay from percussion instruments is incredible and I've never heard cymbals sound like this through my system.
Along with all of this comes a harmonic "rightness" which is giving instruments and vocalists a very textured and realistic sound. There's no embellishment and no emphasis of one aspect of the harmonic structure over another. Fortunately this textural richness doesn't come at the expense of transient speed and these are easily as "fast" any of the other top amplifiers I've heard.
The more that I listed the more I come to realize that they are going to take a long time to break in. Although they have improved considerably over their state in the first few hours there's still a long way to go. Right now there's a bit of shrillness on top (piccolos are especially bright) but this effect is diminishing with time. I've also noted a bit of dynamic congestion during complex orchestral passages. This is also diminishing, but at a slower rate. Neither effect is offensive nor unfamiliar with the break-in of a new component.
So far I'm very pleased with their performance and I look forward to getting to know them better over the coming weeks. So far I have only one real complaint about them and that is that the front panel LEDs are just too damned bright. With the lights off in the listening room there's an eerie white glow coming from the far side of the room.
The real surprise for me is the performance of the Aeris DAC. I've been feeding it from the coax output of the Wadia 571 and switching between it and the Wadia 9 series. Although the Wadia has a slight edge in resolution (very slight) the Aeris is matching it in every other parameter and even exceeding it in a few. Most notably the Aeris seems to have a much more pronounced rhythmic drive to it and with that it's a lot of fun to listen to. Given the cost delta between the two I'm seriously considering switching and walking away with some extra cash in my pocket.... and a lot of free space in my rack.
I'm not sure if I can answer this yet for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I haven't had the Boulder since the first week of January. The 925s are really good and I think that the differences between them and the 2060 are minimal. Based on my limited experience with the 925s to date and my memory of the Boulder 2060:
Resolution - I think this is a toss-up between the two. The Rowland may have better harmonic resolution while the Boulder may have better dynamic resolution.
Color - Both are very neutral, but I think that the Boulder may have been slightly warmer than the 925s. Overall, though, this is going to be more of an issue of personal taste than anything.
Power - Boulder has the edge here (and about 170Wpc more power). The 925s have plenty of power, but the Boulder gave more of an impression of infinite reserves on tap. My feeling here may change as the 925s further run in.
Soundstage - Both are pretty much equal here and both presented a wall of sound that started a couple of feet in front of the speakers and expanded well beyond the room boundaries. The 925s do seem to have better overall depth and layering. In some cases I'm hearing instruments well in front of "the wall" and off to either side... almost to the point of being directly to the left or right of me.
Ergonomics, usability, cosmetics - I love the cosmetics of both pieces for different reasons. Both are built like tanks, but the finish on the 925s is far more fragile and they must be handled with extreme care. Overall they weigh almost the same ~300lbs total, but the 4 chassis of the 925 are far easier to manage. The depth of the Boulder was a slight problem in my room as with the power cable attached the minimum distance from the faceplate to the front wall was almost 3 feet. Neither the Boulder nor the 925s give off much heat at all.... so overall, it's a toss-up here. I wouldn't kick either one out of the house.
To sum up... at this point in time... I think that the Boulder is a powerhouse amp which is capable of being very delicate and complex. The Rowland is more nuanced and possibly even more interesting with the ability to swing a fair amount of power as needed. Both approaches are perfectly valid and I'm quite fond of both of them.
I'm sure the feet are the same, but I always thought of delrin as being a softer material... more like nylon.
I'm going to have a set of amp stands built up for them and I'm seriously considering requesting matching divots in the top of the amp stand
In the past I had a GNSC-modified 861 and really enjoyed it as it was a significant improvement over the stock player. When I purchased the S7i I looked into a GNSC mod, but by that time Steve was only working on players which were sold by him so I wasn't able to go down that path. Too bad as what I've heard from several sources is that the modified S7i takes it up to (and some say beyond) the performance level of the Series 9.
In my case the S7i was the perfect player for me, but after moving to the Levinson 53s I started to notice a bit of grain and glare from it. Not sure if it was the amps or the player I borrowed the S9 from my dealer and never gave it back. In that situation I viewed it as a worthwhile investment, but in retrospect I should have looked at the other options out there; especially given the advances in DAC design in the past few years.
The S9 is still an amazing piece, and easily one of the best digital front-ends out there, but as technology marches forward there are a number of lower-cost designs that are catching up quickly (Bricasti, Rowland, Calyx, etc). The Aeris is somewhat unique in that it's truly a "clean sheet of paper" design. Rather than build on what's always been done in the past Jeff and Thomas started over with a novel approach using a simple circuit driven by complex software instead of the more common high-parts-count brute force approach.
For a bit of info on Aeris clean slate design mentioned by Andrew, see the more technical entries in the Rowland Knowledge Base starting at:
http://jeffrowlandgroup.com/kb/categories.php?categoryid=205
G.
http://jeffrowlandgroup.com/kb/categories.php?categoryid=205
G.
After a brief conversation with Jeff yesterday I was able to dim the front panel LEDs using an internal switch. It made a huge difference, but I may end up turning them off completely.
I've continued playing music through them 24/7 and they continue to open up. Last night I re-played a couple of the discs from my first session and the improvements are striking. Bass response has filled in significantly and now matches what I remember having with the Boulder 2060. Highs have become slightly more extended and are smoothing out nicely. Detail retrieval remains some of the best I've heard both in the quantity and quality of information conveyed.
As I try different music I'm starting to notice some differences between the 925s and the amps that preceded them. Last night I played "Know What I Mean" by Cannonball Adderly and Bill Evans. With the Boulder and, to a lesser extent, the Levinsons Adderly's sax was very prominent with a huge amount of energy behind it which gave the impression of him being pushed into the room. This was always a very entertaining effect and always made this a pleasurable recording to play. With the 925s the sax is much more reserved and more balanced with the other performers. At first I was disappointed with this, but after listening to a couple of tracks I realized that I was getting so much more musical enjoyment from what I was hearing. The sax had weight and body with great texture and I ended up with a much better appreciation of the interplay between Adderly and Evans. I ended up listening to the entire disc twice!
The Boulder seemed to launch the musicians into the room with a great sense of realism. The 925s opened a view into the studio so that the entire event could be appreciated.
The last recording I played was the Reiner/CSO Scheherazade which is a perennial favorite of mine. I've always found the last movement to be a torture test for a system due to its mix of frequency content, dynamic swings, and overall energy. The 925s delivered a jaw-dropping reproduction of it and one of the most eye-opening listening experiences I've ever had. All of the typical audiophile stuff (soundstaging, imaging, etc) became irrelevant and I became completely immersed in the music. Instead of trying to translate what I was hearing into an orchestra playing in front of me I was able to immerse myself in the mental image and story that the artists were trying to convey. When the track finished I was both exhilarated and worn out.
As I was reflecting on what I experienced I realized that with a live performance I'm focused on the musical event and the emotional connection that brings with it. I'm not concerned with any of the technical details that we audiophiles tend to get mired in. With the 925s I'm finding that my system is allowing me to focus more (if not solely) on the musical event and experience without feeling compelled to worry about the performance of the stereo itself (or whether or not the violins are far enough to the left). I may be stumbling onto my own personal definition of the absolute sound.
I've continued playing music through them 24/7 and they continue to open up. Last night I re-played a couple of the discs from my first session and the improvements are striking. Bass response has filled in significantly and now matches what I remember having with the Boulder 2060. Highs have become slightly more extended and are smoothing out nicely. Detail retrieval remains some of the best I've heard both in the quantity and quality of information conveyed.
As I try different music I'm starting to notice some differences between the 925s and the amps that preceded them. Last night I played "Know What I Mean" by Cannonball Adderly and Bill Evans. With the Boulder and, to a lesser extent, the Levinsons Adderly's sax was very prominent with a huge amount of energy behind it which gave the impression of him being pushed into the room. This was always a very entertaining effect and always made this a pleasurable recording to play. With the 925s the sax is much more reserved and more balanced with the other performers. At first I was disappointed with this, but after listening to a couple of tracks I realized that I was getting so much more musical enjoyment from what I was hearing. The sax had weight and body with great texture and I ended up with a much better appreciation of the interplay between Adderly and Evans. I ended up listening to the entire disc twice!
The Boulder seemed to launch the musicians into the room with a great sense of realism. The 925s opened a view into the studio so that the entire event could be appreciated.
The last recording I played was the Reiner/CSO Scheherazade which is a perennial favorite of mine. I've always found the last movement to be a torture test for a system due to its mix of frequency content, dynamic swings, and overall energy. The 925s delivered a jaw-dropping reproduction of it and one of the most eye-opening listening experiences I've ever had. All of the typical audiophile stuff (soundstaging, imaging, etc) became irrelevant and I became completely immersed in the music. Instead of trying to translate what I was hearing into an orchestra playing in front of me I was able to immerse myself in the mental image and story that the artists were trying to convey. When the track finished I was both exhilarated and worn out.
As I was reflecting on what I experienced I realized that with a live performance I'm focused on the musical event and the emotional connection that brings with it. I'm not concerned with any of the technical details that we audiophiles tend to get mired in. With the 925s I'm finding that my system is allowing me to focus more (if not solely) on the musical event and experience without feeling compelled to worry about the performance of the stereo itself (or whether or not the violins are far enough to the left). I may be stumbling onto my own personal definition of the absolute sound.
Congratulations Andrews, I am also a big JRDG fan and have owned many of their old versions - and what you are describing is precisely the Rowland "house-sound" (Guido will surely second me here ). I think you need at least another week or two to go regarding the break-in period in order to start building your final impressions on the amps. I agree with DaveyF, these are one of the best amps around for sure!
). I think you need at least another week or two to go regarding the break-in period in order to start building your final impressions on the amps. I agree with DaveyF, these are one of the best amps around for sure!Congratulations Andrews, I am also a big JRDG fan and have owned many of their old versions - and what you are describing is precisely the Rowland "house-sound" (Guido will surely second me here
Indeed the Rowland house sound is alive and well, but in a MUCH more sophisticated form than it ever was in the past. Simply stunning.
As for break-in I think that this is going to be a long process and Jeff has predicted 500 - 1200 hours before its completely cooked. I can't say that I care though... if these stops along the journey are any indication of the final destination I really don't care how long it takes to get there.
Sounds like a stunning amp...you are in vaunted company with the Boulder 2060 which I have heard and nearly went after myself. Congrats...and enjoy the ride. Sounds like you're in for a real treat post-burn in. Look forward to continuing to read as you do this. Sounds like 2 months even if you go 24/7?
Yeah, although I'm guessing that they'll be mostly cooked after about 500 hours. Apparently the input transformers take the most time to run in and with those I can play signal through them with the amps off. I'll probably wait a few weeks and then start running a burn in cd at full volume with the amps off. Corus takes even longer to finish so this will be good for both.
My own M925 pair will arrive in about 6 weeks... I asked the factory to delay shipment for a spell... Between a new review project starting this weekend, plus having just started to work again full time, my hands are more than cheerily full.
This means that, by the time I get my M925s, Andrew will have been able to report on his by then fully broken-in pair.
Saluti, G.
This means that, by the time I get my M925s, Andrew will have been able to report on his by then fully broken-in pair.
Saluti, G.
The 925s have about 215 hours on them now and ever since the 100 hour mark I've been languishing in the "terrible twos" of component break-in. Sonically they are showing some wild variations from jaw-dropping to "meh." I can't say I'm surprised as I've been through this before but as with any proud parent I'm hoping that this phase doesn't last too long
All of the positive attributes are still present -- incredible detail, extension, and authority without a hint of grain -- but there's a certain amount of congestion and lack of composure at times. This seems completely random and in playing the same piece of music at different times it's like listening to different performances. I'm not especially concerned, but I would like to have this part of the process completed sooner rather than later. As I won't have much time for concentrated listening for another week I'm hoping that next weekend will show a better hint of what the final result will be.
It doesn't help that the Corus has a notoriously long break-in cycle as well with much of what I'm hearing likely a result of that piece settling in.
Yesterday I switched my dedicated circuit for the amps from 120V to 240V and found this change to bring about a greater sense of ease and possibly a bit more clarity across the audio band. This is my first time running an amplifier at 240V so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I'll likely leave them this way as the result appears to be all improvement with no drawback as far as I can tell.
All of the positive attributes are still present -- incredible detail, extension, and authority without a hint of grain -- but there's a certain amount of congestion and lack of composure at times. This seems completely random and in playing the same piece of music at different times it's like listening to different performances. I'm not especially concerned, but I would like to have this part of the process completed sooner rather than later. As I won't have much time for concentrated listening for another week I'm hoping that next weekend will show a better hint of what the final result will be.
It doesn't help that the Corus has a notoriously long break-in cycle as well with much of what I'm hearing likely a result of that piece settling in.
Yesterday I switched my dedicated circuit for the amps from 120V to 240V and found this change to bring about a greater sense of ease and possibly a bit more clarity across the audio band. This is my first time running an amplifier at 240V so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I'll likely leave them this way as the result appears to be all improvement with no drawback as far as I can tell.
I am running in my pair of 925 as well with my existing Criterion. All the wiring is unchanged, just replacement of my old 625 with the new amp. However, it was customerly of me to check the set up with the Stereophile test CD. I found the tracks for in phase and out of phase are reversed. After rechecking all the wiring as well as the hot pin postition of all the components involved, it was still the same. It goes back to normal for the two tracks when the dealer brought me a pair of 102 just to make sure of all the settings. Could someone enlighten me with this phenomenon please.
It is a great sounding amp, one noticed the big difference between the 925 and the 625 right away. Refinement and power come to mind immediately. I have run the 925 for about 150 hours and still notice some congestion in complicated orchestral passages and lower positioning of the instruments, but this is improving everyday.
It is a great sounding amp, one noticed the big difference between the 925 and the 625 right away. Refinement and power come to mind immediately. I have run the 925 for about 150 hours and still notice some congestion in complicated orchestral passages and lower positioning of the instruments, but this is improving everyday.
Hi BKwan, on the subject of break-in time, we are still in unchartered territory because the device is so new. Mr. Rowland suspects that it might take up to 1200 hours for M925 to stabilize.
On your question about M925 outputs possibly being out of phase, I have sent an inquiry to the factory... Will let you know the response.
Guido
On your question about M925 outputs possibly being out of phase, I have sent an inquiry to the factory... Will let you know the response.
Guido
Hi BKwan, I have just contacted the JRDG factory about your apparent out of phase issue. They recommend that you contact them directly so that Jeff can look into the symptoms. I have sent you a PM with instructions and contact information.
Best, G.
Best, G.
The 925s continue to break-in and I'm pleased to report that the wild fluctuations in sonics abated toward the middle of last week. Their performance is much more consistent now and I'm finally starting to get a handle on what these amps sound like.
The current odometer is sitting at about 400 hours.
At this point they are opening up and I'm starting to see an increase in soundstage dimensions (especially height and depth) as well as more locked-in localization of instruments and performers. The very low noise floor and continues to be a welcome feature and this is allowing me to hear further into my recordings. I'm discovering a wealth of detail that I've either never heard before or am hearing more clearly now. Combine all of this with a sound that is becoming more fleshed out and I'm quite pleased with all of the audiophile metrics.
These still remain the most grain and glare free solid state amplifiers that I've ever used and that has resulted in absolutely fatigue-free listening sessions.
I'm still not sure where they'll end up when they're fully cooked and only time will tell. At this point I simply can't fault their performance at all and its going to come down to whether or not their particular flavor is to my liking. Right now I'm really missing the more energetic and slightly more forward presentation of the Boulder 2060 / 2010 combo, but there's nothing to say that either sonic signature is more "right" than the other.
The current odometer is sitting at about 400 hours.
At this point they are opening up and I'm starting to see an increase in soundstage dimensions (especially height and depth) as well as more locked-in localization of instruments and performers. The very low noise floor and continues to be a welcome feature and this is allowing me to hear further into my recordings. I'm discovering a wealth of detail that I've either never heard before or am hearing more clearly now. Combine all of this with a sound that is becoming more fleshed out and I'm quite pleased with all of the audiophile metrics.
These still remain the most grain and glare free solid state amplifiers that I've ever used and that has resulted in absolutely fatigue-free listening sessions.
I'm still not sure where they'll end up when they're fully cooked and only time will tell. At this point I simply can't fault their performance at all and its going to come down to whether or not their particular flavor is to my liking. Right now I'm really missing the more energetic and slightly more forward presentation of the Boulder 2060 / 2010 combo, but there's nothing to say that either sonic signature is more "right" than the other.
Similar threads
