Agree with Pause 100%.
I would like to add that I used a 102 amp with a lesser pre (an Arcam Solo with internal amp, bypassed to the 102; dumb setup). The sound was nice, but perhaps a little too velvety. Highs were rolled off considerably and bass was tight but lacked punch.
When I replaced the Arcam with the Capri, it opened up a whole new sound. The velvety qualities remained to some extent, but the highs became much sweeter and crispier, and the bass gained considerable authority.
Having listened to little else, I am no expert, but I can say that the synergy between the Capri and the 102 is superb.
I had an email discussion with another member about the Rowland 102 vs. the Bel Canto S300. The fellow had moved from the 102 to the BC, claiming the Rowland was too laid back. I suspect his preamp was the culprit. With the Capri, I'd call the sound anything but laid back.
I would like to add that I used a 102 amp with a lesser pre (an Arcam Solo with internal amp, bypassed to the 102; dumb setup). The sound was nice, but perhaps a little too velvety. Highs were rolled off considerably and bass was tight but lacked punch.
When I replaced the Arcam with the Capri, it opened up a whole new sound. The velvety qualities remained to some extent, but the highs became much sweeter and crispier, and the bass gained considerable authority.
Having listened to little else, I am no expert, but I can say that the synergy between the Capri and the 102 is superb.
I had an email discussion with another member about the Rowland 102 vs. the Bel Canto S300. The fellow had moved from the 102 to the BC, claiming the Rowland was too laid back. I suspect his preamp was the culprit. With the Capri, I'd call the sound anything but laid back.