New Roland Continuum 250 vs. Simaudio I-7

Well, of course, Mrt would indeed likely prefer the warmer, thicker sounding of the CA-200 to the Rowland. I have to agree with you 100% on this one, Bill.

However, I do think, in this case it's not a system dependancy, it's an absolute difference, with the CJ having a sonic signature that strikes you immediately when you insert in almost any revealing system. Tie that to MrT's proclivity for euphonic warmth and you're led to the CJ.

Dave

Hi Dave, I have no doubt that the Rowland is a great integrated. and I have no problem with you prefering it to the c-j. You have heard both the Rowland and the c-j so obviously your opinion has merit.

I wouldn't describe the CA200's sound as warm and thick though. I find that audiophiles sometimes describe small differences as if they were huge. The reviewer at EnjoytheMusic described what you hear as thick and warm this way:

"the ultra-suave CA200 also has a deft and delicate touch with detail, space and percussion, and all without throwing brittle sheets of metal at your ears."

I can see that you are describing the same sound, but you have a more extreme description of that sound. I think the Rowland is probably more "neutral" than the c-j, but I don't think the c-j is so colored that most would find it objectionable. I don't want to change your opinion, I just thought Hessec might want to check out another option.

I just bought a CA200 (less than two days ago), and first impression is very positive.
Tried a long time ago and did not like Bow Wazoo and ML 383.

Tomcy6, your point is well taken. The sonic signature of the C-J is clear and it does strike you in the face on the first listen, BUT it doesn't cover the details, so the signature fades from the consciousness with long-term listening. Going from Rowland, Bryston or even Krell, you'll hear it immediately. It's not so smooth and round as some amps that would obscure details. You can read my review elsewhere on A'gon to see that I was quite taken with its detail.

Dave