Rowland 302 v. Krell 400CX

I would be interested in learning more about these amps from a technical standpoint. I was unable to find out more beyond what was posted on the Rowland site.

Jfz what other amps did you try with your Rockports? (you said the 302 was the "best - by far", that's quite a statement, wouldn't you agree?)

As other audiogoner may already know, I abhor the use of terms such as "best" or "worst" as I don't believe such absolutes actually exist.

Also I noticed that the frequency response for the Rowland is stated as 5 - 60 kHz +/- 3 dB while the frequency reposne of the Krell is stated at 0.1 - 240 kHz + 0 dB/- 3.0 dB.

So while I agree that specs don't tell the whole so- called "musical" story, at least from an electrical design standpoint, "digital" IEC or otherwise clearly Krell is superior on several fronts. Also, I have yet to see anyone credibly argue that Krells specs are other than conservative. (NOTE: I did not, nor will I ever, say that Krell is "best").

I have currently in my system the new Theta Gen VIII DAC/pre-amp, Cary CD 306/200 (which I now use only as a transport!)
I have ProAc Future II using Wireworld Gold Eclipse all the way around. I had the 400CX in my system for about a week, before i hooked up the JRDG series 201 mono-amps. I was shocked! In my system, they blew away the Krell's in a way I did not thought possible. They brought so much more feel to the music. The Krell's sounded rigid and without soul and involvement. Yes, the 400 CX is a great amp. But it was not to my liking. I learned long ago not to pay to much attention to specs and numbers. In my opinion you should try them out as soon as possible. Don't worry to much about Ohm loads. Best of luck!

Sean Metcalf

Stevecham: Rowland Model 10, Pass Labs X-150 & X-350, Sierra Denali, Symfonia Opus 10, Parasound JC-1s, Gryphon mono amps (sorry, I don't remember the model designation), Mark Levinson 334 & 336.

I'd like to also clear something up: I did not say the 302 was the "best". I said it was the best amp that *I* had ever heard. There is, obviously, a big difference in the two statements. So, no, I don't agree with your characterization - I abhor "best" and "worst" when used as generalized absolutes as well.

Anybody have a chance to hear the 201's vs the 302's? I am interested and wondering if it would be worth the cost difference. Thanks.