jeff rowland 501 & 201 vs. bel canto ref1000

I once owned the BC Ref 1K MKI for over 6 months. At first, I was flabergasted by the thick and chunky midrange and the overall power. However, I found that soundstage was truncated and there was a lack of air on top. And while bass was strong, it didn't have the pacing and definition as well as startling factors I was looking for. So, I sold it and brought home a Nuforce MCH3SE to try and figured if it doesn't perform, it'll be put back on Agon for sale.

Long story short, the Nuforce stayed and has been so for over 1 year. My impression is that it presented a much bigger soundstage in size, breadth and depth. Clarity and instrumental separation as well as voices are on a different league entirely. There's plenty of air and sparkle at the top when available in the recording. Resolution was much enhanced through out the range. Bass has plenty of speed, definition and PRAT, etc... Midrange was layered, textured and clean but not lean--just the way I like it. Among others, the dynamic capability be it micro or macro is quite unbelievable. Overall, I didn't expect much of a change since they're both class D amps but boy was I wrong.

One caveat though, the Nuforce requires that you look at the rest of your systems for possible lack of synergy. If you're willing to pair them with cablings that's neutral or slightly to the warm side of neutral, then all is good. Also, component footers need not be the hard and spiky variety but perhaps something more neutral or warmish, then you'll get musical performances worthy of your time and investment. Like with all equipments, do the yin/yang balance right and you'll enjoy yourselves. However, with the Nuforce, it is much more so because it is a precision music making machine the requires that you calibrate the rest of your system up to its standard.

Just my take,

Kenobi

How broken in was the mk2 here? Surprising after reading the stereophile review and seeing the new specs!! How did midrange (vocals especially) compare?

>> How did midrange (vocals especially) compare?

The MK1 was slightly more transparent than the MK2 in the midrange, with the nod going to the MK1 for vocals.

The two amps are extremely close in performance. The MK2 had more extension on top by comparison, but the MK1 was a bit more compelling. There were some other differences, but nothing that suggested superior sonics per se. Again, though, the differences were subtle; both amps are great performers. I would have a very difficult time saying in absolute terms which was better.

One aspect worth mentioning about the MK2, however, is the difference in input impedance... The MK2 will be easier to mate with a wider variety of preamps (i.e., tube preamps). So, if you were looking to purchase Bel Canto Ref 1000 amps--and had a tube preamp--it would be a good idea to ensure that the amps and preamp would play well together.

Guido would have to tell you how broken in the MK2 was...

One of the Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 amps has just slightly over 500 hours on it, the other one had only 80 hours. Hence, I suspect that many of the issues . discussed above, may have to do with the very asymmetrical break in of the Mk.2 amps. I am inclined to suggest that unless we have Mk.1 and Mk.2 amps with very similar and hopefully complete break ins, and equally warmed up -- Mk.2 were definitely more warmed up than Mk.1s -- it is not possible for me to form an opinion. G.