Guido,
We have spoken on the phone regarding your positive experience with the Rowland. Many thanks for taking the time to share your experience. I was waiting on a VAC for so long so I ended up taking the plunge.
The 312 has a crystalline transparent quality while being exceptionally coherent and smooth. Other switching amps I have previously owned includes the rowland 201, Nuforce 9se. The 312 is way better. The pass lab did not have quite have the same crystalline quality but displayed a richer tonal balance. In my previous system with Avalon Diamond speakers and ARC Ref 3, the pass was able to portray a wider tonal spectrum. The sound of the violin, viola, cello were more differentiated. The different horns were also more distinct. I tried the Rowland into my previous second system with quad 2805 and results are similar. When I played vinyl, the subtle differences between different instruments are lost and that is the deal breaker for me. An unexpected benefit from the Rowland was that background noise form the record is less apparent. I suspect that switching amps need filtering and during the implementation, something musical was lost or obscured. X350.5 and 312 are equally dynamic with 312 displaying tighter bass. Both lost out to the Boulder 1060 on bass and macrodynamics.
I really wanted to love the Rowland for efficiency, looks and long successful history of the company. Unlike some of the other posters, I have never had treble glare. It was just too smooth. I left it on for 6 month continuously with music playing most of the time and also tried different power cords.
I absolutely do not have great ears and yours are way more trained than mine. I took your advise and visited the Sounding Room with Rod at RMAF. It sounded better than thru my system. If others would attribute my less positive experience to lack of break in, synergy with preamp or speakers or lack of care in other areas, I can accept it. Different folks or different strokes.
We have spoken on the phone regarding your positive experience with the Rowland. Many thanks for taking the time to share your experience. I was waiting on a VAC for so long so I ended up taking the plunge.
The 312 has a crystalline transparent quality while being exceptionally coherent and smooth. Other switching amps I have previously owned includes the rowland 201, Nuforce 9se. The 312 is way better. The pass lab did not have quite have the same crystalline quality but displayed a richer tonal balance. In my previous system with Avalon Diamond speakers and ARC Ref 3, the pass was able to portray a wider tonal spectrum. The sound of the violin, viola, cello were more differentiated. The different horns were also more distinct. I tried the Rowland into my previous second system with quad 2805 and results are similar. When I played vinyl, the subtle differences between different instruments are lost and that is the deal breaker for me. An unexpected benefit from the Rowland was that background noise form the record is less apparent. I suspect that switching amps need filtering and during the implementation, something musical was lost or obscured. X350.5 and 312 are equally dynamic with 312 displaying tighter bass. Both lost out to the Boulder 1060 on bass and macrodynamics.
I really wanted to love the Rowland for efficiency, looks and long successful history of the company. Unlike some of the other posters, I have never had treble glare. It was just too smooth. I left it on for 6 month continuously with music playing most of the time and also tried different power cords.
I absolutely do not have great ears and yours are way more trained than mine. I took your advise and visited the Sounding Room with Rod at RMAF. It sounded better than thru my system. If others would attribute my less positive experience to lack of break in, synergy with preamp or speakers or lack of care in other areas, I can accept it. Different folks or different strokes.