In search of the right SS integrated amp

Odyssey Audio offers the cyclops direct to the consumer for a real bargain. Check it out online....use the savings for another upgrade or music:O)

I'll second the Mac suggestion and also add the MA6600. A friend just picked up the 6600 with the optional tuner module, making it a receiver, where he replaced his Bel Canto separates, separates that stood the test against others that came and went. He is as pleased with the Mac as he ever has with any gear.

The MA7000 is their top dog, but it lacks a couple niceties of the MA6600, such as the alpha numeric display, silky smooth digital volume control and the ability to add the tuner module. It all depends on how important those things are to you.

Regarding Rowland Continuum 500, we do not have a completely authoritative review of this device yet. If I recall correctly, the unit was in the reviewer's possession for a very limited time the first time the review was prepared. . . one or 2 days perhaps. Unit was rereviewed later on, and some more time was allowed for the unit to settle in. Unfortunately, class D amps like the Continuum 500 are notorious bears to break in, often requiring more than 700 hours to settle down.
From a purely technical point of view, Continuum 500 is very advanced, as its power supply is front ended by an AC2DC converter that utilizes both Power Factor Correction and a capacitor bank to feed 185V DC to the system. The idea is similar to what Bel canto has recently adopted. . . the Virtual Battery. . . the idea is that if a device is compatible, DC provides much cleaner energy to the circuit than AC, and improves efficiency and linearity.
If memory serves, all inputs are transformer coupled for isolation, and te output circuits are augmented by a capacitor bank to maximize authority.

Unfortunately I have listened to C500 only for a few minutes at RMAF in a noisy room, with tracks I am not familiar with, not enough to form a personal opinion of its musical prowess.

So, in the end, I suggest that rather than C500 being a tier 3 device, its tierage should probably be unassigned. . . a question mark of some kind. Knowing the designer personally, I suspect C500 is a device worth investigating at some length.

G.

Thanks to all for these interesting posts! I have followed each of them up to the extent of checking the specs and reading what reviews I could find of the products mentioned.

The Luxman I had overlooked; it is indeed a contender. McIntosh I have never taken seriously, I suppose because of its appearance, but the reviewers indicate that the MA 7000 outclasses any of its predecessors. The brand is well distributed even here in the wilds of Western Canada; I should contrive to give it an audition (eyes closed, of course).

The Krell FBI, though clearly impressive, reputedly works best with own-brand front ends, and also lacks the second set of balanced inputs that I think would be sonically desirable. To my regret, because it would please me considerably to own a high-performance amp that none of my friends knew existed, Coda and Odyssey also lack additional, or any, balanced inputs. (So, alas, do many other excellent brands like Chapter Audio, Gryphon . . . .)

BAT is another brand I had overlooked but which offers the right facilities; I may be able to hear it locally.

The further information about the Rowland Continuum 500 is particularly welcome, there was some question in my mind about its review and your advice that I should not categorize it too hastily is totally convincing.

Favourable mentions of Burmester and Boulder noted. Instinctively – I can’t justify this – I suspect that Boulder is the one to beat. I hope more A’goners will contribute their expertise to this discussion. Incidentally, my speakers are Accentus 101s, a rather successful Chinese assault on the high end, large floorstanders but not difficult to drive.

Nwickend, on October 1st I might have the opportunity of listening to the Continuum 500 and the Boulder 865 in the same room/system. This will be in Denver at Soundings Hifi. I will post my observations if the A/B comparison materializes. If the house sound of the 2 companies is any indication, I suspect the Rowland may come up ahead in musicality, harmonic coherence, and microdynamics, while the Boulder is likely to come up ahead in staging and instrument placement. We'll see if my hunch proves anything more than the figment of my imagination.

Guido