mcintosh vs jeff rowland

I don't have platinum ears like the Audio Enz reviewer.

I do wonder though if his amp was fully broken in. (several hundred hours of "normal to hard use" to make it come into its own.) My continuum really didn't become fully "musical" until I played it a lot, and then it became magic.

I don't have those gifted ears either. :) I also wondered about the break-in. Knowing that class D amps take long to break-in, I am surprised he didn't mention how much time was on the amp. There is also the possibility of system synergy, a second set of speakers can be helpful in an eval, but not always a possibility.

The Rowlands are great, well built amplifiers. They are not my cup of tea, I can see how someone else could really enjoy them. There is something about the autoformers in the Mcintosh that is really addicting. They sound more like tubes. Personally, I love the sound of tubes and will not look back. To me, the difference in the sound of tubes vs. transistors is as pronounced as night and day.

I have owned a lot of Mac gear and love it for it's utilitarian approach. I have moved on to Jeff Rowland's products of late (a C500 and a 102/Capri pair) and am enjoying the transition. The Rowlands are a more relaxed and fluid sound, and offer up detail lost on my mac gear. It's not up and in your face like some products (Krell, Pass, etc); but a more calming tonality.

Rowland gear is good, that is for sure. I could certainly live with it. I just love the sound of tubes.

Talking Mc and Rowland: how would you expect a McIntosh MC275 paired with a Capri to work? Sounstaging? 3D?

I own the 275 and been looking into the Capri for a while, but can't audition. I wonder if, for the money, there are better preamp matches for the 275.

Thank you!