Should i go Boulder 1060 or Jeff Rowland 625

I'm curious with your comparison of the Rowland and Boulder GC as my Dealer (who deals in both brands) felt the Boulder was on another level compared to the Rowland (as it should be given the price differential). My impression of the Boulder from reviews is that it is certainlyl not lean, but dynamic with deep, layered bass. Jeff Fritz in his review for Ultra Audio felt the Boulder matched the bass drive, control, authority, and slam of the big Gryphon Antileon Signature, so lean is certainly not the impression I have of the 1060. By "lean" did you mean not as lush or warm? The Boulder to my ears is on the slightly warm side of neutral, so no it is not as warm as Rowland, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great amp.

Melbguy1, I agree with you. When I mention 'lean' on Boulder 1060, I should qualify it with 'slightly', and only in the context of yielding harmonic exposure compared to Rowland M625. Furthermore, my findings of M625 vs Boulder have been inderect, as follows ....

System A: Boulder 1060/2060 vs Rowland M312 -- M312 appeared to be more harmonically resolving than the Boulder amps on sostenuto notes.
System B -- Rowland M312 vs M625 -- M625 appears to yeald greater harmonic resolution and bass integrity than M312 on sostenuto notes.
Hence by extension .... probably M625 yields more harmonic content than Boulder 1060, but until I have the opportunity of having both machines into the same system, my findings are tentative .. And yes, all amps above were well broken in when I listen to them.

I further agree with you that with only 20 Amps, Rowland M625 will simply not deliver the brawn, authority, and stage size of any of the Boulder amps, well known for yielding a significant stage size, or Rowland M312, which delivers over twice the peak current of M625.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Rowland M625 produces a rather, ahem .... toasty experience .... Its class A/B design gets closer and closer to class A heat generation as the devices is in active playback. I have been told that this is by design, as its bias rises automatically during operation.

G.

I too would put the Rowland and Boulder at the same level of performance. I would lean toward the Rowland in favor of system matching. With the Rowland you *know* the impedance matchups and voicing together will be spot-on.

Plus, to these ears the Rowland AB amps are some of the best SS amps ever made, not counting crazy money for Halcro, Soulution, and the like.

Hi Guidocorona,
Thanks for sharing your observations. My understanding of the Boulder 1060 is that it is very neutral, detailed & revealing of upstream equipment. In and of itself it may not be quite as harmonically resolved as the Rowland, however I have a theory that combining valves with the Boulder should bring the perfect balance of harmonic richness, tonality, detail retrieval, drive and sound staging.

Inner Ear Magazine did a review of the Vac Renaissance Signature Mk2 pre with a Boulder 1060 and thought that this combination was a perfect match in kind with my above comments. Here is a link to the review fyi - http://www.innerearmag.com/reviews/preamps/VAC_Signature_Preamplifier_MkII.shtml

I have my new Ayon CD-5s burning in over the next 3 days which i've rolled with NOS 6h30p-DR's, so it should sound wonderful with the Boulder. Looking forward to posting my findings on AG soon!

There is usually a synergy when using the same designer's opinion of what is right....I would lean to Rowland. If you decide for Boulder, make sure you listen first.