My RM10 is well isolated already, in a two-hundred+ pound armoire, on a two-inch thick solid shelf with the Pro-ject isolation base on top of that. Hence, I think my TT is performing pretty near its potential. I play it with the doors to the armoire shut, which makes a huge difference, particularly at 100dB and above. Still, the HRS platform should be a further, but small incremental step.

Yes, I think you're right, analogue is a great bargain in source equipment, BUT good source software is more expensive by a large degree with LP. I like good surfaces on my LPs and that seldom happens in bargain bins. Also, new artists are hard to find on LP, which is about 80% of my listening.

If I could have only one source, then it'd be the MPS-5. Really, when you consider the quality of it's DAC and the ability to use it with a computer and/or server, then it's incredibly flexible. Source material costs way less in digital and it's improving in huge steps.

If I owned 2000 LPs then I might have a different view, but right now I've got about 800 LPs and 1200 CD/SACDs. Still, until I bought the MPS-5, my new purchases were 2-to-1 analog over digital. I think that gives you some idea how good the MPS-5 is. I think think that I could spend $10,000 on a TT and not have anaolog leap ahead of this system. Read Mike Lavigne's review of the MPS-5, if you haven't. His analog system is mega-bucks and the MPS-5 hangs in there in that tall cotton.

Oh, I just went with the reviews on the HRS. I like the technology and cramed reviews for a few days to see what else caught my eye. I've got a local dealer, but no loaner program. Still, the support of the dealer has been good ( www.audiofederation.com ) so far. They ARE expensive.

You know, no doubt, money's a huge factor. You can get a lot of this at half the cost and it's way, way better than half as good. I spent big bucks on digital because I'd tried several lower cost solutions and just wasn't happy listening to CDs. The MPS-5 totally got rid of listener fatigue and re-opened a huge portion of my library to me.

I went for $10,000 to $30,000 in my system in the last 12-months. I've been very blessed that I can do that with no impact on my budget. (Business has been very, very good). I still want big bang for the buck, but I can now afford what I really want. I wish that all audiophiles had that freedom and I realize that most don't. I didn't for several decades and still immensely enjoyed my various systems over the years.

Dave

dcstep August 14, 2008 08:38

Dave,

I tried both balanced and unbalanced with the VTL/Spectron setup, the difference was minor. I believe the tubes were just to noisy from bad AC or something.

Im a bit astound that the RM10 which is 1/5 the price of the MPS-5 can be so close in performance, do you think the RM10 is that good? A guy I know says that his RM10 was hugely improved from putting it on a wall hung shelf. Im trying to decide wether to go all out digital with top CD/SACD/DAC and computer or go for a really nice TT

Any particular reason youre going for the HRS, Ive been reading up on platforms and the ones Ive found really interesting are the Critical Mass Grand Master, the SRA Ohio XL+ and then theres the Halcyonic (quite a bit more though).

perrew August 14, 2008 04:13

Hi Perrew,

I have almost no noise at all with the Rowland. When I listen to music at normal levels, say 85dB average or so, when I turn off the source and just put my ear to the tweeter I hear nothing. I have to raise the level 10 dB or so to start hearing anything at the tweeter. You really hear it on the decay of notes, with almost total blackness. BTW, I'm using balanced ICs, but there was no issue when I tried unbalanced. I figured with so much crap in the armoire it was better to play it safe.

I think the PFC converting the power to DC is part of the success of the low noise level in the Rowland, also Rowland's elegantly simple design, with an incredibly well sheild chassis, short signal paths and just high attention to such things. ICEPower demands attention to this to avoid noise getting into other components. Rowland delivers.

The Rowland phono stage is another example of an elegantly simple design that really works. I only had my old Pro-ject TubeBox SE to compare to and the Rowland blows that into the weeds. A friend just got a Rowland Capri pre-amp in June and he reports that the phono stage bettered his Levinson and Sutherland phono-pres. I haven't heard all the best phono-pres, but I'm suspecting this thing is in the top echelon.

The RM10 and MPS-5 are incredibly close. I've stopped buying 45 rpm vinyl and opting for SACD or CD reissues, generally, if that tells you anything. In the last year I spent a lot on 45 rpm jazz reissues because the RM10 was so superior to my prior digital players. The MPS-5 totally voided that and now it depends on the engineering, not the format.

I'll opt for a CD reissue over the initial release, if there's a choice. The differnce between SACD and CD is very small, with the SACDs tending to be slightly more articulate, but not necessarily "better". Part of the MPS-5's success is its upsampling scheme that seems to add a very small touch of bloom to CDs. I'm talking really small here, but when you compare the CD-layer and two-channel SACD layer on the same hybrid SACD, the SACD layer has NO extra bloom. Some will actually prefer the CD-layer. Anyway, the MPS-5 "trick" with CDs is amazingly good sounding. Vinyl and CD are right together now, unless you want to listen to Mahler's 6th at realistic levels, then the either CD or SACD will let you crank without regard to feedback. (Those 100dB plus peaks can challenge my well isolated RM10).

BTW, I've ordered HRS isolation platforms for the RM10 and MPS-5. Hopefully I'll have a report before the end of the month.

Dave

dcstep August 13, 2008 15:28

DCstep, very nice system. I especially like the Continuum and the MPS-5. I used to own a Spectron M3SE and drive it with a VTL TL7.5, great sound but to noisy in my environment.I stopped using the VTL and ran a Logitech Transporter direct to the Spectron. Have you experienced any noise with the Rowland. Also how do you think the MPS-5 compares with the RM10. Do you use the Rowland phono?

perrew August 13, 2008 03:59

Dc,

Yeah, wish I could take you up on that.

Have you heard a similar Carver pre-amp a/b versus another better? I don't doubt that a newer pre-amp might sound better. And the Rowland gear is clearly in a different class.

But I make it a rule to not change equipment unless I can hear a clear problem, otherwise I will be continually second guessing myself instead of enjoying the time I have to listen to music.

I had heard that issue recently in comparison to a dealer system recently featuring a brand spanking new Audio Research preamp that was clearly set up correctly because it sounded fabulous. Based on that system as a reference, I was able to get my system tuned in similarly as well.

I know that the two sound different, but I honestly could not say at this point which one I think sounded "better" or which I would prefer without reservation.

I do listen to very good new equipment and attend live acoustic performances in various venue regularly as a way to obtain a reference, but you are right that it can be hard to hear the subtle differences you allude to without an in home a/b comparison. For the most part, I just have to "trust my ears".

Don't worry, I've got that nasty old Carver pre under very careful scrutiny. As soon as I hear a problem , that beast will surely be the prime suspect.

mapman July 24, 2008 14:42

Hi Mapman,
Maybe I imagined the use of the word "better". That will teach me to read and listen at the same time!

There is a performance level in Hifi that is very confusing. I have been through it and hope never to fall back into its clutches.

It is the point where the equipment itself fools you into thinking thats what the source sounds like. It is easy to be fooled too. It robs you a little in every area. Lets say dynamics slightly muted with bass puffed up and a slightly rolled off treble. Suddenly a mix takes on a very different character. Timing is effected, soundstaging altered and so on.

I have heard master mixes played in the studio they they were recorded and then played back on various reasonable HiFi systems. I was shocked at how different the same music sounded.

I dont mean that every new box is better than any old one regardless. I would say good manufacturers like Bel canto, Audio research or Krell etc would make it easy to hear. If you put their old stuff next to their new counter part, you would not go back.

In fact to push the idea a little too far, take the ipod and the sony walkman...! Anyone remember tape hiss?

chadeffect July 24, 2008 13:17

Mapman, my friend, like I've said earlier, I think, you really need to hear a modern "purest" system that's been well set up in someone's home to hear what we're talking about. (Most stores do NOT set their demo systems up correctly). That Carver is coloring everything that goes through it. If you lived near me I'd love for you to come over with several of your favorites CDs and LPs. I think you'd clearly hear what we're talking about.

Dave

dcstep July 24, 2008 12:20

Chad,

Also I was wondering if I really said somewhere that older gear is better? If I did, I would retract that statement in that such a generalized assertion can clearly not be supported.

mapman July 24, 2008 12:15

Chadeffect,

My Carver pre-amp is "old' (very late 80's), but my Denon CD/recorder is only about 2 years old and is still sold new.

The Denon only cost $599 list, but that's another story. I am still hard pressed to find a clear issue with it's sound. When I detect issues, they are variable and unique to individual discs. This tells me they are a result of the process that goes into producing the disc, not the playback process.

I do agree that newer digital technology in general tends to still improve the most over time because the technology itself is relatively newer. I would most likely not replace my Denon with an older unit if I had to.

When it comes to analog components though, like my Carver pre-amp, I believe that many better older designs are still competitive with newer ones, assuming the equipment is still in good working order. Once broken in, electronics in general can usually only go downhill over time. If kept in good repair though, they can still sound great.

Also, just because something is newer does not guarantee that it is better...only different. The dollar was worth a lot more back in the day. A lot of things today that are not mass marketed cost a lot more to build to a certain level of quality than it did 20-30 years ago.

mapman July 24, 2008 12:05

Hi Mapman,

I have to disagree with the idea that the old gear is better. My experience is that the old gear covers and smears the gems on the disc with colorations. It may for a short while seem enjoyable but gets annoying to live with.

I would agree that newer gear can be more demanding of other equipment in the chain and needs to be properly set up to truely step forward and make the most of the investment.

When I have gone back to old gear I have wondered how I listened to it. Though there is sometimes an element of meeting a old friend.
But things like the lack of grain or noise and the transparency at frequency extremes and control are difficult to live without once lived with.

I bet if you bought a $2000 cd player from now vs a $2000 player from 1999 would soon show you.

chadeffect July 24, 2008 09:06

Tubes are a societal thing. If you want to join that "community" then fine.

JRDG starts with a clean slate and tries to make things sound natural without the constraints of "legacy systems."

Dave

dcstep July 21, 2008 22:53

Mapman, it looks you are a candidate for the new JRDG sound. . . all that you seek, without the stereotypical euphonic bloom of some tube equipment.

guidocorona July 21, 2008 22:46

Yes, and I'm a convenience and reliability freak and would prefer to not have to go to real tubes at all in order to retain the big sound stage with easy on the ears yet detailed sound that I like.

mapman July 21, 2008 19:48

Yeah, some day you'll need to give up the Carver's tube emulation circuit.

Dave

dcstep July 21, 2008 19:17

Hi Mapman, I suspect that with internal Power Factor Correction that transforms everything to a 385V DC current before the current is stepped down, the Continuum 500 and 312 amps are pretty well immune to RF/EMI contamination through the AC. I have not heard the Continuum yet, but the 312 is dead quiet and completely devoid of extraneous grain.

guidocorona July 21, 2008 19:17

I know from reading not all ICE implementations are created equal. The consensus seems to be that it has improved as a technology overall though considerably in the last year or so though.

RF/EMI was one of the concerns I had that helped me decide to hold for now. The Rowland gear seems designed to take that into account, which is a big plus.

I believe JS Audio in DC is a certified Rowland dealer. I'll have to check it out next time I'm over that way. My Carver pre can't last forever.....can it?

mapman July 21, 2008 19:04

Don't get too enamored with ICE or Class-D per se. There are several good iterations of each, but there are also not-so-brillinat attempts also. You MF will probably do you fine until you're ready to make a big jump up to the top of the heap.

Dave

dcstep July 21, 2008 18:48

I went with the Musical Fidelity basically as a low cost and lower wattage test upgrade to drive my Ohm 5's better. It cost me about $600 used. It's worked far beyond my expectations, but I know the Ohms can benefit from even more wattage and current. That's where the more powerful ICE amps might still come in at some point since I have an aversion to large power hungry monster amps in general.

I'm thinking if I decide to upgrade further, that I would go for broke and strongly consider a 500w ICE unit. The Rowland integrated would fit nice for me for this and offer what would seem to be a no compromise pre-amp and phono stage upgrade as well.

Right now, I'm happy but definitely something I would very strongly consider at some point.

I figure the ICE technology will only get better and become even more cost effective over time.

mapman July 21, 2008 18:26

Darn Mapman, too bad you missed Rowland. The new Capri-style preamp and the addition of the PFC and new caps really take the Continuum well beyond the old Concerto. It's "all new" really. Jeff has always done some things with ICEPower that no one else does. Just looking at his chassis you know it's something special, but that chassis is very functional, isolating things from each other internally and within and without the chassis. (ICEPower can generate a lot of RFI/EMI that needs to be contained and as always the amp needs to be isolated from nearby RFI/EFI sources, like CDPs, etc.)

I really think that the Continuum 500 is a tour de force exhibit of all Jeff's best current ideas and an incredible bargain.

Dave

dcstep July 21, 2008 18:01

Yes,, JRDG uses Icepower modules on all its current amplifier models. In particular, the Continuum 500 that Dave has, uses twin ASP1000 modules with integrated power supplies, front ended by a single 1500W PFC circuit. Audiogoner Marco Martinez (Martinez) has recently also purchased a Continuum 500 and is wildly happy with it. I'll let him comment if he so chooses. . . Marco may also be able to post some pics of the Continuum 500 with the cover off. The Continuum 500 is equipped with a bank of output capacitors that according to JRDG are not even implemented in the 312 flagship. The caps are designed to give the device additional authority. Guido

guidocorona July 21, 2008 17:40

The Roland integrateds sound (and look) very nice indeed!

Does the Continuum use ICE amplification like the other Rowland Integrated line?

When I upgraded amps to the Musical Fidelity A3CR to get a better grip on driving the Ohm 5's, the other option I strongly considered was ICE or Class D and researched several lines, but missed the Rowland line somehow.

The Rowland stuff seems to have the best build quality of any units using ICE or Class D that I've seen.

mapman July 21, 2008 17:07

Rowland has just updated its web site and has finally posted a page on the Continuum integrated. See:
http://jeffrowland.com/Continuum.htm

guidocorona July 21, 2008 16:51

Great Dave. Looks like you picked a winner.

I reviewed one article and one audio blog that performed A/B on the older emm Labs CDSA with the plastic tray and the upgraded transport of the new emm Labs CDSA SE. Both say the upgrades are significantly better in mids and bass. And with details been better in the lows.

Still looking at power cords.

TelWire and Synergistic Research T3

lapierre July 19, 2008 23:53

Ok, this is second hand, but from a guy that owns an AMR CD-77 and just took delivery of the Playback Designs. He's saying that the bass and mids of the PD is much better in his system.

Dave

dcstep July 19, 2008 23:27

I suppose if I get in the habit of carrying my MPS-5 around to various sites for "shootouts" the case would be handy. (It might be a powerful psychosomatic tool indeed, rendering opposing CDPs unlistenable). I'm usually a guy that puts it up on the shelf and just listens to it. However, I acknowledge, my life may be changing and somehow the guys at AMR perfectly anticipated it. ;-)

Dave

dcstep July 17, 2008 20:39