Best Integrated, period.

Mapman said:

"I'm still thinking though that the Rowland 500w/ch Class D is probably the best high end match for my big power sucking Ohms."

This could be very true.

The pre section is "all new" and really brings a transparent sweetness and evenness that very few separate pres can match and then you have the well controlled power section, operating in DC (the pre does to) to give you ultra quiet background, all provided with very generous power reserves and high damping capacity. Even my traditional dynamic speakers appreciate the power, but the Ohms may well DEMAND it.

Dave

"the Ohms may well DEMAND it"

Yes, this is for certain. They would love the 500w/ch doubling into 4 ohms, high current, and damping. There is little doubt in my mind.

They are very forgiving however once you meet this demand. They impart their highly coherent omni-like sound to almost any decent piece of equipment properly matched. Better pieces will deliver their unique qualities as well, but the Ohms are so inherently lifelike that a listeners priorities regarding the sound they are used to might well change.

I asked John Strohbeen at Ohm what amp to go with for the Ohm 5s. He suggested NAD as a good value option. I've had NAD stuff. Not the most coveted of gear for audiophiles, but I am sure a good NAD on the Ohms would compete well with much higher end electronics on many other speaker designs.

The highly regarded pre-amp section (including phono) on the Rowland adds value for it in my case with the Ohms on my current system.

Mapman, my friend, there's no getting around it, at $8800 ($9200 with phono)for the Continuum 500, you're talking "real money", BUT I think it's an incredible value or bargain. I've never had a moment of buyer's remorse. As you note, the pre-amp section competes with separate pres that cost more the C-500 in total. It's really a no-compromise integrated.

NAD is a great "value" for those that can't afford or don't want to afford 9k (I fully understand this position and I've been there myself in the past), but no one's going to say that it'll compete with an ARC Ref.3 pre-amp, as is actually said of Rowland's pre. Forget about the power side, where Rowland is literally in a class almost by itself.

If you need more power than 1000 watts into 4 ohms, then you'll have to consider separates, like a Capri driving two Spectron III monoblocks. I have little doubt that would be wonderful, but expensive and much bulkier than the C-500. Hey, but if you need the power, you need the power. (I suspect - hope - that the 1000 watts will be enough).

Dave

I get by very well, especially in the small 12X12 room the big Ohms are currently in, with the ~ 120w/ch Musical Fidelity A3CR that also doubles into 4 ohm.

In my larger room that I also like to use them in, (~30X20, L shaped, the A3CR still goes plenty loud, but 500w/ch doubling would add even more meat to the bones and go as loud as ever needed. I had a lower current Carver amp that did over 300 w/ch prior, but only did marginally more into 4 ohm. It went as loud as could ever be wanted, but did not take control of the Walsh driver fully at lower volumes, making for a noticeably thinner sound

I'm leaning towards the Rowland as the best no compromise solution in my case. There is even a dealer not too far away in DC I believe.

Do you know if Rowland has a satisfaction guaranteed policy of any kind? Its probably determined more by the dealer, I would guess.

Fafafion, do you need an integrated circuit when you simply add a passive attenuator? I'm not techincal, but I don't see why there any difficulty with this. Now you may or may not like a passive (many do) and prefer an active gain stage, buffering,and power regulation as it relates to the preamp section, but that is another, more difficult design challenge - no?