How do Digital Amps Mfrs. compare in sound?

Nice thread.

The comparisons of specific Class D amps is of great interest to me.

My local dealer sells the small Rowland Class D stereo amp along side Audio Research and Rogue tube amps. I need to go give a listen sometime soon and hear for myself.

Guido,

I want to reiterate that the class D amp did NOT have "loose bass". In fact, I would not be surprised if its bass is tighter than most other amps.

The ML simply was a little "better". That's it.

I have not had a chance to compare all the various ICE amps out there, but I am a bit dubious that the various tweaks different manufacturers claim to do actually make much of an audible difference, especially as far as the veiled highs go. That is something that seems to be an inherent problem with the ICE modules.

Has anyone been able to compare different ICE amps?

Thank you Nospam for the clarification. I would still like to know which ICEpower based amp you evaluated. Your assertion that recent production ICE amps have veiled highs across the board is an interesting proposition which I have not been able to verify. There are certainly some ICE-based amps that I heard at shows which sounded shrill to my ears, like there are SS and even tube amps that I feel the same about. There is one amp (Red Dragon) which I perceived to have limited yet ragged treble. On the other hand, I did not experience these to be generalized problems across all ICE amps.

I am currently evaluating a pair of Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2s, which I experience to be extended in the treble and harmonically textured without sounding 'in my face'.

It is worth pointing out that ICE modules are not amps per se. . . they can be used to create very subtle sounding amps, or very basic ones, depending on the designers preference and philosophy. This is really the same as designing amps around 64550C or KT88 tubes. . . you do not tweak around these tubes. . . you use them as component pieces of a whole.

To give you an idea of the sonic differences I perceived within a single manufacturer, here are some capsule observations about a few Rowland amps based on ICEpower:

201 monos -- graceful but a little matter of fact and can run out of steam quickly on congested passages, in which case they turn a little 'glassy', particularly in the treble. They are fine on smaller speakers (Maggie 1.6, Vienna Baby grands), but run out of steam quickly on larger ones (Maggie 3.6, Vienna Mahlers) even on very moderate 'forte' of a chamber music piece.

501 monos -- No problem with power and authority here. . . no chance of them clipping and sounding glassy, even on difficult loads like the Vienna Mahlers. On the other hand, 501 may not yield the ultimate harmonic texture, nor the ultimate low level nuance, as such it is fair to say that they do not always draw me into the music.

302 stereo (withdrawn) -- same power/authority as the 501, but with grace and refinement in low level harmonic texture, giving the impression of an extended and musical treble. With this amp I also noticed a great deal of micro dynamics, which yield very musical string vibratos, even on pianissimo. Where this amp did not quite shine was paradoxically in macro dynamics, which IMO did not sound quite as extended as the 501, giving me an overall impression of 'politeness'. It draws me into the music somewhat, but does not quite excite me.

312 Stereo (current model) -- All the positive traits of the older 302, but with excellent macro dynamics and transient response, which make for me this amp both musically subtle, involving, and exciting to listen to. 312 is one of my very preferred amps, regardless of underlying technology. I have written a short article on the 312 for issue 188 (December 2008) of The Absolute Sound. It is a sidebar in the Vienna Mahler speakers review. . . I believe on page 88.

Hope this helps, G.

Guido - Have you heard model 102? How do you compare it to rest of Rowland's lineup. To me it was a great improvement over integrated SS but never heard other Icepowers. Somebody said that S300 (same module as 102) sounds sweeter but less focused than REF1000.

Kijanki, I have seen JRDG 102 but have never heard it. I only know that Jeff R. does like its sound a lot and is very proud of what the little critter can do for living (smiles!)
Unfortunately, I have not heard the Bel canto S300 either. . . what I can tell you is that at 475 hours of break in, Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 sounds too me very very sweet indeed while having magnificent staging and imaging. Today I listened to a CD of piano/violin/cello trios by my usual favorite author (Antonin Dvorak). The violin was somewhat to the right and closer to the backwall of the venue with all the soft phase interplay of an instrument in that position. The cello came from the very front of the stage and somewhat to the left with a clear, crisp and sweet sound. The piano sounded like a large Beckstein grand, powerful and dark and a little romantic. The performance sounded emotional while the virtual image was transparent, the instruments finely separated with a real sense of 'air' and venue around them. Should I call this perhaps an overall sense of involving musical crispness, with a subtle hint of warmth? Guido