New to fourm.....Parasound vs. Rotel

[nicholtl]

Why is it that Rotel makes a BEAST of a 2-channel amp, 380 watts x 2, as opposed to Halo's 250 watts x 2 (which, mind you, is no slouch either), whereas their 5-channel amp only comes in at 200 watts x 5, and Halo with 250 watts x 5? It would seem that Rotel, making such a preposterously powerful 2-channel, would likewise make a preposterously powerful 5 channel too? What's up with that?

[KathyMason]

Wow, you guys are so nice here.... and I was afraid to post my comments! Thank you guys, you are so sweet. I love this forum, been reading many new things here so I'm learning! Thanks for all your kindness! Kathy

[Chris D]

Hey, nothing to fear at all, Kathy. We welcome all members! I encourage all equipment feedback here too, both positive and negative, so everyone can be fully informed and decide whether Parasound or other equipment are right for them. Before I forget, I offer the ceremonial welcoming banana: :banana:

Nicholt, when you start putting out massive power, it becomes that much harder to do amps of that power with multiple channels. One chassis case handling 380 x 5 channels of power would be enormously heavy and generate incredible heat. I for one really like that Halo amps are balanced in power among the various channel variants. That way my A51 perfectly matches my A21.

[nicholtl]

Yeah, I just figured a 380 watt x 2 and 380 watt x 5 amp in Rotel's lineup would make sense for 7-channel setups, like the A51/A52 and A21/A23. But then, not only would that be heavy as a tank and generate enough heat to fry an egg on, I'm not sure any wall socket could provide that kind of output anyway! Not to mention the fact that at that level, they're stepping on Krell's toes.

But why am I even complaining? 250 watts x 7, like you and I have Chris, is a ridiculous amount of power already.

[bhuskins]

Speaking of big power...have you guys seen this yet: http://www.psaudio.com/products/gcmc_overview.asp

Only $9,995 for the 7 x 500 watt - Yep it's digital, but I can't wait to hear it. If it lives up to PS Audio amps of the past, this might be a winner...albeit an expensive one. 1000 watts per channel at 4 ohms and no heat!

"From the website: PS Audio's new GCMC 500. This, the highest wattage amplifier of the GCMC series, comes in either a 5 or 7 channel model: each channel producing 500 watts into 8 and 1000 watts into 4 Ohms. Each channel is 100% independent with its own regulated power supply. Balanced and single ended inputs. Rack mounts with optional rack shelf. Dimensions are 17.75” deep, 8” tall and 17” wide. 120 or 220 volt operation as set by the factory, the GCMC 500 produces little to no heat during operation."

If you are interested in their digital technology here is a good link that explains some of the science - http://www.psaudio.com/articles/sdat.asp

Brent Huskins
Media Design

[nicholtl]

Brent, was wondering if you got my message?

[bhuskins]

Yep, I did.

Brent Huskins
Media Design

[Chris D]

Eeeeeeeeenteresting... (although slightly off topic) I'm watching as the reviews and laboratory tests come in on the new breeds of digital amps. We'll see how they perform.

[bhuskins]

All of Halcro's new theater amps will also be digital...they are said to be the most technologically advanced digital amps to date. Lot's of sophisticated and innovative design work is going into these digital amps.

Brent Huskins
Media Design

[nicholtl]

Are all their stereo amps, like the dm38, going to remain solid state though?

[bhuskins]

Yes for the time being, but the white paper they just delivered to the industry stated they are near indistinguishable with this new patented digital technology they developed.

Brent Huskins
Media Design

[nicholtl]

Well if Halcro and PS Audio having numerous products in Stereophile's Class A Recommended Components in the past means anything, I have no doubt these upcoming amps will smash our jaws to the cold, hard cement, albeit the steep price of entry. But hey, "it's only money, right?" =)

[Ricky]

Is it true that the A21 only has a single 1.2kVA (ie, are the Halo specs wrong)? The A21 and classic 2200II have the same weight (60 lbs) and same 250x2...it would be a shame if the "better" A21 did not retain the 2200II's dual 1.2kVA transformers.

btw, the HCA-3500 has dual 1.4kVA transformers and solid 350x2.....and Parasound techies will tell you it's the 2nd best Parasound/Halo amp behind the JC1 monoblock.

[KathyMason]

Yes, the A21 only has one transformer.

True, I heard and read that quite alot that the Parasound HCA-3500 was
an excellent amp. I never got to get the chance to check it out, by the
time I was looking for a new system, Parasound wasn't making the
HCA-3500 any longer. Wish I would have gotten to hear it. Sounds like
they shouldn't have stopped making it!

[Marshal]

Sorry to end this debate but A21 is THX Ultra 2 certified amp while Rotel RB-1090 is THX Ultra only certified which clearly points that A21 is better amp. You can check out THX web site and see it for yourself. Rotel is definitely more powerful amp but it is older model from 1999.
How amp sounds is how good amp is. The best amp is the one that doesn't have any influence on sound. Harsh sounding amps use bipolars only while more natural and pleasant sounding amps use MOSFETs. Warm sounds is associated with tube amps. The best amp design is combination of bipolars and MOSFETs that allows high output with crystal clear sound. Digital amps are still in development but they are definitely the way to go. Just imagine 7-channel amp weighing 30 pounds only, cool to the touch and small enough to fit anywhere.

[Peter Nielsen]

Sorry to end this debate but A21 is THX Ultra 2 certified amp while Rotel RB-1090 is THX Ultra only certified which clearly points that A21 is better amp.

The only conclusion we can draw from what you say above is that the A21 probably is a NEWER amp since it has got the THX Ultra 2 certification.

When the RB-1090 was designed, THX Ultra was the current standard. Rotel could easily re-badge the RB-1090 to RB-2090 and get the very same hardware recertified for THX Ultra 2 and release it as a new model. (However, if they have a new design up their sleeve, they probably don't bother recertifying an existing model as the certification is expensive and many units will have to be sold to cover the certification costs).

I hate to crush any illusions you may have about THX certifications, but any manufacturer with at least half-decent gear can get the certifications if only they have the money to burn...

Peter

[Ricky]

That's a shame that Parasound only used one 1.2kVA on the A21. However, most Class A/B amps with minimal bias in Class A are ~50% efficient (into 8 ohms)....so 1.2kVA can produce ~ 600 watts...enough for the A21's 250x2 rating.

Kinda shows how powerful and under-rated the 2200II (two 1.2s) and 3500 (two 1.4s) were....rated 250x2 and 350x2, probably capable of 350x2 and 450x2 with heavy bias....10-20 watts in Class A.

[nicholtl]

Guys, it's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean. The size of the transformer is not the sole determining factor of an amp's greatness.

[Marshal]

That's a shame that Parasound only used one 1.2kVA on the A21

Rotel has 380Wx2 output while A21 has 250Wx2. Two big tranformers placed next to each other produce more heat and noise which means A21 is quieter and with lower noise floor. Nevertheless, you can buy two A21s and bridge them as mono to get 750Wx2 which is twice the output of Rotel.

Rotel doesn't say much about how their amps are operating and in which mode while Parasound clearly says. Audioholics confirm that up to 8W A21 and A51 deliver pure class A performance which is enough for any serious listening. Above that is A\B class. What transistors is Rotel using is a mystery while we know What Parasound is using.

THX Ultra 2 certified
High bias Class A/AB operation
Balanced inputs with discrete circuits and XLR connectors
Direct Coupled - no capacitors or inductors in signal path
Complementary MOSFET driver stage and JFET input stage
16 beta-matched 15 amp, 60 MHz bipolar output transistors
1.2 kVA encapsulated toroid power transformer with independent secondary windings for each channel
100,000 µF power supply filter capacitance
Current capacity: 60 amperes peak per channel

[Peter Nielsen]

Nevertheless, you can buy two A21s and bridge them as mono to get 750Wx2 which is twice the output of Rotel.

I wish you could. Unfortunately a bridged A21 is incapable of driving a 4 ohm speaker like Magnepan. Bridged, the minimum allowed speaker impedance is 8 ohms according to the A21 specs I'm actually playing with the thought of purchasing a second pair of JC1s for my surrounds...

Peter

[Ricky]

Marshall,

That's a new one: two monoblocks with independent transformers have more noise "next to each other" than two amp channels sharing the "same" transformer?!

I wasn't really comparing the A21 to the Rotel. I've owned a gazillion Parasound products and sure that Parasound has made some sonic improvements in the new Halo amps (but don't count out cost cutting in this industry!)....yet, the 2200II has better specs than the A21 in some areas:

- true dual-mono vs stereo
- more output & power (2.4kVA vs 1.2kVA)
- more 15amp output transistors (24 vs 16)
- more current capacity (50 continuous amps, 90 peak amps vs 60)

[Ricky]

Peter,

You could get a 3rd JC1 for your center channel

[Marshal]

I wish you could. Unfortunately a bridged A21 is incapable of driving a 4 ohm speaker

This is not true and doesn't make any sense at all. Before my Denon POA-2800 broke last year I used that amp for biwiring to drive 4 ohm speakers for the past 12 years. Denon also says that if you biwire and use both set of posts then minimum impedance is 8 ohm. I replaced it with Parasound A21 and might go for second one later and be sure that I'll drive them to the full for a decade. Amps capable of delivering 750W can drive any speaker regardless of impedance.

two monoblocks with independent transformers have more noise "next to each other" than two amp channels sharing the "same" transformer?!

What's new here? One transformer alone will not get any external interference while two placed next to each other will interfere between them. There is no interference for two channels if they share the same transformer. the only reason to have separate transformers is to ensure that each channel gets the same power which might be good for 5-channel amps but not important for stereo where two channels are always on. Another argument for having two transformers, which I believe Rotel used, is that it is easier to build smaller transformers and they sure produce less noise and they are more stable than one big one.
All this is however pointless in this discussion because Parasound and Rotel use the same size transformers. The only reason for additional transformer in Rotel amp is increased output that came with more noise and lower sound quality. Rotel wanted 380W regardless of sound quality and Parasound didn't. That's why they produced JC-1, 2x400W monoblocks which are far, far superior than Rotel RB-1090.

yet, the 2200II has better specs than the A21

And some receivers have better specs than 2200II. Specs mean nothing in high audio. It is about quality. I need better quality output transistors, I need pure class A not to read some bogus specs that might or might not be true. Jeff Rowland 150W amp will wipe out all other amps including 700W Krell because of the quality and superb design not because of specs. I've heard with my own ears this small amp driving 8-foot tall Dunleavy speakers with ease. Don't forget that most listening is done with few watts and that increase from 10 to 100W in output will produce only 10dB louder sound. If maximum output is 300W then with 30W output you will get only 10dB less.

[Ricky]

Marshall,

Your last post has a few inaccuracies.

How does impedance not matter at all in bridged mode? Bridging is not biwiring. The A21 bridged can't drive his 4 ohm speakers because each A21 channel would see a very tough 2 OHMS (in bridged mode).

"Equal power" is not the only reason for monoblocks. What about zero crosstalk? You must be the only one I know who think that a stereo amp sharing one transformer is better than two monoblocks in one chassis. You should tell that to Bryston (all their amps), Proceed (HPA2, HPA3), Aragon (8008BB), Odyssey Stratos as they don't seem to realize having one transformer per channel is noisier than one transformer for all channels. Funny how among many brands that have both, the true dual-mono model is more expensive and better than their stereo brother.

Like I said, I am not really talking about the Rotel. Comparing specs between manufacturers might not be always useful. But 2200II vs A21 specs are both Parasound amps using Parasound specs, so it's relevant....the 2200II has more current capability and more power.

[Peter Nielsen]

This is not true and doesn't make any sense at all.

Quoting page 9 of the A21 Owner's Manual:

YOU SHOULD KNOW
IMPORTANT! - Before Trying Bridged Mono
You should not connect a speaker with an impedance of less than 8 Ω to the A 21 when it is configured for bridged mono operation. Refer to Bridged Mono Operation in the Technically Speaking section for additional information about. Use the right channel Gain control to adjust level in the bridged mode.

Quoting page 18 of the manual ("Technically Speaking" section) :

Bridged Mono Operation
In normal operation, the left and right amplifier channels each amplify both the positive and negative halves of the musical signal. In bridged mono operation, the A 21’s entire left channel drives only the positive half of the musical signal and its entire right channel drives only the negative half of the
musical signal. This doubles its voltage swing.

This doubled voltage swing enables the A 21 to deliver nearly double its 400 watts per channel 4 Ω power, or 750 watts, into a single 8 Ω speaker.

The audible benefit of this higher power is increased dynamic range, or headroom, so that musical peaks can be reproduced with less distortion. Considering that musical peaks and crescendos require 10-100 times as much power as average listening levels, this added headroom is a substantial advantage for unrestrained, undistorted listening, even if your average listening level is moderate.

Bridging allows an amplifier to deliver more power into a single speaker because in this mode, the load appears to the amplifier as only half of its rated impedance. Thus, the single 8 Ω speaker appears as a 4 Ω load and a 4 Ω speaker appears as only a 2 Ω load.

The A 21 is not capable of driving 2 Ω for extended periods because it will draw more current and generate more heat than it can dissipate. We strongly
recommend against using speakers rated at less than 8 Ω when bridging.

Remember that mono bridging requires a separate A 21 for each speaker. You can’t simultaneously drive two speakers in stereo and one speaker mono
bridged.

Peter

[KathyMason]

Marshal, Yea Right! I really put alot in the THX certified, wow, that really
makes a difference.....wow, you are so amp smart. That really blows me over
with such a statement that you really believe, wow!

The RB-1090 was released a few years back but the model has been modified
over the years to continue to improve it over the years. The original RB-1090 had
slightly different specs, Rotel upped the capacitors and fine tuned it more
as time went on. This isn't anything special, many companies do this with
their products as the product matures.

The RB-1090's transformers are not right next to each other Marshal, they
are on opposite sides, but that doesn't matter, really! The transformer
in the Rotel RB-1090 is not the same size as the Parasound A21. Both
amps from Parasound and Rotel are both very nice, I've heard the Parasound
A21 that I compared it with the Rotel RB-1090 and they both are very good
so I don't know what your point is with wanting to debate which is better.
They are both very good, so who really cares! The main reason I went with
Rotel was because the value for $$$, only because I'm more budget with more
for my $$$. Anyone could easily love either Parasound or Rotel for those
two models.

Rotel has a very good reputation for many years for the expertise in their
quality circuit designs, so does Parasound so again, I don't know why you
are trying to dis-credit Rotel when you don't know much about it all anyway.

Marshal, I've seen some of your post around the forums and you seem like
this here and there. Very strange! Don't really need to feel like you
need to cause-up debates. You should just be happy with your own equipment
and let others do the same. It's best to try and help others.

Parasound makes some very good products, but if one isn't running what you
are, you don't need to put other products down. That just doesn't make
sense. As far as the Parasound JC-1 mono blocks being far far superior
than the Rotel RB-1090, we darn well should hope so, there's a big price
difference! However, I wouldn't take your word on it. I do have the
Rotel RB-1090 and think it's absolutely wonderful, but so is the Parasound
A21. There are quite a few reviews on the RB-1090 on it's sound quality
that say very different than what you are saying. It might be wise of you
to read some of them to better educate yourself with it so you don't sound
so foolish with certain statements. Audioholics did a review on the
Parasound A21 and Rotel RMB-1095 and both get very good reviews for their
sound quality and build quality. You can go to the Rotel website for
the links to specific reviews on the RB-1090 under the "Introduction" tab
and then "Product Reviews" and then navigate to "Power Amplifiers" and then
"RB-1090". There are also others reviews to be found on the RB-1090 by
searching on google.com.

[Marshal]

You must be the only one I know who think that a stereo amp sharing one transformer is better than two monoblocks in one chassis

With monoblocks we understand two separate amps not two transformers in one enclosure. I explained why it is better so I won't repeat myself.

You should tell that to Bryston (all their amps), Proceed (HPA2, HPA3), Aragon (8008BB), Odyssey Stratos as they don't seem to realize having one transformer per channel is noisier than one transformer for all channels.

And what about the rest? Krell, Levinson and one thousand other high end audio companies? All companies you mentioned are basically outsiders.

Funny how among many brands that have both, the true dual-mono model is more expensive and better than their stereo brother.

We can't really tell because Rotel doesn't have 380W single transformer version so that we can compare them. Comparing apples and oranges doesn't count.

But 2200II vs A21 specs are both Parasound amps using Parasound specs

Halo is premier Parasound line and there is a good reason for it. You are once again comparing apples and oranges. I remember comparing Mark Levinson 100W monoblocks with 250W stereo dual mono 23.5 amp. Following your logic, 23.5 is far superior and more expensive amp, right? Wrong on every count! Monoblocks were 3 times more expensive and ten times better.

The A 21 is not capable of driving 2 ? for extended periods because it will draw more current and generate more heat than it can dissipate.

If you do not drive these amps for extended periods of times to the full you can safely used them to drive 4 ohm speakers. Just what I did with Denon.

Marshal, Yea Right! I really put alot in the THX certified, wow, that really makes a difference.....wow, you are so amp smart.

So you are saying that THX people are morons? Suit yourself but don't forget that they set standards for movies.

The RB-1090 was released a few years back but the model has been modified over the years to continue to improve it over the years.

Although we have no idea on what modifications you are talking about.

The RB-1090's transformers are not right next to each other Marshal, they are on opposite sides, but that doesn't matter, really!

Exactly! Having two transformers in the same enclosure is a recipe for disaster.

The transformer in the Rotel RB-1090 is not the same size as the Parasound A21.

They are both 1.2KW.

Both amps from Parasound and Rotel are both very nice, I've heard the Parasound A21 that I compared it with the Rotel RB-1090 and they both are very good so I don't know what your point is with wanting to debate which is better.

Some folks here started this thread to find out which amp is better, not me.

They are both very good, so who really cares!

What an oxymoron! And the Krells are good as well so the Levinsons and we are all bunch of happy UN people grabbing Iraqi money from Oil-for-Food program.

The main reason I went with Rotel was because the value for $$$

And Parasound A21 is not although the retail price is the same and you get 10-year warranty unlike Rotel's five-year!?

Don't really need to feel like you need to cause-up debates.

Like I said, I didn't start this thread and it is my right to express an opinion. Why are you posting here if there is nothing to be said on this topic except to silence others? Is it a crime saying that one product is better than others?

I do have the Rotel RB-1090 and think it's absolutely wonderful, but so is the Parasound A21.

Do you have any opinion at all or you are just a zombie?

There are quite a few reviews on the RB-1090 on it's sound quality that say very different than what you are saying.

Because others say differently than I should take their word for granted? and who says I didn't read those reviews? Problem is that those reviews are prior to 2003 and A21 was launched at CES 2003. Your problem is that you can't form your opinion on anything, you just follow other people and take their views as granted. Truly sad, it seems that you live in Belarus or Cuba, not in a free country.

[KathyMason]

Marshal, So sad! So very sad! You must be a joke or what?
Insulting remarks will not have me behave as you do!

The transformers in the Rotel RB-1090 and Parasound A21 are NOT
the same size. Physically not the same size, and that is what you
made it sound like that you were refering to, if you are talking about
rating, yes the Rotel RB-1090 has two 1.2kVA transformers and the
Parasound A21 has one 1.2kVA transformer but the round size is
different, the Parasound has a smaller design on it, or as you would
say because it is newer. They are different in design because
Parasound and Rotel each make their own transformers.

I am sorry but you could really use some class and politeness in
these forums, and what is so concerning is that you have so much
non-accurate info you would like us all to believe. It certainly shows
that you don't know what you are talking about.

Remember Marshal, if you treat others with respect, you will be respected back.

[Peter Nielsen]

Yep. You see them everywhere. The TROLLS, kids or losers, that could never even afford one of Parasounds amps posting to the newsgroups trying to stir up a debate by using inaccurate and ridiculous arguments... Tsk tsk. :smackbutt:

Peter

[Chris D]

Easy, kids... easy...

[Marshal]

Physically not the same size

So your inteligent argument is that because Rotel transformer is physically bigger than Parasound it must sound better!? I'm sure that, following your logic, 200lbs always sound better than 100lbs amps.

Yep. You see them everywhere. The TROLLS, kids or losers

Lost of those people like KathyMason, Peter Nielsen, etc. Truth always hurts them most.

that could never even afford one of Parasounds amps

And illiterate idiots who can't read and found out that I already mentioned my ownership of A21 amp.

[KathyMason]

Oh Marshal, oh my stars! Be more positive!

inteligent=intelligent?

Marshal, sounds like you are just being yourself again, and your not listening once again. Bigger doesn't mean better, not always anyway! I told you they have different design size, I told you.... both sound very nice! I told you already, my main reason for my decision was as stated for value for $$$.
You are the one trying to state one is better than the other, not me. Now stop being a rock in my shoe and move on baby man. :roll:

If you want to be more positive, why don't you list out what you do like about each the Rotel RB-1090 and the Paraound A21 and stop acting like a 3 year old here.

[KathyMason]

Easy, kids... easy...

Ok, I've had my last post with Marshal. :T

[mmpeak]

Kathy - best to put Marshal on permanent ignore!

[Chris D]

[moderator mode on]

As I posted in another thread here where this sort of bickering is going on:

I loathe censorship, so none of the above posts are being deleted. However, all parties involved need to make sure they're posting factual information and scientific engineering if they're going to talk about design details so as not to mislead uninformed club members. Some posters have been notified via private message to correct this problem.

Resume discussion... and play nicely, please, so I don't have to lock discussion threads.

[moderating hat off]

[TimRawson]

Dang.... What's that term where someone is loyal to the product no matter what?...

While I've owned nor listened to either product, I've come to realize sheer specs, numbers and power ratings will not make an amp sound better in your home.

I bought a Parasound Halo A52 because an A23 sounded very good with my speakers. However, get the brand spanking new Halo home, and didn't sound good (think it was current capability or the prepro flavor of the day that made that the case for me). I also once tried a Rotel 1070, and thought it only slightly better than the internal amplification in my Rotel 1056 receiver. Not that it was bad, the 50% more power was not 50% better, like 5% better. After more equipment home trials 200-300 wpc, I finally settled on an Bryston amps that has good range and fits well in MY system. Weird, for me, found that prepro made more difference unless it was a not-good amp (like a dated Soundcraftsmen 200wpc or pro amp I tried).

Specs, power mania, blah....

[Chris D]

Tim, did you break in the A23 when testing?

[TimRawson]

I had the A52, but had bought my speakers after listening them hooked up to an A23/P3 combo. Not sure if I 'properly' broke it in.

Had tried Rotel 1056, but the top end was rolled off when matched up with my speakers. Then bit bullet and got A52 figuring I knew Halo sounded good on my speakers. I think that there is a difference in the current capability. While they are cousins in that they are 125wpc, the A23 has more devices (transistors) per channel. I probably should of opted for the 2205. Would have been nice to try a A51 in my home. I loved how smooth sounding the A52 was, just did not punch my speakers lower end. My speakers aren't monsters, but they are lower efficiency (86) NHT's.

[Ricky]

Tim,

Not sure why you think comparing specs within the same brand is...blah, blah...

Current Capacity (peak amps per channel): A52 = 30 peak amps, 2205 = 60 peak amps
Transformer Size: A52 = 1.4kVA, 2205 = 2.0kVA

The A51 (60 peak amps, 2.2kVA) is probably a different story.

Your ST4/SC2/SB3 NHTs are nice and do need some power, and the 2205 probably would have delivered. Did you get a Bryston 9BST?

[Kingdaddy]

My findings on the sonic qualities of the halo gear are somewhat strange from my POV. The C2 made a incredible improvement in low end resolution and slam with my old amps (Sony TA-N9K) and when I changed the Sony amps to a pair of A52's the bass was the same but the midrange was more forward, I would think it would be the other way around.

Very strange.

[TimRawson]

Yeah, I was frustrated in the end. Could have likely got 2-3 A23's and been happy. The A23 are spec'd at 45 amp I think, right in between due to having more devices per channel.

I currently use a Bryston 4Bst for mains and Bryston 5bst for the rest (5.1 system). The brystons seem accurate and detailed. But then that could be less "musical" to someone elses ears. The parasound had a liquid quality I liked, perhaps do to the class a gain stage inside. Hopefully after some more remodeling this year, moving the infant to another room and getting plasma, I can setup a dedicated 2 channel system. While my family room HT gets the most use that in itself give me less opportunity to do listen to something other than Thomas the Tank engine.

[DanR]

Wow! 8O Just took the past 20 minutes to read through this thread and it is definately one of the hottest in memory. I almost feel reluctant to join so long after the fire has died. Anyway, I owned an RB-1090 for 19 months with B&W N802's. A nice match. My only real complaint was compression at high volumes and poor bass at low volumes. Everything in between was very nice! I now have a pair of JC-1's with the N802's and all I can say is WOW!!! :T I have NOT tried any other Parasound amplifiers so I will not make any comparisons except to say that I can see where the price difference comes in. The JC-1's are quite simply the best amps I have ever heard. And that includes owning a Rowland and being able to listen to a Mark Levinson 331 long term(brother doing a PHd in Anchorage-lucky me!). I have heard at length Krell, Aragon, Bel Brown and Conrad Johnson. I feel the JC-1's, especially for 6k are a steal and have to be the best value in high-end audio today! It is easy to see why Stereophile picked the JC-1 as amp of the year 2003. This honor is usually bestowed on products costing 2 to 3 times as much. I can honestly say that I will keep these until they no longer work and my search for the perfect amp is over. John Curl and CTC really outdid themselves! I still cannot figure out how they put the high quality components in the JC-1 at that price?? Makes me believe Parasound was willing to make less profit to prove a point. Anyway, just wanted to chime in as I have owned both lines, albeit two incomparable models.

[nicholtl]

Makes me believe Parasound was willing to make less profit to prove a point.

Kind of like what Toyota did with the now discontinued Supra.

[DanR]

Kind of like what Toyota did with the now discontinued Supra.

I agree. My uncle Nick owned a 94 Supra w/ the twin turbo and he let me drive it once for 10 minutes. Same feeling- you have something that feels like a Ferrari but without the pricetag. Although the JC-1's are not cheap at $6k, they could easily put a Krell badge on it and sell it for $12k and everyone who bought it would swear they had the best amps on the planet. That's how I feel and could care less about the Krell badge. Krell is not worth the money IMHO anyway.

[nicholtl]

I hate to make yet another car analogy, but what you said about the Krell badge...take the VW Phaeton. $90K car that nobody will buy because even though it has the Bentley Continental GT W-12 engine it in, it still says "VW." Slap a Bentley badge on it, and people would lap it up like a thirsty dog. For most in this world, it's about image.

Good thing Parasound has both value AND image. (hehe, you know we're certifiable when we start talking about how thousands of dollars is "value.")