Audiophilepure

Read Here

” Overall, I was impressed — but then, I’d also been impressed by the 200, and this was no departure from its sound. Was this going to be one of those reviews in which I’d have a hard time hearing any differences between a company’s old and new models? As I listened to the rest of Day Breaks, it sure seemed as if that was what I was in for.”

Read Here

“As to how my sonic impressions of the two amplifiers varied with the loudspeaker in use, I had the most difficulty coming up with a hard preference with the Apogees Stages, perhaps reminiscent of Dick Olsher’s difficulties in finding a totally happy match for those loudspeakers. But I found my glass 90% full with both amplifiers. The definition and focus of the Levinson was a powerful draw. The palpable quality of the Stages themselves compensated to some degree for a reduction in that quality in the Levinson, making for an overall performance which was detailed, well-defined in width and depth, and appealingly transparent. The Rowland, on the other hand, was a bit more relaxed, less obviously detailed, but with highs which could, with the right recording, be almost breathtakingly delicate and silky-smooth. The Rowland also had a midrange which was lucid, strikingly tactile, and musically convincing. Not an easy choice.”

Read Here

“Late in the review process I brought the F7 over to a fellow audiophile’s home to try with a pair of Quad 57 electrostatic speakers. The sound was vivid and palpably realistic. I’m not a fan of Quad speakers, they can sound uptight and dynamically limited, but the F7 and Quad 57s were delicious together. Putting the F7 aside, and returning to the owner’s much more expensive 280-watts-per-channel ASR Emitter II amplifier, the sound was brighter and bass definition improved, but that uptight Quad sound was back. The F7 connected the musical dots better!”