Novice ears or unrealistic expectations?

I'm having a serious case of buyer's remorse.

Up until yesterday, my system consisted of an Arcam Solo CD with an iPod Rdock and B&W 683s. The sound was very nice, but I often felt the bass was a bit boomy and the mids somewhat hidden, especially at the lower volumes I typically listen. This was especially apparent when listening to TV/movies. I would have to crank up the volume to hear dialog, only to be blasted out of my seat by explosions, a loud commercial, etc. Music tended to be bottom heavy, to the point where I would spend more time worrying about my neighbors than enjoying the music.

(Just to address certain advice I might receive in advance, I live in a tiny NYC apartment. Due to space constraints, my speaker placement is set in stone. I have moderately priced cabling and am not looking to buy more. Tweaking bass/treble response may work for some songs, but not others...I prefer to leave them flat.)

I got it into my head, via web research only, that a separate power amp would help flesh out the mids, tighten up the bass and generally even things up. In my mind's eye/ear, I envisioned an amp enabling me to listen at low volumes, but achieve a fuller, more well rounded sound.

Given the tiny size of my apartment, Class D amps seemed to fit the bill. After talking to a couple of dealers, I swayed myself into buying a Jeff Rowland 102, and did so rather impulsively. I love the design BTW. The right thing to do of course, would have been to spend time auditioning amps, ABXing them with my Solo, etc. But I have an impulsive/instinctual streak, which more often than not serves me well. Unfortunately, it didn't serve me so well this time.

I got the 102 home and set it up, using the Arcam's pre-outs, bypassing the Arcam's amp altogether. I don't want to mess with bi-amping.

I was immediately rewarded with a nice fat right channel hum that I eventually narrowed down to my cable TV. My temporary fix for that was to unscrew the cable just enough to stop the hum without cutting the signal.

Anyhow, back to the amp. My second surprise was that I had to turn the volume up somewhat higher with the 102 to achieve the same listening level as the Arcam. I told myself I should attribute this to the 102 having a tighter sound. Hmm.

As I listened to familiar tracks I had played prior to hooking up the 102, I was was neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed. I was sidewhelmed. The sound is still great, but I was under the assumption that the difference would be night and day. There is certainly no loss in quality, but the contrast is more like late afternoon to early dusk.

Bass is a tiny bit less boomy. My floor doesn't shake quite as much during louder passages. But this seems to be at the cost of those occasional satisfying low dips, for example, in the pluck of an upright bass. Soundstage seems slightly wider, but only slightly. Highs have a less piercing quality by a small degree.

All in all these differences are nice, and a small step in the right direction, but not $1800 worth of nice, to me anyway, especially when I factor in the grief my girlfriend is going to give me when she comes home Sunday and sees this amp sitting there. When I replaced my B&W 602.5s with 683's, she was not happy, until I played them for her. The difference was remarkable and she went from unhappy to giddy. With the Rowland 102, I would have to try to explain the subtle differences, as A/B testing is not practical. And if I can barely hear the differences, she will certainly not be able to at all.

My feeling is it takes a VERY analytical ear to ascertain the differences between the Solo's built in amp and the 102.

My primary source of music is the iPod, with 320kbps files, via the Rdock. My old roommate, a long time audio dealer here in NYC, who has worked in nearly every high end shop, as well as for Mark Levinson, says that the iPod is the weak link, and that no amp, be it $1800 or $18,000 will do much to improve the sound. I defer to his experise, but I swear some of my AAC/mp3 files are all but identical in sound quality to the CDs they came from. He suggested using a CD in the Solo to compare the sound instead of the iPod. This makes sense on paper, but the fact is 99.9% of my listening will be done via the iPod.

I called the shop I bought the 102 from and inquired about a return, fully expecting to pay a restocking fee. I was politely told I was basically stuck with the amp unless I wanted a store credit. I don't really want to deal with that. So now I'm trying to sell it.

My question is, do I give up the search for an amp, or go for something more powerful and cheaper, like maybe a used 200W Acurus? I'm obviously a novice...

Another dealer, who sold me the B&W 683s said the right amp would "open them right up". That's enticing, but after reading the Richard Clark Amp Challenge, I'm beginning to wonder if I should just walk away and cut my losses. Maybe all the adjectives applicable to a higher end amp are just lost on my ears.

As a side note, the Rowland dealer (the shop's owner) suggested I invite my old roommate (who used to work there) over to "show me how to listen to the Rowland". I don't think I've heard anything quite so ridiculous from a retailer in my life.

Thanks for reading.

-Rob