Best Integrated Amp? Help...

I'm thinking that separates only make sense if the OP has a pre or an integrated that can serve as the pre. Then a used stereo amp might be possible.

The fact that he says Rowland didn't work with these tells me he needs more power, plus knowing B&W to a degree. Of course Rowland would have never been in price point, unless it was pretty old.

Dave

Good point about possibility of using existing integrated or pre and loading up downstream with watts and current in a separate box. JI2 originally asked for info about a new integrated - which led me to think they have need/want for both control and power amp in the same box.

This brings up the question of relative importance of power and pre amps to the sound that would eventually emerge from 804's. Perhaps the Rowland had the juice, but not the finesse? Or some kind of impedance matching difficulty? Not trying to argue a point here as much as throw an idea out there for folks to react to. I guess I think both control and power are important to overall sound, but am starting to think Preamp is critical link...

JI2, if you can get a Blue Circle NSCS for under $2K I think you may want to try that and flip it if it doesn't work out - doubt you would lose much in the transaction.

Knownothing, you really like the Blue Circle NSCS. You have been plugging one for a while, are you selling one?
It is pushing the price point for me.
I had a Classe CAP-80 that ran my B&Ws better than the Jeff Rowland Concentra II. I do not think it is a issue of power because the Classe had 80W to the Rowland's 150W. I went to the CAP-151, and then Classe separates. Worked the B&Ws right, until I met BAT. The Rowland just sounded like it was on mute, even at high volume. I do not understand why...
I came off of BAT separates, beautiful pieces. I would opt for the BAT-VK300 integrated, but that is too much $, and I do not have $ to spare right now.
I also need space, so 1 piece is better than 2.
I like the magnum dynalab 308 integrated.
I demoed the Krell KAV300, and did not like the sound [a little dark and cold].
I am worried the 400 would be the same.
Thank you all for your imput.

I would think that the Rowland Concerto would have been fine with the 804 since it's got 250 watts, but maybe he had an older unit. There would be no lack of finesse in the Concerto, but if you got much lower power with those speakers I think that bass would be poorly controlled and the transparency in thickly scored pieces would be obscured.

As I moved up the power chain with my Vienna Acoustic Beethoven Baby Grands, each step was pretty dramatic. I started with a 50 wpc Bryston which was fine until pushed or with really deep bass content. Next I went to the Conrad Johnson CA200 for 175 wpc into 8 ohms, which really showed me what the bass good do and got much cleaner on complex passages, particularly at high volume. When I went to the Rowland Continuum 500 the bass control grew by an order of excellence and the transparency opened up further, dramatically. The pres all were incremental improvements in each case, but I think it was the amplifier section that really took over my speakers and made them way more dynamic and focused. The B&W has a similar need for power and control, IME.

Given the budget, 200 watts is the minimum that I'd go for, but hope for a way to get closer to 500 watts.

Dave

Dave,

I ran my Nautilus 804 with a BAT VK-200, 100W into 8 Ohms.
No problem there, power for anything with plenty to spare, and with pretty big rooms. I think that BAT power is very conservative [felt more like 150W].
I also ran them with a Classe CA-101 prior, also @ 100W into 8 Ohms.
No problem there either, a little strained at higher output, but all good.
The Rowland I had was a Concentra II @ 150W, not the 250W Concerto.
I had really high hopes for the Concentra II, but ...