Rowland "house sound"?

I really don't think there is anything to fault in the Rowland sound. Some people seem to have a problem with the Rolex factor, that is paying "extra" for Jeff's build quality and cosmetics but it is important to realize that Jeff's goal in every design is to produce a statement product. I've owned something from every generation of Rowland amplification from the days before he was "known" nationally to the present and I think that his sound has both evolved in terms of refinement and stayed consistant to his house sound. Within the Rowland line, you get what you pay for. The 201 monos are one of the better buys in high end audio.

Thanks for the response.
Do you think BAT VK-55 will present the same problem?
I spoke with Victor Khomenko at this year CES regarding this exact issue, and he mentioned that VK-55 measures close to 80 Wt. on the bench and actually is more powerful than VK-60 (if I remember the conversation correctly).

I have not heard the VK-55 so I can't comment. As I listened to my VK-60 for the last time today with it's new owner I realized that it will be a little more difficult to recreate what I had but the challenge is half the fun.

I forgot to mention that I heard a Model 112 I believe it is 2 yrs ago. Nice amp but sounded a bit dry to me. A friend of mine was using one and ended up getting rid of it and went back to his 300B. He made the comment of un-involving or no soul. I sure liked the preamp :)

I have to agree on the "house sound" issue here stated (very interesting thread by the way).

Of all the Rowlands I have had (not including the new line which I am unfamiliar) I would rate the Model 2 as the best option (price/performance), the only Solid State i ended up liking more are Gryphon amps, some integrateds are out there at "decent" pricing.