jeff rowland 501 & 201 vs. bel canto ref1000

How broken in was the mk2 here? Surprising after reading the stereophile review and seeing the new specs!! How did midrange (vocals especially) compare?

>> How did midrange (vocals especially) compare?

The MK1 was slightly more transparent than the MK2 in the midrange, with the nod going to the MK1 for vocals.

The two amps are extremely close in performance. The MK2 had more extension on top by comparison, but the MK1 was a bit more compelling. There were some other differences, but nothing that suggested superior sonics per se. Again, though, the differences were subtle; both amps are great performers. I would have a very difficult time saying in absolute terms which was better.

One aspect worth mentioning about the MK2, however, is the difference in input impedance... The MK2 will be easier to mate with a wider variety of preamps (i.e., tube preamps). So, if you were looking to purchase Bel Canto Ref 1000 amps--and had a tube preamp--it would be a good idea to ensure that the amps and preamp would play well together.

Guido would have to tell you how broken in the MK2 was...

One of the Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 amps has just slightly over 500 hours on it, the other one had only 80 hours. Hence, I suspect that many of the issues . discussed above, may have to do with the very asymmetrical break in of the Mk.2 amps. I am inclined to suggest that unless we have Mk.1 and Mk.2 amps with very similar and hopefully complete break ins, and equally warmed up -- Mk.2 were definitely more warmed up than Mk.1s -- it is not possible for me to form an opinion. G.