Solid State Preamp Reviews

The line stage of the Consonance accepts the single-ended output of the attenuator stage (which follows the phono stage), provides the appropriate gain, and also performs the conversion to differential (balanced) mode by means of a differential FET amplifier. No negative feedback is employed in this stage. There are several ways of converting a single-ended signal to balanced operation. Rowland claims that their (proprietary) method of conversion is superior to other implementations, providing increased loading flexibility, reducing time and phase anomalies, and maximizing the Common Mode Rejection Ratio (ie, minimizing noise common to the plus and minus signal-carrying leads of the balanced cable).

Rowland does not use the IEC "standard" in their balanced configuration. In their configuration pin 2 carries the negative signal, pin 3 the positive. (Both configurations use pin 1 as the shield.) While a number of manufacturers use the same configuration, others use the IEC—where pin 2 is positive, pin 3 negative. The only problem this might cause would be absolute polarity reversal if the Consonance is used with a power amplifier from a manufacturer using the IEC orientation. The polarity reversal switch on the Consonance makes this a non-problem.

Sound
While the primary system used most recently with the Rowland Consonance is composed of the Apogee Stage loudspeakers, Threshold SA/12e monoblock power amplifiers, Oracle Delphi Mk.IV turntable with Oracle arm and Dynavector XX-1L phono cartridge, and Sony CDP-X77ES CD player (along with Cardas Hexlink and AudioQuest Lapis interconnects and SYMO loudspeaker cables), that list by no means covers all of the equipment auditioned with the Rowland. It has been the primary system preamplifier with all of the components I have reviewed over the past six months.

So where to begin? Perhaps with the observation that at no time during those six months did I feel the urge to remove the Consonance from the system to "cure" some sonic anomaly or other. Or to return to my long-time reference, the Klyne SK-5a—still a superb preamplifier and one that I have never regretted either purchasing (over four years ago as an SK-5 and subsequently updated) or using as my system "anchor" throughout that period.

It's never easy to separate the sound of a component from that of the system in which it's used—more difficult yet when that component performs as well as the Consonance over a long period of time with a wide variety of associated equipment. Still, the Rowland appeared to be taking nothing away on that night when the Apogee Stages, ably abetted by the big Threshold amps and a Stax D/A converter (on an all-too-brief stay in my listening room), turned the audition into a three-ring circus on "Barnum & Bailey's Favorite" from Stars & Stripes (Telarc CD-80099).

The overall impact, and particularly that of the bass drum, was astonishing. As was the bass extension over the same system (the Stax excepted—the Sony player was now in the chain) when the soundtrack from The Abyss (Varese Sarabande VSD-5235) came near to clearing the listening room's bookshelves of their contents. Still, there was no confusing the more extended but less dramatic low end of the PSB Stratus Golds with that of the Apogees when using the Rowland. Nor was there any ambiguity as to the tautness and punch (though not ultimate extension) of the low end of the Signet SL280s driven by the Consonance and the Kinergetics KBA-75 power amp. In short, in the low end of the spectrum, the Rowland appeared to be limited only by the associated equipment.

The Consonance also provides consistently natural midrange quality and precise soundstaging. When, in my recent survey of five CD players, I relayed my feelings about the liquidity of the Sony CDP-X77ES and the "liveness" of the California Audio Labs Aria Mk.III, recall that all of this auditioning was done through the Rowland Consonance. But all of the players did not sound this way—suggesting that the Rowland was merely passing on what was delivered to it.

Is the Rowland liquid? It certainly will not prevent a system from sounding this way, as my audition of the Sony indicated. Ditto for liveness. And double ditto for that sense of palpable "presence" and focus which are revealed so vividly by the Apogees. Again, if the rest of the system can deliver, the Rowland will not let down its end of the bargain. I've listened to a wide variety of HF drivers over the past several months, from the ribbons of the Apogees to the soft domes of the Mirage M-3s to the metal domes of the PSBs, Signets, B&W 801s, and JBL XPL-160s. The differences between the top octaves of these loudspeakers were clearly evident. There was no consistent characteristic which I could blame on the Consonance other than that they perhaps all fell within the range of what I would consider "good or better" HF performance. No consistent negatives, no harshness or hardness suggested a strong character to the sound of the Rowland preamp. No sensation of "canned" or "artificial" sound, no spurious brightness or tizziness; just HF performance which ranged from very good to superb—at its best, open, airy, delicate yet detailed.

Comparisons
Ultimately, of course, I sought an answer to the same question which has undoubtedly occurred to the reader. The Consonance may well be more transparent than much of the equipment with which it is likely to be used, but nothing is perfect. How does it compare with other highly regarded preamplifiers? To answer that question, I returned to the primary system described at the beginning of this section (Stages, Threshold SA/12es, etc.). The comparisons were performed exclusively with analog LP, using the Oracle turntable/arm and Dynavector pickup as a source. Two highly regarded preamps were chosen to challenge the Consonance: the Klyne SK-5a and the Audio Research SP-14. Apart from their design differences, these two units are unique in another way which I felt would be useful: I was intimately familiar with the Klyne but had never formally auditioned the Audio Research in my own listening room. Levels were closely matched (as per my previous discussion of this subject), though the comparisons were not direct A/Bs.

The face-off with the Klyne proved interesting. It also validated, to a degree, our capsule description of that preamp in various "Recommended Components" lists. The SK-5a was slightly more immediate and palpable than the Rowland through the midrange. At the same time it was a bit softer and less detailed through the upper octaves. The Klyne was, however, a shade more effective in its rendition of ambience. It also often sounded louder, though the levels remained matched, which related directly to its sense of immediacy. On Lessons for the Lyra—Viol (Astrée AS 51) the Rowland had a clean, defined HF response, with more evident "rosin on the bow" than the Klyne, which was a trace rounder and warmer sounding. On Black is the Color (LP, Opus 3 77-06), the Klyne was superbly "there" in its vocal rendition, with a natural three-dimensionality and perspective. The Rowland had a no less impressive soundstage, but was a bit more laid-back, with noticeably more sparkle and "air" at the top.

It also appeared to be somewhat more dynamic than the Klyne. In the low end, differences were apparent, but elusive. I ultimately felt that, overall, the bottom octaves of the Klyne were a shade deeper and more potent—the explosive low end on Flamenco Fever (M&K Realtime RT-107) had a "seat of the pants" wallop with it that the Rowland could not quite equal, though the latter did not seem to lack anything audibly. In light of this I was surprised to observe that the initial attack on percussive bass seemed a bit better defined with the Consonance, with the net result that the latter more often came across as subjectively tighter than the Klyne. But the low-end differences between these two preamps were by no means dramatic.

Ultimately I came to favor the Rowland over the Klyne. It was more open at the top and had what I feel to be the slightly more neutral midrange perspective. Neither preamp exactly blew the other away, however, and it would be misleading to say so.

The same might be said for the Rowland in comparison with the Audio Research. The SP-14 immediately impressed with its delicious sound. An odd choice of words, perhaps, but the first which came to mind as I began listening. The SP-14 was immediately involving, invited continued listening, and was easily the most liquidly smooth and grainless of the three preamps. It was also the most lively in the lower treble and the least emphatic at the high and low extremes—though not obviously deficient at the top or the bottom. Paul Simon's Rhythm of the Saints CD (Warner Brothers 9 26098-2) was more delicately detailed in the extreme highs through the Rowland. It was also better focused on the latter; there was an appealing bloom to the sound of the SP-14 which, while it did provide a glow and vibrancy which the Rowland could not match, nonetheless did seem to slightly enlarge individual images, though not to an objectionable degree. The Rowland excelled not only in focus, but also in low- and high-end extension, clarity, and inner detail. The Audio Research sacrificed some of these things for a more striking immediacy, a fuller, richer (but not dark or heavy) sound.

The Consonance struck me as being less instantly alluring than the Audio Research, and less likely to appeal to those for whom there are tubes at the end of the rainbow. In my opinion, however, the Rowland is marginally more accurate than either the Audio Research or the Klyne, though I could blissfully live with either of them (as I have in the case of the Klyne) were the Rowland not available.

The above comparisons were made with unbalanced interconnects from preamp to power amp, since the Audio Research has unbalanced outputs and the Klyne, though it has positive and negative outputs, lacks standard balanced (XLR) connectors. The Consonance, however, does have both balanced and unbalanced outputs, and Rowland makes a strong case for use of the former in their literature. How do the two compare? I can only answer that in my several months with the Consonance, I have used it extensively with both types of interconnect. It has performed superbly with both; I never felt, when listening to either configuration, a strong desire to switch to the other. There are, certainly, good and valid theoretical advantages to a balanced line. But these advantages should not dissuade you from mating the Consonance with an amplifier having an unbalanced input. I'll have more to say about this subject when I mate the Consonance to Rowland's Model 1 power amp in an upcoming review.

Problems
My time with the Consonance was not all smooth sailing. I did run into one rather disturbing, intermittent problem—static electricity. On two isolated occasions shortly after the preamp arrived, the controls refused to respond to commands, either from the front panel or from the remote. The problem was cleared by switching the preamp off for an instant, then back on again (much as you might treat a stubborn glitch in a computer).

On at least one of these occasions the phono stage was in use (my notes and recollections are, unfortunately, unrevealing in the second instance). Then, after several weeks of uneventful use, primarily with CD (my recent CD player review was then in progress), the problem recurred with a vengeance. At least six times in one evening, as I listened to phono using the Oracle turntable with the Dynavector pickup, the preamp controls froze. Each time the problem was easily cleared by briefly turning the preamp off, but that did not reduce my annoyance.

It eventually became clear that the problem was caused by static electricity. Specifically, whenever static could be heard (both through the air and through the system) as the record was removed from the turntable, the problem would recur. Nor was it necessary to touch the preamp at all for this to happen.

I called Rowland the next day and they were just as puzzled as I was. It was now winter, and dryness is common in Santa Fe at that time of the year. Jeff Rowland was about to drive down from Colorado to check out the problem (and bring a second sample of the preamp just in case) when Mother Nature intervened with a foot or so of snow, both at his end and ours. It not only kept him home, it must have raised our relative humidity. I was unable to duplicate either the static or the problem for the remainder of the test period. It remains a puzzlement. Fortunately the few occurrences noted here were irritating but isolated.

Conclusions
Even if it functioned as does virtually every other preamp on the market—conventional front-panel controls and all—the Consonance would be sonically competitive with the best of them. As I've said, in over six months of use I was never tempted to abandon it for another preamp. I never felt that it compromised the performance in any system in which it was used, in a way which another, competitive preamp would objectively "improve." The comparisons I made only reinforced that feeling. That is not to say that another preamp might not "lock in" to a given system better, or might not better suit a particular listener. But I found the Consonance to be a formidable performer with a wide range of associated components. As far as its convenience features are concerned, Rowland has given other manufacturers a lot to think about.