Rotel Sound

[TimRawson]

What makes the Rotel sound? The difference is stark between the the RSX1056 and the other receivers I considered - of course subjective to taste. I tend to like crisp, almost raspy quality. Is that accuracy? Many of the others sound to smooth (muddy mid?) varying from dark to bright depeding on brand. What are the other design parameters that Rotel uses to create this sound quality?

Is the preamp portion more responsible for creating this sound than the amplification? WOuld imagine so since detail cannot be added by an amplifier, only intesify what's there.

RIght now the Rotel is very smooth and detailed, but want a little more tingle (brightness?) out of my speakers. Will a big amp change that?

One other quick question... (rather than another thread repeat)
Is the sub crossover separate from the hi-pass cutoff for speaker groups (activated when choosing small for the speaker group)?

Should create a glossary to define sound (open, bright, imaging, etc.)

[TimRawson]

quick followup

One of the reasons I asked about what defines the sound is that some of the DSP chips are the same... LIke doesn't outlaw and a few others also use the Cirrus logic DSP? THen B&K and Pioneer both use Motorola. Curious how much impact the DSP has to play on sound 'flavor'. Or is it more the implementation and quality of amplification/power supply?

[TTA89]

If you want it to sound brighter why not just turn the HF up? Sure is cheaper than 1000+ on an Amp. Its under the contour options from the OSM. Try it out

[TimRawson]

Did that... Bass and treble contour has minor impact. Could be that my speakers are less than bright. Talked with a local dealer (not the rotel/bw dealer), who I respect a lot and has dealt most brands sometime or other, said that tends to be the 'british' sound where there's a roll off in the high frequencies. While the rotel sounds awesome most of the time, there are a few tracks or instances where the mids overwhelm the tweeter output. Have to listen to some more and experiment some. Wonder if having a monster amp will rectify this observation. Mayber my room is part of the problem as well, long rectangle and listening area is about 15 feet away. Then again, only have about 10 hours of listening in.

[TTA89]

I can't imagine that adding an Amp would make a bigger difference than changing the HF in the reciever. The AMP isn't supposed to change the sound.

[soundhound]

In response to your'e 2nd post Tim, yes, the "flavor" of the sound is dependant on the raw analog circuitry, design, components, etc.....The processor (proper) doesn't have audio "ins" or "outs". It is responsible for decoding, delays, deciding which circuit gets which analog signals based on user settings, and so on.

[simonb68]

Whilst I agree that there is supposed to be a 'British' sound, many Japanese manufaturers have UK divisions to tune their products for the UK market, I wouldn't accuse Rotel of lacking treble impact. I have an RSX-1055 with Dynaudio Contour 1.1 speakers and an RB-993 power amp for the front soundstage. One of things that delights me about this system is the hair stands up on the back of your neck kind of tingle it can produce. Especially with, for example, vocalists like Annie Lennox, or The Mission OST or the Allegri Misere.....

All components will/can add their own colour to a system, speakers can play a significant part, what do you have, perhaps try with a brighter speaker.

[NMG]

I agree with simonb68. My system (RB-1080 and RC-1070) delivers very good detail on the top end with nice crisp highs. I think it does an admirable job of reproducing the signal it is receiving, especially the higher frequencies. That being said, I also have Pardigm Studio's which some people regard as a "brighter" speaker with their aluminum tweeters. I did find that my Rotel gear was "warmer" than the Yamaha amp that I replaced.

When you auditioned receivers, were they all powering the same speakers and playing the same material with the same settings? Any variables in these couldv'e result in fairly different results.

[TimRawson]

After some more listening, I'm starting to think I overreacted and was comparing to the wrong products and past experiences. I do feel it is very balanced on the high end. Between when I originally posted and and now, I had bought and returned a RB1070. Made my speakers sound better and top end snap improved, but the power was only marginally better for the money spent (still could crank to 95/max with the speakers ready to take a bit more) so brought it back. Watched a DVD and it had definitely improved the balance upfront and allowed the center channel to blend in.

It's mainly that sounds like cymbols aren't as piercing or seem slightly lower, maybe its because I'm just not used to the matching midrange detail being there.

It is also my speakers.... aluminum dome tweeters, does that imply anything? NHT ST4's. They are very smooth when powered right. I do love the rotel sound as compared to anything else I've had. Considering a RB1080 as well as some used 200x2's on Audiogon. Looking hard at an Aragon 4004MK2.

Thanks for the input

[NMG]

I can tell you with certainty that my 1080 will provide my Studio 80's more power than they could ever possibly need . . . I like knowing that It has some serious grunt but still sounds fantastic.

[DrJRapp]

Tim

Once you've been around this hobby a while longer you'll understand why we call our equipment a "system" rather than a "collection" and you will eventually learn to choose your equipment upgrades more systematically rather than randomly.

Yes, Rotel sound is a bit warm and "rounded" on the high end. This doesn't mean that it lacks anything, it's just designed to give a particular character to the high end that matches up well with many high end speaker lines that tend to have a bit too much emphasis on the top end. I myself chose Rotel because of this characteristic. I own Klipsch Reference 7 series. They have horn design tweeters with titanium domes and therefore can be more than a bit bright. My Rotel gear has nicely tamed this brightness and string instruments no longer have a metallic character like they did with other electronics. Cymbals seem more natural and less piercing.

Perhaps, in your system before that metallic sound of the cymbals was overempasized, perhaps not, but you obviously grew to like it, and now miss it. Someone suggested bumping the treble a bit, and you say that did not seem to work. I have a similar, yet different suggestion. Try REDUCING the bass by a couple of notches, increasing the highs by a notch and turning up the master volume to bring everything back to the volume it was before. This may yield the result you seek.

[TimRawson]

I noticed more power helped - will a bass driver suck the juice from a signal?

I wasn't looking for a repeat of the hissy tingle - I actually chose my current speakers because they weren't harsh at higher volumes they remained buttery smooth. I actually need to get a better source. With the Rotel, it helped me identify that my current DVD player sucks for music and that my old cheapo Sony 5 disc from early 90's sounded better. So, like you say, a system. Aragon 4004 on the way and a universal player on the list, but may not be until Xmas (gift from wife and mother in law?....)

[TimRawson]

I noticed more power helped - will a bass driver suck the juice from a signal?

I wasn't looking for a repeat of the hissy tingle - I actually chose my current speakers because they weren't harsh at higher volumes they remained buttery smooth. I actually need to get a better source. With the Rotel, it helped me identify that my current DVD player sucks for music and that my old cheapo Sony 5 disc from early 90's sounded better. So, like you say, a system. Aragon 4004 on the way and a universal player on the list, but may not be until Xmas (gift from wife and mother in law?....)

[Drew_W]

Rotel to me seems to roll off the highs a little. It was the first thing I noticed when I upgraded from Rotel 1080 to Bryston 4BSST.

Contour controls....EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

[Nick Danger]

Tim, there are other components you can tweak your system with that can change the sound you are hearing. I recently purchased silver Kingcat cables from Catcables to go between my amp - RMB1095 -and processor - RSP 1066 - and found an improvement to the high frequencies as well as tighter, better defined bass. I was worried that silver cables might sound too bright for the Rotel/Paradigm Studio 80 combo, but this hasn't turned out to be the case.
Just a thought.
Happy listening!

Nick Danger

[Kevin97225]

I have the Rotel RB-1090 and RC-1090 and the sound it gives me is unbelieveable,
very much a WOW-Factor. I'm very happy with it. I listened to many amps before deciding on this one. I didn't care for the Bryston Amps.... too clinical sounding and lacks the warm tube-like sound that the Rotel gives. This setup lacks nothing and
gives a very excellent all-around right way.

[Easyrider]

Rotel gives you a tube-like kind of sound???

I must be deaf, cos to me it is too clinical, and if you dont partner it with smooth-treeble speakers, its horrible.

I´ve listened a RA-1060, with Dyn 42, Bw 601s3 e MA s1, only the Dyns are suited to Rotel.IMHO.I just my opinion.

cheers

[TimRawson]

glossary

Is there anywhere in the other forums where a glossary terms exists for newer people?....

Clinical, would that be the sharpness? Opposite of smooth or warm?....

[DrBoom]

It's not easy to describe the Rotel sound, as I've found that different products have different characteristics.
There is only 1 thing I can say for all of them, wobbly bass a-plenty.
For some odd reason Rotel equipment seems to add bass, somewhere around 60 - 70 Hz region, and it's also not very good at producing tight bass.
My RMB1075 was the worst case, but the RSP1098 does the same to a lesser extent, and so does the RCD1072 (least of all).
Then there is also the increase in midrange, which is very noticeable on the RSP1098, and to a lesser extent the RCD1072.
Then the highs, the RMB1075 took them away, the RCD1072 over emphasises them, and the RSP1098 sucks out all the microdetail or "air".
I'm really starting to think you have to buy everything from Rotel, and then all the bad things cancel each other out :rofl:
The only thing you'll still have is wobbly bass. :roll:

[NMG]

Hey TimRawson, if only it were that easy

All these terms like "bright", "warm", "clinical", etc., are somewhat subjective and will likely vary depending on who is describing the particular component. To make things even worse, the same system could sound "warm" in one room and "bright" in another. Bright could be a trademark of having lots of energy in the upper frequencies while warm could mean a smoother midrange with less focus on the highs. This doesn't mean the equipment is inaccurate, it just brings a different flavour to the table.

[DrJRapp]

The only thing you'll still have is wobbly bass. :roll:

I've never found that to be the case. Perhaps there is some weird interaction going on with your speakers resonance frequency and the amplifier loading. Or perhaps I am missing something, but the bass from my system with my speakers is solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.

[RotelMotel]

What about Rotel vs NAD sound ? - my initial impression is that the NAD's have lower and more control in bass region but not as detailed in the midrange. What do you others think ?

[Kevin97225]

Yes "Easyrider" you heard me right.... tube-like!!! Several reviews out even
say it sounds warm tube-like and extremely smooth across its frequency range.
Adding that the RB-1090 never sounds hard or clinical... as in sterile.
It sounds rich, full bodied and melodious. You can read some of the reviews
yourself to help yourself out there.

If it sounds clinical to you..... I don't know what to tell you, it certainly
doesn't for me and it's not how reviews ever describe Rotel. Maybe it's
your speakers, maybe it's something else within your system, can't help you
out there.

"DrBoom" the bass for the Rotel RB-1090 is not at all boomy or lacking in tight
bass. I can't imagine why you would say that. I know the RB-1090 gets great
remarks on how tight, deep, well controlled, with slam and punch for it's bass.
Even TAS review says it's one of the best they ever heard for an Amp and was
"King of the Bass". I know for my system, I am very happy with the deep, tight,
and very impressive bass output this Amp can do.

As with any system, alot depends on speakers and other system combos of what
out come you will get. It's very important to remember this!!!
I'm very happy with my Rotel RB-1090 and it does not lack in deep, tight bass
at all. It is not wobbly at all! I have a couple of brothers that are running
Rotel with different makes and they don't have any of the problems you are
having. Maybe you need to look else where in your system with the problems
you are having. Bass is very solid for mine and if you read alot of the
Rotel user reviews, I don't see anyone complaining about the bass.

[soundhound]

After browsing through some of the different postings here recently I have found myself feeling "defensive" about my Rotel gear, and then I stop and think, the beauty is in the ears of the beholder. I believe I would be hard-pressed to find a better bang for the buck product, bar none. The different opinions are interesting, some real interesting....But, stop and think how boaring this place would be if everyone were on the same page. Bob

[NMG]

Interesting discussion. I can also say that I don't find the bass wobbly with my RB-1080 and Paradigm Studio 80's combo . . . I actually find it very tight and controlled. I would also have no problem saying that my current combo is quite a bit "warmer" than when I was using my Yamaha amp instead of the Rotel gear.

My buddy had Paradigm Studio 60's with a Bryston amp/preamp and to me, that was a "clinical" system. I can't say that it made me want to sit on the couch listening to music for hours on end. To each his own I suppose.

[DrBoom]

If the 1090 and 1080 are fine by most people's standards, maybe it's just the 1075 that's not that good ? (or it's me :roll: )
I must say I haven't heard the 1090 myself, but I know several people who had one and all of them had comments on the bass performance and openness.
I recall one person with N803's who had a Vincent SP996 on demo (small 120W monobloc amp, costs about €400) and said it was much more dynamic than the 380W RB1090.
All I can say is that when I switched from the RMB1075 to the Parasound HCA2205AT, in my own system, the sound was dramatically improved.
Ofcourse the Parasound costs 3x as much if you buy it new, but I hear a lot of ex-Rotel owners commenting on how much they gained with a different brand of amp.
Maybe it's a coincidence, but they all owned B&W Nautilus series (802, 803, 804)
So perhaps it is the combination that simply doesn't work well, but then again there are several people around here that do like their 1090/802 combo.
Those wouldn't happen to be pure stereo setups without surround processors or something ?

Anyway, let's not fuel the fire even more.
As long as everyone enjoys his/her system, no matter what it's made of, everything's fine

[jlee]

It's not just you Dr. Boom... I agree that the 1075 isn't that good for 2 channel.... and I too have heard the midbass emphasis of the 1080 and 1090. I wouldn't describe the bass as "wobbly" but not as tight as some other brands. And yes, I own 804's... I don't think it's coincidence either. The 802, 803, 804 are all very revealing speakers and for the people that own them, I guess the gains they hear when going to a different brand of amp are more easily distinguished. I personally went to Classe CAM-200 monoblocks and the improvement over the Rotel is very significant, but it should be due to the price difference! I will say that Rotel is the best equipment you can buy (IMO) for the price! And that is why I owned it and still do for many years. The depreciation is relatively slow compared to other brands as well, so I would not hesitate to buy new. The Classe, I bought used at almost 50% off list when they became discontinued.

[NMG]

I heard the B&W Nautilus from the Prestige line mated to 4 RB-1090's at a show a while back and I must say, I thought it sounded great

"As long as everyone enjoys his/her system, no matter what it's made of, everything's fine"

I agree 100% :T

[TimRawson]

I've found the Rotel very tight and crisp but not bright. The thing that terrifies me is that on some material, it occasionally sounds harsh.

Maybe for kicks I should hook a set of el cheapo sony towers that had been relegated to the garage.

All very interesting.... I have two more peices on the way as well as an experiment to try.

Mentioned I had tried a 1070 out, slightly cleaner but not the improvment worth the 600+tax . Had a 1050 on the way which I was gonna try biamping with (but using 1050 for bass and no ) - curious to see if separating the woofer from lightens them up. Think I also need a better source. Using my dvd for audio is horrendous even when I using a digital connection to offload the DAC to the Rotel. Reverting back to CD (a unit I was trying to get out rack and get a better replacement) for controlled auditioning. However, I'd like to be able to use system general purpose manner without be 'offended' by the sound and not have to rely on the source being my beloved CD or universal player of choice.

Had considered getting a 1080 but wasn't convinced it'd solve my worries. While my speakers don't sound bad on the stock power, it's evident they can do so much more with power. So, picked up a (on it's way) used Aragon 4004MKII 200x2 amp. Got it for a decent price, excellend condition and can probably unload without financial loss if totally wrong selection.

Third, and perhaps most treasoness (word?), have an Arcam AVR200 on its way. I went and listened to the 300 at a local shop and liked it - but was was on Tannoy speakers and better source (arcan dvd). Would be a significant loss in functionality, lose DTS:Neo6, 7.1 capabilities, inflexible bass management and concerned about HT punch - but meets major criteria and overall would cost me less money, for now. My main needs: best I can afford 2 channel with decent DD5.1 abilities, Prologic 2 and/or DTSNeo6, preout - clean sound. Probably would have went with NAD originally if it weren't for reliabilty (hyped by internet?), ability to audition nearby (2 hours away) and military appearance.

So, lots of testing and probably mucking with too many variables in a short time. But can't afford to spend significant change (200-500) bucks every 3 months. You all probably think I'm freakin' mad... But hopefully in the end I'll find the balance, with some compromise.

[dermie999]

Is there anywhere in the other forums where a glossary terms exists for newer people?....

Clinical, would that be the sharpness? Opposite of smooth or warm?....

I'm with you Tim I am completely at sea with "warmth", "tightness", "crispness" "brightness" etc etc. If, as NMG says, they are all subjective terms then how do we know what we are describing?

What I do know is my Rotel gear sounds bloody good to my ears and thats good enough for me.

[NMG]

I'm with you Tim I am completely at sea with "warmth", "tightness", "crispness" "brightness" etc etc. If, as NMG says, they are all subjective terms then how do we know what we are describing?

What I do know is my Rotel gear sounds bloody good to my ears and thats good enough for me.

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Subjective seems to imply that there is really no clear understanding of what these terms mean and I think that would be misleading. I think certain pieces of equipment (along with the listening environment) do indeed present different "flavours" to the listener. I think things get subjective when you try and evaluate what the music "should" sound like . . . if that makes any sense.

In any event, I think all too often we get caught up in analyzing what the music should sound like instead of just listening to it. I agree with you that Rotel gear sounds great, I sure love mine :T

[TimRawson]

I am just confusing myself too much. Need to just listen to what I got (or will have by this weekend) and pick one.

Biamping didn't work well as I suspected - it did brighten the top end some.

The Rotel does sound very good. Better than anything else I've ever had. Maybe it's just revealing my weakest link, my source.

One thing I did notice the other day was the excellent detail I noticed when watching the Matrix.

I'm hoping the Rotel 1056 with the Aragon will produce the best result. The Arcam did sound excellent, but need that in home testing.

Wish there was an good sample of what speakers people are running with Rotel - of course tons of B&W, saw Klipsch and deftech. I imagine the rotel would gave new life to my previous mirages.

I'll leave this alone until I finish testing this weekend.