1 x RMB-1095 vs 3 x RB-1080?

[hired goon]

G'day,

I've currently got an RMB-1095 5x200w amp, about 2 weeks old. For a few hundred dollars, I can trade this in to get 3 x RB-1080 2x200w amps.

I'm wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of such a move.

This is what I've come up with:

• I'm keen to get a 1080 to drive the fronts, and the only other option is get a 1080 in addition to the 1095. That would cost over AUD$1000, whereas this option would be only cost about AUD$400. So a significant saving that not only gets a dedicated 1080 for the fronts, but a 1080 for the centre and rears as well.
  
• This would enable a 6.1 set-up, but I'd need to buy another amp for 7.1.
  
• I've only got 5 speakers and none of them are bi-wirable, so that the extra channel will be wasted for now (at least, until I get new speakers). This means that only one channel for the centre amp shall be used. I'm hoping that this will not cause any problems.
  
• The RB-1080 is a better quality amplifier than the RMB-1095. Whether this difference is audible is another matter however. Can anyone notice the difference when moving from the 1095 to the 1080?
  
• Having three amps rather than one allows some redundancy. Should one amp fail, I've still got four usable channels left over.
  
• The 1080s consume 550w of power, for a total of 1650w, vs 1200w for the 1095. However, the amp for the rears would not be on most of the time, so that overall I suppose less power would be consumed (?).
  
• I'd like to use the 12v trigger on at least the front and centre amp. There were issues with blown fuses on 1080s because of the trigger. Would chaining 1080s cause similar problems?

I'd like to hear some more advantages / disadvantages of moving to 3x1080 from 1x1095, or recommendations for other options (such as just adding a 1080 to the 1095).

--Geoff

[Andrew Pratt]

This would enable a 6.1 set-up, but I'd need to buy another amp for 7.1.

To me that's the crux of the issue. If you're happy with 6.1 then the tripple 1080's makes a lot of sense. If however you're going to want to go to 7.1 then I'd keep the 1095 and just add a 1080 later when you're ready.

[hired goon]

G'day,

To me that's the crux of the issue. If you're happy with 6.1 then the tripple 1080's makes a lot of sense. If however you're going to want to go to 7.1 then I'd keep the 1095 and just add a 1080 later when you're ready.

I'd have to buy another amp to go to 7.1, regardless of which option I choose. I'd save a few bucks by keeping the 1095, but the price difference between the 1095 and 3 x1080 isn't that much of an issue to me. I just need to figure out if 3 x 1080 is a significant improvement over 1 x 1095, or if it causes more problems than it's worth.

Though I may end up with 4 x 1080 in that case, which I suppose would cause rack problems to keep them all sufficiently ventilated.

--Geoff

[redbears]

In my experience the 1080 runs fairly cool, so heat may not be such an issue. When I mean cool, it does get warm, but not as warm as say an idle 1075, or even the RSP 1066.... maybe it is my speakers, but they are not ultra efficient at 89db.

My 1080 sits under the 1066 and above the 1075 in a custom rack. There is maybe 3~5cm of space above it.

[Andrew Pratt]

Redbears you're in the minority if your 1080 runs cooler then your 1075...for the rest of us is very much the opposite.

I'd have to buy another amp to go to 7.1, regardless of which option I choose. I'd save a few bucks by keeping the 1095, but the price difference between the 1095 and 3 x1080 isn't that much of an issue to me. I just need to figure out if 3 x 1080 is a significant improvement over 1 x 1095, or if it causes more problems than it's worth.

Though I may end up with 4 x 1080 in that case, which I suppose would cause rack problems to keep them all sufficiently ventilated.

I realize that you'll need another amp to get to 7.1 but buying 4 1080's seems a little over board and you'll still end up spending more and have one extra channel doing nothing. The 1095/1080 combo seems the more cost effective and workable solution to me. I also doubt any sonic benefits the 1080 might have over a single 1095 would be lost on surround speakers.

[hired goon]

G'day,

The 1095/1080 combo seems the more cost effective and workable solution to me.

It is tempting to go the 1095+1080 option, which would support 7.1 and drive the fronts a bit better.

But I don't currently have (nor am I likely to have for at least a year) sufficient speakers for 7.1 anyway, so the only benefit is a better amp driving the fronts. It would cost around AUD$1100 to add an extra 1080 to the 1095 to achieve this benefit, but only AUD$400 to replace the 1095 with 3 x 1080, and not only get a better amp for the fronts, but the center and rears, too.

As I said, the price difference in this case doesn't matter so much as the other consideratons (would it really make that much of a difference, would I have too many problems running multiple amps, etc).

I also doubt any sonic benefits the 1080 might have over a single 1095 would be lost on surround speakers.

My main concern was the fronts and centre. I'd like to drive the fronts using a proper 2-channel amp such as the 1080, and if (as I hope) I end up with a demanding centre such as the B&W HTM1, then I'm assuming it would be better to drive it using a 1080 as well. That the rears get their own amp is just an added bonus.

--Geoff

[weijst]

I'd certainly go for the 3 x 1080 option, allthough I do think a 1080 for the rear channels is a bit too much... Have you considered the option 1070 and maybe save some $ for decent interconnects / speaker cables / 1090 (see below) etc?

I remember a thread mentioning that the 1080 is indeed a worthwhile step up from the 1075, but that the same cannot be said for upgrading from the 1095 to the 1080. It also stated that if you want a simular step up from the 1095, than go the 1090 route... Is that also one of your options?

Good luck!

[JDH]

In my experience the 1080 runs fairly cool, so heat may not be such an issue. When I mean cool, it does get warm, but not as warm as say an idle 1075, or even the RSP 1066.... maybe it is my speakers, but they are not ultra efficient at 89db.

My 1080 sits under the 1066 and above the 1075 in a custom rack. There is maybe 3~5cm of space above it.

From my experience I'm finding the opposite, ie. the RB-1080 runs hotter than the RMB-1075 and RB-1070 I also own. Still not that hot to consider it an issue.

[hired goon]

G'day,

I'd certainly go for the 3 x 1080 option, allthough I do think a 1080 for the rear channels is a bit too much... Have you considered the option 1070 ...

I'm hoping to get some B&W 805s for the rears, and these speakers need power, which is why the 1095 or 1080 would be a good match. I'm not sure a lesser amp (like the 1070, or the 1075) would be sufficient here.

Then again, it's only for rear duties, so maybe 200w is overkill, but if I ever go the DVD-A or SACD path, then having matching amps would be better.

I remember a thread mentioning that the 1080 is indeed a worthwhile step up from the 1075, but that the same cannot be said for upgrading from the 1095 to the 1080.

I thought that once, but theoretically the 1080 is better than the 1095 (it's got a damping factor of 1000 vs 400, and the power supply to channel ratio is higher). Whether this is audible is a matter of opinion.

I'd like to get a dedicated 2-channel amp such as the 1080 for the fronts, and if I I trade the 1095 for 3 x 1080, I can get that at relatively low cost. If I keep the 1095, then I'm up for the expense of a new 1080.

Sigh. Maybe the 3x1080 idea isn't that great an idea...

It also stated that if you want a simular step up from the 1095, than go the 1090 route... Is that also one of your options?

Well I could trade the 1095 for a 1090, but then I'm back down to 2 channels rather than 5 :-)

--Geoff

[Stevebez]

The damping factor of 1000 is extreme on the 1080 and there is no audible sonic difference between a damping factor of 400 to 1000 for example. In fact 200 is more than enough... see a prior thread on damping factor I have posted a while back. So while the 1080's damping factor looks great by comparison - I cannot see that making a sonic difference... ? Anyone disagree?

3x1080's seems like you will always still be short channel should you go for 7.1 at some stage.

I would go 1095 + 1080 as Andrew suggested.

I have a 1075 + 1080 but don't have the speakers yet to really challenge this set-up. I have this in 5.1 currently using the spare channels on 1075 to run zone 2.

4x1080's would really be overkill and you would have a spare channel.

Rgds Steve.

[aud19]

I'd go 1080 + 1095. You can biamp your mains while sticking with 5.1 and if you decide to go 7.1 you'll already have the 7 amp channels. At that time, if you choose, you could grab another 1080 to continue biamping your mains and likely increase performance again.

Jason

[hired goon]

G'day.

Thanks for all the advice. I guess I'll stick with the 1095 for now, and add a 1080 later when the need arises.

--Geoff

[Aussie Geoff]

Hired Goom.

Personally - I'd take the RB-1080s now in a heatbeat and buy a 4th one if / when you go 7.1. You can use the extra channel to bi-wire a future centre speaker etc.

The RB-1080 is a bit better sounding than the RMB-1095 and if you have the oportunity to get 3 for only a little more thant a 1095 (and the space for them) - I'd grab them in a heart beat - you have nothing to loose compared to a single RMB-1095!

Geoff

[Bing Fung]

The RB-1080 is a bit better sounding than the RMB-1095....
Geoff

Geoff, is that really true?

I tried both and at that time I could not really tell a difference on my set up. This was with me making the connection changes. It may be different if somebody else was doing the switching, however I think if I have to strain that hard to discern a difference, there may not be a significant one at all :scratchhead: I could be wrong......

Actually if I was to give the nod to which one I liked the sound of, it was the 1095. I thought to myself, this one has just a bit more grunt... Could be because it is bigger looking thus it sounds bigger :B


Hired, I think it's a win win situation, and if you can trade your 1 x 1095 for 3 x 1080's Even-Steven, I would do it. You end up with one extra channel of 200 Watts, whats to think about? :T However if its going to cost a few extra hundred... then I may not. You would have to spend several more hundred to get 7.1 capability if you intend to do that. I toiled with these same choices too, I also thought 3 x 1080s, but in the end the 7.1 capability vs cost, and the look of the behemoth 1095 swayed me away from 3 x 1080s :twisted:

[hired goon]

G'day,

...the look of the behemoth 1095 swayed me away from 3 x 1080s

Strangely I think I prefer the look of 3 x 1080s -- one amp for each set of speakers looks kinda cool :B

Another thought: 2 x 1080 and 1 x 1075. About the same price as 3 x 1080. I can bi-amp the fronts using the 1080s, bi-amp the centre using the 1075, the rears as per normal using the 1075, and one channel left over for a centre back (if I ever get one).

And if I ever want 7.1 (or want to run second zone), then stop bi-amping the centre, and there's yer two extra channels...

--Geoff

[Bing Fung]

G'day,
Strangely I think I prefer the look of 3 x 1080s -- one amp for each set of speakers looks kinda cool :B
--Geoff

Yes, thats kinda cool too in an elegant way.

I myself, prefer the look of the Big Block amps (1095/1090) as it's like owning a big Krell, Mark Levinson, or some other super amp. The 1080 to me doesn't look as imposing in a rack, as some CD/DVD players are actually bigger than it (Denon 5800) :lol: But hey, not everybody is into the big look. :B

[Pilroy]

Hired goon,

I won't say anything about price, look or rack integration, only about sound :-)
IMHO, and according to my own experience in my system (have a look at my past and present config), a RB-1080 is sonically better than a RMB-1095. The difference is particularly important / noticable in stereo listening.
If your dealer lets you test the 1080, I strongly suggest to make an a/b comparison with your 1095. Your hears will tell you their/your truth.

Regards from old Europe.
PS: both of my 1080 have an 8 A fuse :-) and the 4 channels are still running, triggered by the 1098.

[Bing Fung]

I won't say anything about price, look or rack integration, only about sound :-)
IMHO, and according to my own experience in my system (have a look at my past and present config), a RB-1080 is sonically better than a RMB-1095. The difference is particularly important / noticable in stereo listening.
If your dealer lets you test the 1080, I strongly suggest to make an a/b comparison with your 1095. Your hears will tell you their/your truth.

Interesting... I'll do a retest again, as it's a quick easy swap for me... I need to hear the direct differences too

[PewterTA]

See this is all based upon each person's personal opinion with listening...

Bing Fung didn't notice any real difference at all between the 1095 and 1080 and Pilroy noticed a decent enough difference to justify the 1080s...

To me I would not think that they should be much different at all, looking at how they are made up, the 1095 is "basically" two and one half 1080s. They are built with the same parts and everything.

To me I like the idea of the 1095 & 1080 to biamp the mains and run the rears in a 5.1, then another 1080 down the road for 7.1.

[Bing Fung]

I just ran the re-test and I have to admit, there is a slight difference :E, Which one sounds better I'll have to say is a matter of tastes and opinion :huh:

Let me elaborate...

I'm running RCA splitters right out of the 1098 with inputs to the 1080, and 1095. I'm currently Bi-amping my mains with the 1080 to the mid/highs, and the 1095 to the Bass. So all I had to do for this test was insert the XO coupling bars at the speakers, disconnect one set of speaker cables, and swap out the live speaker cables at the component end, into each amp for each condition.

-Volume was set at a constant 65
-Same interconnects (AR) and lengths used
-Diana Krall, The Girl in the other Room SACD, Track 9 "Narrow Daylight" 2 ch track
-Dave Brubeck, Quartet Time Out, (Redbook) Track 3 "Take Five"

At first I used the 1095 and played Ms. Krall "Narrow Daylight". Very focused and great sounding with the 1095. I then paused the CD, swaped the speakers to the 1080, and resumed for a few seconds, then started the track over again. The 1080 had a wider sound in that Diana's voice seemed to be coming more from the speakers and not from the centre, or between the speakers. Diana's voice also sounded slightly lower in room height and really infront of the system. Her voice was more open, broader sounding, but it did not sound real, or convincing as it was definitely coming from both speakers.

I Swapped back to the 1095 again, and it was remarkable how the 1095 focused Diana's voice in the centre of the stage again, about 2 feet higher and 1 to many more feet back of the equipment. It was very real and belivable compared to the 1080. I swapped back to the 1080, and again, there was no mistake, Diana's voice was coming from both speakers and not some phantom image in the centre, I actually did not like this feeling or sound in comparision.

I swapped back to the 1095, and found myself knowing this is how it should sound. While also listening to the instruments the 1095 did not seem to have any narrower stage than the 1080, as both the piano and guitar in the track sounded pretty much the same and emulating from the same areas in space. The biggest difference in this comparison was Diana's voice, and I think the 1095 did a better job of imaging, creating that realisim that Diana was in the room singing to you. The 1080 while sounding nice, open, broad, just could not remove her voice from each speaker, thus giving it an artifical processed sound. I noticed I liked the bass violin on the 1095 more as well as it just seemed a hair tighter.

Next up I played the Dave Brubeck Quartet "Take 5". I started off on the 1095, Desmonds sax was nicely centered with Wright's Bass behind and slighty to the right of the centre image. Brubeck's piano was coming from the right speaker, Morello's cymbal work was coming from the left... Very nice!

I then swapped out the 1080 and Desomond's sax was again centred, but not focused as well as the 1095. I then also noticed the instruments were not as localized. The difference was slight. The 1080 stage sounded broader, however not as defined as the 1095. In this case both amps sounded very real and the difference was not as noticable as in Diana Krall's.

I swapped back and forth a few more times with this CD, and in this case either amp is ideal, depending on what you want. My preferncae was to the 1095's sound on this CD as well.

In the end if I was to chose which amp I liked the sound of more, it would be the 1095, as it just sounded more real and controlled to me. The 1080 while tending to have a broader stage, just seemed to smear the signal between the speakers more, giving the 2 CD's tested "sound emulating from the speakers" feel, more than the 1095. The 1095 just had more "presence".

So I suppose there is a difference, why I never noticed it before may be due to material tested... Or other things like break-in..etc

Have fun with your choices :T I'm going to put it back to Bi-amp mode unless anybody has a request (particular CD) they would like me to test, and if I have it, I'll give it a spin.

[Azeke]

Say Bing, the other thing is when you switched between the 1095 and the 1080 did you re-adjust the dynamic fields in the input menu?

I think that is essential element within the testing. Just my quick thoughts.

Regards,

Azeke

[Bing Fung]

Say Bing, the other thing is when you switched between the 1095 and the 1080 did you re-adjust the dynamic fields in the input menu?

I think that is essential element within the testing.

Regards,

Azeke

Better explain that one to me... :scratchhead:

[Azeke]

That was quick. In the input mode of the menu go to the options and I believe there are parameter adjustments for the speakers you may want to adjust the center one or two notches up or down, as well as the dynamics.

Great review BTW.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Azeke

[Bing Fung]

Ahh... No, this was purely in 2 channel mode, actually Multi-input, however 2 ch stereo from the Denon 2200.

Comparing 2 channels of the 1080 against 2 channels of the 1095, using stereo materials and only the left and right speakers.

Thanks!

[Azeke]

Got it. I am so use to 7.1 mode, that I sometimes forget about 2 channel :lol: .

Regards,

Azeke

[hired goon]

G'day,

Thanks Bing for the comparison of the 1095 to the 1080. I guess I'd better do a similar listening test, before trading the 1095.

Although I wonder about the situations where people bi-amp using the 1080 and 2 channels of the 1095...

--Geoff

[PewterTA]

Now here's a question now to (mainly) Bing... since you do biamp the main channels with your 1095 & 1080...

So with what you've seen and heard from comparing the 1095 and 1080, would it be better to remove the Bi-amping of the 1080 to get a better, more controlled sound stage up front. Because I would be thinking that the at the point of crossover you're getting two different images from the two amps. I'm almost thinking that the 1095 biamped to the L/R and fifth channel to the center, might give you a more accurate sound stage for watching movies, then use the 1080 to power the rears... hmmm?

Just a thought I had. I am now thinking that once I get my 1095 (pretty sure that's what I'm going to end up with). I'm going to use that strickly for the front. Then maybe get another 1095 for rears (and allow for the center to be bi-amped). That will give a great 7.1 hopefully!

[ht_addict]

Now here's a question now to (mainly) Bing... since you do biamp the main channels with your 1095 & 1080...

So with what you've seen and heard from comparing the 1095 and 1080, would it be better to remove the Bi-amping of the 1080 to get a better, more controlled sound stage up front. Because I would be thinking that the at the point of crossover you're getting two different images from the two amps. I'm almost thinking that the 1095 biamped to the L/R and fifth channel to the center, might give you a more accurate sound stage for watching movies, then use the 1080 to power the rears... hmmm?

Just a thought I had. I am now thinking that once I get my 1095 (pretty sure that's what I'm going to end up with). I'm going to use that strickly for the front. Then maybe get another 1095 for rears (and allow for the center to be bi-amped). That will give a great 7.1 hopefully!

This is what I do with my Studio(v3) 40's upfront and my NAD S250. Though I have a Pioneer 56TXi powering my Studio(v3) 20's in the rear.

ht_addict

[Bing Fung]

Now here's a question now to (mainly) Bing... since you do biamp the main channels with your 1095 & 1080...

Very good question Dan, after today's exercise I think I will be Bi-Amping with 4 channels of the 1095, use the 5th channel for the centre and then relegate the 1080 to surround duties.. Or I could still use the 1080 for the Bass and the 1095 for the mid/highs (opposite of how I had it) as the bass may be more mono, requiring less imaging... Still, I think that using the 1095 purely for the mains and centre, is probably the best way. I think Aussie told me that one time before

Hired, I would say listen carefully with the materials you like before you decide, as the magnitude of differences will depend on what your playing. Make sure the amps are in your system so you can do a direct A/B comparison, going by memory and or different sound environments here will not give you the direct comparison to truely decide.

Both amps are nice enough, and I would have never thought there was such a difference between the 2. Even if a person was able to dB level match, so the various amplifer gains were leveled, the sonic imaging and signature is different enough, depending on the material. In the above test, and with the used materials, the 1095 proved to be much better with vocals, creating a more belivable sound stage than the 1080 was. In jazz instrumentals, it was more even between the amps with that recording.

[Bing Fung]

I just finished testing with the speakers Bi-amped, again using the Diana Krall SACD.

I connected the 1095 to the Mid/Highs and the 1080 to the Bass. Definitely a smearing of Diana's vocals wired like this... Not as pronounced as using just the 1080, however in this test the single 1095 (non bi-amped) imaged much better than this bi-amped configuration. Sure the Bi-amp has much more grunt, at higher listening levels, where it doesn't really matter anymore, however at 65-70, I liked the sound of just the 1095 more. I then Bi-amped using 4 channels of 1095.... Much better! Image was centre stage, and very powerful at higher volume levels. It would seem the 1080 driving just the Bass, is enough to change the image balance of the 1095. I'm not sure what the bass frequency range is of the 603's however I suspect high enough to still hear the difference in the amps.

So my set-up will be 4 channels of 1095 bi-amped mains with the 5th channel driving the Centre, and the 1080 will drive the surrounds.


It has been a fun and fruitfull day playing :T

[hired goon]

G'day Bing,

So my set-up will be 4 channels of 1095 bi-amped mains with the 5th channel driving the Centre, and the 1080 will drive the surrounds.

Kinda settles the question of whether to replace my 1095 with 3 x 1080, doesn't it? I would never have thunk it possible, really.

Is your 1080 older than the 1095, perhaps? Maybe the newer 1080s (up to version 3, right?) don't have this problem?

--Geoff

[Bing Fung]

I still suggest you try it for yourself and see what you prefer... Pilroy and others tend to think differently than I do.

Both my amps are new this year (1080 July 04 / 1095 Aug 04), not sure what that translates to in versions.

It's not a problem, it's a difference in sound.

[Pilroy]

First of all, kudos to Bing Fung for having done this detailled comparison, explained his setup and let us know his findings. Good that you could improve your own setup by reallocating the 1080 / 1095 channels :-)

During the a/b comparison I did at home with my system (had a RSP 1066 at that time as stereo prepro), I noticed differences in stereo imaging (wider with 1080), bass control (tighter with 1080), "energy" (more dynamic with 1095) and vocals (softer with 1080). As my Focal JM Lab speakers have an already "present" midrange, the 1080 suited my ears better. This 1080 was a version 02 (last I bought is v 03 but I haven't compared them yet).

So, what I wanted to stress is that each of these Rotels amps (1080, 1090, 1095) has its own sonic personnality, which makes the matching to your own system and ears more difficult / more interesting :-).

That's why I fully support Bing's suggestion: give them a (listening) try. Both are good amps, but one of them should be better for you.

Pit

[Andrew Pratt]

All Rotel's 2 channel amps are voiced differently then their 5 channel cousins. The 2 channel amps are meant to have a more audiophile sound meaning the extreme upper end is a bit softer then the 5 channel amps that are intended for HT applications. Which you prefer will largely depend on your room, speakers and ears. There's no universal right answer just like there's no one speaker for everyone...and for that matter it likely also comes down to the CD you're listening to at the time

[hired goon]

G'day,

All Rotel's 2 channel amps are voiced differently then their 5 channel cousins.

Now this is important information -- something I was seeking way back when I started this thread. Thanks for mentioning it (although I must sheepishly admit that I was aware of this, but had forgotten).

The 2 channel amps are meant to have a more audiophile sound meaning the extreme upper end is a bit softer then the 5 channel amps that are intended for HT applications.

I thought it was the other way around -- HT sound is generally brighter, so the multi-channel amps tend to soften the treble?

I'm not sure that "a more audiophile sound" should equate to wider stereo imaging, however. Shouldn't the imaging be more precise for stereo, so that vocals are locked firmly in the centre, if that was the intended effect?

--Geoff

[Bing Fung]

Thanks Pilroy :T

In Audio magazine's test review of the 1095 in stereo mode, the reviewer stated he could not with any certainty, tell the 1095 apart from a Bryston 4B ST (an unbeatable amp IMHO), despite that the Bryston was more powerful and was his referance amplifier. That speaks Volumes for the 1095 in stereo mode :T When it can go toe to toe to an A grade Amplifer like the Bryston.

Bryston's are my most favorite amplifier at any price, and I always seek out opportunities to listen to them when possible, I love the solid sound and clean imaging they always give. If in fact the Bryston 4B ST and 1095 sound the same, it comes as no surprize I prefered the 1095's sound over the 1080. (actually I just remembered that comparision, and now it makes sense) :B

I suppose I'm lucky in that I have both Rotels to play with should my tastes change, or I feel like playing around. I wonder how the 1090 sounds in comparision and wiether it sounds more like the 1080 or the 1095? :scratchhead:

Hired, that's a very good point about the imaging.. I don't know what the actual differences are in the "voicing" of the Rotel amps, however I would suspect the 1080 objectives are 2 channel application. It just happens my likes in how music, should sound, made the 1095 the clear choice for 2 channel sound (for me). This alleged tuned 2 channel "Audiophile sound" seemed more artificial, or synthetic in the 1080, and more natural and neutral in the 1095, for my tastes.

You'll have to judge for yourself, cause in the end, you're the one that will be your system's worse critic, despite what others tell you "should sound better" :twisted:

[PewterTA]

Man from hearing all this, I hope I can get my hands on the 1095. It sounds what is found of the 1095 is really what sounds and everything I'm looking for.

To me though, it surprises me how much the imaging of the 1080 is, I would've thought both would be pretty darn similar in this case. I am like Bing, I like the Bryston's sound to their amps, so if the 1095 is indeed close, I'll be very happy with this big guy. To me it sounds strange that the 1080 created a more stereo effect with the imaging instead of putting her voice directly in center...

Sound it definitely sounds like a great way to go is 2 1095s if you want to push all the surrounds really good and bi-amp the center. I wonder if bi-amping the center with the 1095 would make the LCR 600 really open up? I mean I know it doesn't really need the 200 watts x 2, but with how much "better" the 603s that Bing has, I wonder if it would add more punch to the center...which since it carries so much of the information in movies, would definitely be useful.

Oh, did I mention this is why I LOVE the Internet!!! :B

[Bing Fung]

To me it sounds strange that the 1080 created a more stereo effect with the imaging instead of putting her voice directly in center...

Dan, I was very surprized by this as well, I would have bet the 1080 would have imaged Diana's voice much more realistically than the 1095, or at least they would have sounded the same. It was weird how it sounded in comparision. Do note that had I not had a 1095 to directly compare, I wouldn't have noticed... So ignorance can be bliss as they say.

As to Bi-amping the LCR, hard to say, I have heard bi-amping the centre has a huge benefit from some users. I haven't tried it with my CC6 and the Rotels, however I use to bi-amp it when I was running a Denon 3300. I think this passive bi-amping only yields gains at the upper volume levels (Loud stereo music), and not as much at normal levels. I suppose the rule again is you have to try it and see :T

I suppose I could try it as I have some extra monoblock amps lying around. they are not the same power rating as the Rotels, but I use to run a bi-amp with these and my Denon receiver and noticed an improvment in the centre and mains. The Denon was 105wpc, and the Monoblocks are 120wpc. Apperently the Denon 3300 Receiver is much lower in power all channels driven (35wpc), so no doubt adding any extra amps would have helped. The Rotels being able to deliver a solid 200wpc, the gains would be more marginal I think.

[Andrew Pratt]

Apperently the Denon 3300 Receiver is much lower in power all channels driven (35wpc), so no doubt adding any extra amps would have helped

Actually the Denon 3300 benched at 83 watts a channel all driven into 8 ohms 20-20 so it was one of the better receivers at the time. Its the Denon 3801 that did 38 watts a channel :nono:

It would be interesting to try the 1090 vs the 1095 vs the 1080 given the voicing differences. If I had to guess I'd say the bottom end would be tighter on the 1090 but the upper end of the 1095 might still be a little more open sounding.

Also rememeber that the Sterophile review of the 1080 noticed that its sonic signiture seemed to change a lot with different volumes...not sure what happens to the 1095 but its yet another variable to consider.

[Bing Fung]

Actually the Denon 3300 benched at 83 watts a channel all driven into 8 ohms 20-20 so it was one of the better receivers at the time. Its the Denon 3801 that did 38 watts a channel :nono:

Right... the 3300 wasn't that bad :lol: I just wanted to make the point that with a lower starting power (wpc) bi-amping can have a larger effect than when compared to a higher power amp such as the Rotel's here.

Also rememeber that the Sterophile review of the 1080 noticed that its sonic signiture seemed to change a lot with different volumes...not sure what happens to the 1095 but its yet another variable to consider.

I did do some volume adjustments during the testing, but nothing directly compared in relationship. I just turned up each amp to see how it sounded at "loud" levels. I thought they both seemed to maintain the same sonic signature, however I'm not totally sure. Is variable voicing a desireable effect? :scratchhead: I would think not at 65 on my system :lol: I can run a test this weekend at various volume levels to see if there are any changes relative to volume.

I was listening some more to the system last night with just the 1095 in stereo mode, and was very satisfied... It really has a soild punch and image to it, seldom did it sound like the sound was coming form the speakers. I played all of Eric Clapton "Chronicles", Kim Mitchell "Rockland" and Boney James & Rick Braun "Shake it Up" Solid! :T

Played Jethro Tull "Aqualung", that is such a thin sounding CD, good thing the content is good, cause I have heard better sounding MP3's than the CD I own :evil:

[Pilroy]

It would be interesting to try the 1090 vs the 1095 vs the 1080 given the voicing differences.

Also rememeber that the Sterophile review of the 1080 noticed that its sonic signiture seemed to change a lot with different volumes...not sure what happens to the 1095 but its yet another variable to consider.

My listening sessions 1095+1090 vs 1095+1080 are old now (march 2003), but I still remember what occured. I had the opportunity to get a demo 1090 at the normal price of a new 1080, the beast fascinated me so I bought it. I wanted to use it for my fronts, and only 3 channels of the 1095 (splitted over the two toroidal transformers) for center and rears. The stereo sound of the 1090 pleased my ears, but I faced an unexpected problem: at low listening levels (night- and neighborhood compatible), the 1090 was non-existent, asleep, while the 1095 seemed to have a "linear" amplification, with no wake-up threshold. The 1090 woke up around the 41+ mark on my rsp 1066, and then performed really well.

So I went back to the shop, bought a 1080 and went on a/b testing. Despite the fact that the 1080 was also less "dynamic" than the 1095 at low levels and really woke up at mid-levels (35+), I could obtain an acceptable coherence of my 3 front speakers. This is a very important point for me because I mainly listen to 5.1 musicals & concerts, where you don't want to hear the singer "disappear" while moving from right to left on stage. For films, I wouldn't see this as a sooo big concern. I finally returned the 1090 with tears in my eyes, as 3 of these beasts were not an option.

Indeed, I experienced with the 1090 what K. Rubinson said about the 1080 in Stereophile. And I decided to use the same amp modell for all front, in the future.

Add this variable voicing to the different sonic signatures of the amps and you will have a wonderfull mix & match game for you 5.1 system ... which IMHO speaks tones for a single-model setup.

Opinions of other owners of a "mixed configuration" would be really interesting.

Pit.

[Spearmint]

An apology if this has been answered before, and sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

Currently I have a 1095 powering my 3x fronts and centre surrounds my Denon 3805 powers both A&B surrounds. I also have a brand new 1080 boxed up for the last couple of months, due to no place to put it, but now I want to use it to power my mains, so here is the question.

How is the 1095 wired, i.e. does 1 xformer power centre & L&R, or centre & Surround L&R?

[Pilroy]

Spearmint,

I remember an old posting at audioreview that stated one power supply was in charge of the 3 front channels and the other one only the rear channels.

Also found in a January 2000 review at "Home theater and high fidelity", quote:
>>When I first looked into the chassis, I saw a huge toroidal transformer. Then, I noticed another one underneath. So, this hawg has two very large toroids that span the entire height of the amplifier. That is a lot of transformer. The power supply capacitors are under the green circuit board in the photo, while the output stages are across the sides and front. The top transformer is the larger, supplying three channels, while the smaller one (but it is still big) on the bottom supplies the remaining two channels.<<

Andrew or Geoff can surely confirm / infirm this.

Hope it helps,
Pit.

[Aussie Geoff]

Pit,

Your understanding is my understanding - the RMB-1095 has two transformers stacked - one for the front 3 channels and the other for the two rear channels...

Geoff

[hired goon]

G'day,

... the RMB-1095 has two transformers stacked - one for the front 3 channels and the other for the two rear channels...

Forgive my ignorance, but what would be the practical effect of using one transformer to power three channels rather than two? Does it affect vocing/imaging (as Bing and others noted), or is it more of an efficiency thing?

--Geoff