Rotel or B&K

[wca156]

I had previously decided on Rotel components but have had problems with the processor. I have been given the opportunity to replace the RSP 1068, RM 1075 and because I have two zones (outside speakers), the RM 1050. In place of these components I would get the B&K AVR 507 S2 receiver. My other components include:

Front - B&W 803S
Centre - B&W HTM3S
Rear - B&W CCM 65
CD - Rotel RCD 1072
DVD - Sony (older)
XM Radio - Polk Audio XRt12

I use the system about 50% audio and 50% vidio. I would appriciate any input or insight this knowledgeable group might have.

[StillLearnin']

wca156 - I was in the same position a few months ago. Here is the analysis I conducted:

BACKGROUND
I have been looking for equipment for my new (and still in development) home theater. I will be using the equipment for both movies and music. In the realm of receivers, I had originally been eyeing the Denon AVR-3805 but then decided to give the Rotel a listen and then thought why stop there – let me compare it to the B&K and why don’t we just go the road of separates instead of receivers…

I am sure I am not the only person who has walked down this road and then been reeled back in by reality…

At any rate, I decided to compare the tonal characteristics of Rotel vs. B & K (I assumed that these characteristics are likely to be similar within each brand)

ENVIRONMENT
I spent the weekend comparing the Rotel RSX-1067 with the B&K AVR-507. Both receivers were set up in stereo mode and were running Radia Z-1s. I was using a Rotel RCD-1072 as the audio source.

The CDs I used in this evaluation were:
Horowitz in Moscow
New Beginning by Tracy Chapman
Soundtrack from Himalaya
Rachmaninov: Symphonic Dances, Isle of the Dead / Ashkenazy

EVALUATION

Ease of Use
I found the B & K easier to use with me being able to configure the receiver using its front panel, while the Rotel required a display unit of some sort e.g. my TV. Not a big deal since configuration is something that happens infrequently.

Listening
Let me ackowledge at the outset that my evaluation is based on my likes in music and my ears - both subjective.

Both the B&K and the Rotel seemed to be very solid pieces of equipment.

I started with the B&K using the Horowitz (track 5) and really liked the sound. The B&K seemed to spell out detail quite well. I then moved over to the Rotel and needed to turn it up a fair bit to get a semblance of evenness of volume. I liked the Rotel as well but it seemed quieter to me. Then switching back to the B&K I continued to listen to the same piece of music. The B&K was definitely brighter. It was hard to know then if the B&K was introducing coloration or if the Rotel was not communicating it sufficiently – which represented the true music?

Switching to Tracy Chapman (track 11), the B&K continued to sound clear and bright. Since both my wife and I play a little guitar, I felt confident of knowing what a guitar really sounds like. On the B&K, the guitar definitely sounded brighter than either of our Martins do. When I would turn up the volume on the Rotel, the guitar sounded more real to me as did the vocals. I felt that the B&K was almost distorting the vocals...

As I moved to the Himalaya soundtrack, the tribal drums sounded more authentic on the Rotel. The Rachmaninov (which is very low, deep and contemplative) reflected the same to me. It was almost as if at higher volumes the B&K did not let the music stand on its own. I am not sure that I have the right vocabulary to communicate this, but I felt the Rotel represented the integrity of the music better than the B&K. If the music were frail, I thought the Rotel would let the music be frail, whereas it seemed that the the B&K tried to bolster it, therby distorting it…

Others may well enjoy the B&K and its character. For me, Rotel was my choice...

[wca156]

This is just the type of analysis that I'm looking for. Thanks for sharing this your insights.