Watch Out Krell, here comes Rotel:tales of the RMB 1077

[csuzor]

A recent review in France by a B&W manager and part-time recording engineer (Philippe Muller), during a multi-day classical and jazz music recording session in multi-channel, claims the 1077 changes a lot of preconceptions about amps, and is better than other ICEpower amps (where he had noticed high-frequency loss of clarity). Used in a passive bi-amp configuration (which he strongly recommends) on huge B&W 801 the result is simply optimal (he typically uses 5x 801, maybe he had 2 1077?), and truely high-fidelity (closest to the real thing, as opposed to audio-phile as we all know: I don't know the difference, but he is a little philosophical). He could push into clipping, but at insane volumes only. He will continue to use this amp as a professional.

I think I want one now.

[Indytown]

A recent review in France by a B&W manager and part-time recording engineer (Philippe Muller), during a multi-day classical and jazz music recording session in multi-channel, claims the 1077 changes a lot of preconceptions about amps, and is better than other ICEpower amps (where he had noticed high-frequency loss of clarity). Used in a passive bi-amp configuration (which he strongly recommends) on huge B&W 801 the result is simply optimal (he typically uses 5x 801, maybe he had 2 1077?), and truely high-fidelity (closest to the real thing, as opposed to audio-phile as we all know: I don't know the difference, but he is a little philosophical). He could push into clipping, but at insane volumes only. He will continue to use this amp as a professional.

I think I want one now.

Csuzor,

Where is the full article located at?

Indy

[Ryx]

Now if I could only find the ellusive 803Ds....it seems most dealers can't keep them around very long.

I can't say this surprises me all that much as the 803Ds seem to sit at the limit of a lot of peoples price range and are a very nice sounding speaker. (I am not saying that the 803Ds are in a lot a peoples price ranges, just that the price jump from 803D to 802D would put the 803Ds in a larger span of priceranges and therefore a more popular choice)

I hope you gat a chance to hear them soon as you have been waiting for some time to try them out with the RB1077!

[csuzor]

Csuzor,

Where is the full article located at?

Indy

It's in french, on the french version of HTGuide forum, http://www.homecinema-fr.com , there is a long series of discussions thereafter with the reviewer. Not everyone will like what they read, he makes some important claims but cautions that other's mileage may vary... but he hasnt found a fault with the amp yet.

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29800427&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

[Aussie Geoff]

Hi,

Here is a link to the in-depth technical review of the RMB-1077 by Miller Audio Research for the Hi-Fi News review on the Rotel Wbd site. Username: avtech Password: 3chip

Enjoy. Impressive for a digital amp...

Geoff

[Blazar]

I've really been trying to audition this amp with the B&W 803Ds, but have been unsucessful in finding a dealer that has that combination available, so yesterday I got to listen with the 803S's. While listening I had Soundgravy's comments in mind about the upper fequency compression. I heard none of that. What I did hear was a significant amount of silbance that results from the combination of the extended top end of the 1077 (by comparison with a typical Rotel amp),with the brightness of the 803S's. I can easily see why those who like a distant and rounded sound may not favor this amp over a more conventional sounding Rotel amp with the 803S's. What I additionally found interesting was the fact that I don't get the same effect from my RF7s which are considered a "bright" speaker that prefers a more rounded amp.

Now if I could only find the ellusive 803Ds....it seems most dealers can't keep them around very long.

Hopefully you can comment at some point on the 1077's abilities with the diamond range of B&W speakers. I have the 802N also and they have a much more "harsh" high frequency range compared to the diamonds as many others have said in the B&W forums.

I'm just interested in switching amplifier (class D) in general and I'm willing to out the money if it will result in an improved sonic outcome. I like the panny since it's cheap as dirt and I don't feel guilty about trying something new in the future.

[DrJRapp]

Hopefully you can comment at some point on the 1077's abilities with the diamond range of B&W speakers.

Perhaps within a month. I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide between the 803D and the 802D, but unfortunatly haven't been able to find a real decent audion of either. The audition I did of the 802D in the same room under the same conditions as the 803D, with a Halcro amp did not impress me for the extra $$. This is my first round of truely high end speakers and it involves a serious commitment in $$, so not wanting to make a mistake has kept me from making the move so far.

[Blazar]

I can't help you between the 802 and 803... never heard the 803 unfortunately. Even if I did, I wouldn't trust the audition unless it was in my own home in a treated room.

[GregLett]

Too bad you are not in the NYC area DrJRapp. I have three dealers within 2 miles of my office, with the full B&w, Rotel, Classe line.

[RebelMan]

I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide between the 803D and the 802D, ... This is my first round of truly high end speakers and it involves a serious commitment in $$, so not wanting to make a mistake has kept me from making the move so far.

Jerry, I have found that first impressions can be some what elusive. If sufficient time has past since the last audition, a few more spread out visits to the same dealer (over the next month of course) may help you to sort out your delima. I feel time between multiple listening sessions is less likely to skew one's memory or impressions and gives a person the opportunity to note audible consistancies, or lack thereof. Your reasons for exercising caution are certainly justified.

[DrJRapp]

a few more spread out visits to the same dealer (over the next month of course) may help you to sort out your delima.

Unfortunatly, that dealer is 72 miles away, and requires an appointment a week in advance. I also hate wasting anyones time since it is unlikely that I would purchase from that dealer. I'm trying to find another with a 802D`setup that I could convince to hook up a 1077 (theirs or mine), to have a listen again.

Then there is the WAF to deal with. My wife really thinks the R2D2 look of the 802D is silly....and I have to concur, especially in light of their extreme cost. We both prefer a speaker that doesn't make a vsual statement of it's own...you know, one that looks like aaaa........ speaker. I HAVE been able to convince her that ALL truely high end speakers have sort of a wacky look in an attempt to be different (witness the Revel Salons or all the Wilsons), and a bizzare look is just something we wil have to live with, and attempt to camafloge in the new theater room. Showing her how nicely the speaker is built hasn't done anything to change her mind about the silly look.

Bringing this thread back on topic, I see no reason why the 1077 won't drive the 802D. If I have to I'll passive bi-amp the mains and use my 1050 for the center backs until the 1092 is released.

[RobP]

Jerry, I honestly think that although the 1077 may drive the 802D's , it wont do them justice, Its just not enough power to bring out the full potential of those speakers. I heard the 803D with the 1077, and that amp really didnt have the grunt to bring them alive.

[DrJRapp]

Robert

Perhaps you are right, but something tells me otherwise. If, as you say, the 1077 won't bring an 803D alive why did Rotel use 7 of them to demo the 1077 at CEDIA? With acess to the entire B&W line, don''t you think perhaps, that they would have used something better suited if the 1077 can't bring the 803D alive? According to my dealer (who was there and heard them), they screamed! Also, according to a reliable source at EA, the 1077 was voiced using the 803D & 801N.

If it's life one wants, the 1077, because of it's slightly forward nature, should do a better job of that than any other Rotel amp, including the 1090. This opinion is coming from someone (me) who now has over 700 listening hours on his 1077 with three different speaker systems...in my home under all kinds of conditions. No just a quickie at some dealer somewhere.

However, I'm not a Rock and Roller, so my idea of a good amp is one that has subtlness and detail, and is truely quiet enough do be able to discriminate the various instruments in a complex mix such as a symphony orchestra, and have orchestral bells ring true with clarity and lightness that causes them to float in the air; while at the same time having the B---s to make the cannon shots from Master and Commander seem live. The 1077 does that just fine!

[RobP]

Jerry, I understand that you are convinced that the 1077 is the next best thing since sliced bread, and the 1077 does have its merits. But it does not take me 700 hours to listen to a speaker to know that it is being underdriven. I understand what you are trying to do, build a speaker system around your 1077 and try to get the most bang for your buck, which is great. But if you do get the 803Ds, and I hope that you do, just once listen to them with some serious power, I think then you will see what those speakers are capable of.

[fordster]

Jerry

I'm not sure if you have a dealer near you that stocks them but you may want to check out Quad's ESL989 speakers. I've never heard them myself (way out of my league!) but from reviews I've seen they sound like something you may like as they are supposed to be very accurate and transparent. Check out http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/tas989.pdf and skip to page 25 for a review. They do look a little weird though and need strange positioning. But as you say this seems to be normal for speakers at this level.

[RebelMan]

Perhaps you are right, but something tells me otherwise. If, as you say, the 1077 won't bring an 803D alive why did Rotel use 7 of them to demo the 1077 at CEDIA? With acess to the entire B&W line, don''t you think perhaps, that they would have used something better suited if the 1077 can't bring the 803D alive?

I contacted one of the local dealer's and they have the RMB-1077 on display. They also carry the complete 800 Series speakers. I will conduct some listening tests with the 803S's, 803D's and 802D's this evening and share with anyone, interested, my thoughts.

Perhaps the RMB-1077 is that good or perhaps it was just a marketing move by Rotel, after all it wasn't so long ago that the amplifier made its official debut. In either case, I will be very open minded with my analysis.

[RobP]

That will be good to hear Rebelman, I think that in the next few weeks I may borrow my dealers 1077 and bring it home for a test drive.

[Andrew M Ward]

Jerry, I honestly think that although the 1077 may drive the 802D's , it wont do them justice, Its just not enough power to bring out the full potential of those speakers. I heard the 803D with the 1077, and that amp really didnt have the grunt to bring them alive.

I hate to interupt here but...

The 1077 has no problem driving any speaker, sorry to sound rediculous, but I am yet to find one.

Krell LAT-1 (no problem)
B&W 800D (No problem)

it's not a question of can it, the question is do you like the way it sounds.

Remember, watts is basically meaningless in Class D, as the speaker resistance changes (say from 8 to 4 ohms to 2 ohms) the power output just keeps multiplying.

One must try it themselves first, to believe it, because I know it sounds unbelieveable. But I repeat, the question is not can it drive... it should be, do I like the way this thing sounds in comparisson to my X amplifier?

[DrJRapp]

I hate to interupt here but...

The 1077 has no problem driving any speaker, sorry to sound rediculous, but I am yet to find one.

Remember, watts is basically meaningless in Class D, as the speaker resistance changes (say from 8 to 4 ohms to 2 ohms) the power output just keeps multiplying.

One must try it themselves first, to believe it, because I know it sounds unbelieveable. But I repeat, the question is not can it drive... it should be, do I like the way this thing sounds in comparisson to my X amplifier?

Thanks for jumping in Andrew. I know some people are having a hard time believeing what I say since, based on "conventional" thinking it ISN'T possible. One needs to truely understand the engineering to see what is happening, or, lacking that spend some real time with this micro-beast before making any hard and fast judgements about what it can or cannot do. Those who expect it to sound like any other Rotel amp WILL be dissapointed, because it is different to a degree (less rounded more neutral, and fuller). It sounds more like a Krell KAV or Showcase. Takes a bit of getting used to after listening to Rotel gear for 3 years.

[GosonFletchy]

Robert

Perhaps you are right, but something tells me otherwise. If, as you say, the 1077 won't bring an 803D alive why did Rotel use 7 of them to demo the 1077 at CEDIA? With acess to the entire B&W line, don''t you think perhaps, that they would have used something better suited if the 1077 can't bring the 803D alive? According to my dealer (who was there and heard them), they screamed!

Uh, your dealer is a liar, sorry to break the news to you but Rotel did not demo any thing at CEDIA, neither did B&W. I was there and I assure you they did not have any amp and speakers playing.

G.

[RebelMan]

First impressions of the RMB-1077

In light of all of the attention given the RMB-1077 of late, I took it upon myself to have a first listen. Before I give you my initial impressions allow me to set the demo stage, so to speak.

I guess because of the short notice I gave the dealer, they were not completely prepared to conduct the kind of critical listening tests that I prefer. In other words, keeping all things constant except the component under scrutiny. Furthermore, the salesman assisting me, while polite and trying his darnest given the circumstances, seemed a little green to me given that he makes a living in this business. Needless to say, I was able to formulate an initial opinion of the RMB-1077 from my session with him even under less than ideal conditions.

The music I selected for this audition was intended to exercise both frequency extremes. "Third Encounter" was selected for its ability to exploit the subtleties of the upper frequencies, the area where the RMB-1077 has received the most criticism and "Secret Affair", for it's ability to emphasize the lows. Each track was played several times with each equipment group (listed below) and speaker pair. I went back and forth between each "grouping" a number of times to be certain of what I was hearing or not hearing. For these tests I chose not to drive either equipment group or speaker pair to extremes. My intentions were simply to avoid fatigue and preserve the delineation of details in the listening process.

I started my analysis with Group B, comprising the RMB-1077, and the 803S's. Standing on its own merit the system was reminiscent to how my system at home sounds, adequate highs and modest lows. Next up were the 803D's. Again, nothing unexpected or unusual was observed. The highs in this case a little smoother and the lows more extended, (deeper). The RMB-1077 seemed to perform predictably well. That was until both speaker pairs suited up with Group A.

The differences were prodigious. There simply was no contest between the two groups. The highs in this case weren't any more detailed but more delicate. A brushed cymbal sounded like a brushed cymbal, to the extent that a speaker could make it. The bass was full bodied and it seemed to embrace the listener. The bass in Group B seemed sanitized. It was crisp but perhaps too clean and less immersive. Midbass and midrange presence was also more lively with Group A. Group B was just too analytical.

As I mention from the outset the test environment was far from ideal to fairly compare the two power amplifiers. As a result, it was of little surprise that Group A clearly out-gunned Group B in my listening tests. I cannot fault or praise the RMB-1077's ability at this time because the test environment had too many variables. Therefore my first impression of the RMB-1077 is inconclusive.

Given the numerous differences between each group I am working with the dealer to arrange another more controlled testing environment. At that time I will present a more comprehensive report of my findings.


Equipment:

Group A

Source: RCD-1070
Pre/Pro Amp: RC-1090
Power Amplifier: RB-1090

Group B

Source: RDV-1060
Pre/Pro Amp: RSP-1098
Power Amplifier: RMB-1077


Speakers:

803S's and 803D's (Foregone were the 802D's in this evaluation but they will be included next time.)


Source Material:

David Benoit, "Right Here, Right Now", Track 6 - Third Encounter
Brian Culbertson, "It's On Tonight", Track 9 - Secret Affair

[csuzor]

The highs in this case weren't any more detailed but more delicate. A brushed cymbal sounded like a brushed cymbal, to the extent that a speaker could make it. The bass was full bodied and it seemed to embrace the listener. The bass in Group B seemed sanitized. It was crisp but perhaps too clean and less immersive. Midbass and midrange presence was also more lively with Group A. Group B was just too analytical.

Interesting... what you heard was the source difference, much more important than the amplifier difference, similar to my experience when I upgraded from a denon universal to a sony sacd. Significant improvement of the 1077 over the 1090 would have been a nasty surprise, but it wasnt.

Waiting for some more tests from you on the 1077... Thanks in advance!

[Blazar]

The idea that the 1077 "can't drive" the 800 series B&W's is nonsense. I have 802D's personally and even the panasonic saxr55 makes them sound PHENOMENAL. People keep confusing wattage output and the ability to "drive speakers". The only difference between 100 and 200 watts is a few decibels. Granted, a 200 watt amp might make a speaker sound better when it high volumes, but at most normal listening levels a 100 watt amp does a great job.

I don't trust a SINGLE review in the entire history of reviews anymore that doesn't discuss the room treatments involved. Without A FULL CONTINGENT of room treatments with adequate absorption, diffusion, and bass trapping... ANY commentary made about ANY piece of audio equipment is purely irreproducible drivel. Any perceived pitfal or benefits of a specific piece of gear may be just simply the specific frequency response in a particular room that the listener happens to like.

Kal Rubinson's recent review of the 802D's has included a proper review of the room treatments used in his setup...

I wouldn't trust any amp review that doesn't use both amazing speakers AND amazing d/a conversion. Without these two facets coupled with adequate room treatment, you aren't really reviewing the AMP itself, just its interaction with the rest of the setup and environment.

Long story short: class D amps do a fantastic job from the standpoint of "driving the speaker". Despite the wattage ratings they do a great job of reaching maximum wattage output without clipping or harboring serious distortion problems.

[RebelMan]

I don't trust a SINGLE review in the entire history of reviews anymore that doesn't discuss the room treatments involved. Without A FULL CONTINGENT of room treatments with adequate absorption, diffusion, and bass trapping... ANY commentary made about ANY piece of audio equipment is purely irreproducible drivel. Any perceived pitfal or benefits of a specific piece of gear may be just simply the specific frequency response in a particular room that the listener happens to like.

I suspect your comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular but in case you have any doubts, my analysis was conducted in the same room thereby negating any need for room treatment descriptions at this stage of my review.

[DrJRapp]

my analysis was conducted in the same room thereby negating any need for room treatment descriptions at this stage of my review.

That statement unfortunatly is a falicy. Just the point that Blazar was trying to make. Different amps/sources/speakers empasize different portions of the audio spectrum (sweet, bright, neutral, etc) , therefore room reflections (even in the same room) are different. If a room has a lot of glass for example, it's first order reflection is heavy in the 12khz-22khz range. A brighter amp (or speaker or whatever)will sound harsh or shrill or compressed (choose your own description) in that room. The amp really isn't harsh...it's the room. What you are hearing is a greater percentage of reflected sound, which is out of time with the original, and also comes from a multitude of directions. Take that same equipment into a room that is heavily damped and it will sound "airy and detailed". Now lets go back into the 1st room and substitute an amp that is, for lack of a better term "rounded" (slight roll off on the top a-la most Rotel amps). If nothing but the amp changes in your set up, that 1st order reflection will be greatly reduced....... and the sound will magically "clear up" (less reflected sound in that frequency range). Now take that same 2d amp over to the heavily damped room and it will sound .....dull and lifeless. Add to that the fact that differening equipment will have different sweet spot characteristics (and location) based on what portion of the frequency spectrum they empasize. That is why one simply can't just a/b equipment without making other adjustments such as speaker position and toe. If a piece of gear sounds different from another, it's room reactions are going to be different. That is why calling the room a constant is a fallicy.

If you want to convince yourself that this is true, then try playing some "white noise". Move around the room until you find the spot that the noise is the loudest (you can even use a rat shack meter if you want). Now, change a piece of gear (any piece except the source of the white noise). Move around the room again. You will find that the point of maximum intensity has changed. Now, change your speaker position and toe so that the point of maximum intensity of the white noise coincides with the 1st test (if you can get it to..it may not be possible). NOW you have a basis for comparison of the equipment.

[csuzor]

There are 2 significant individuals in this thread with digital amps, and both are basically telling us, their digital amp is wonderful, but no review from anyone else is useful unless you have identical room acoustics.

Where does that lead us to? Perhaps to ignore those 2 individual opinions and their reviews? Fine. Thanks guys.

Everyone else, please go and listen and compare for yourself, preferably in your own home, and keep your review to yourself.

[DrJRapp]

Everyone else, please go and listen and compare for yourself, preferably in your own home

By George........I think he's got it!!!!!! That's the only place it matters!

[fordster]

But then we'd only be able to talk about the specifications and not the sound!

[DrJRapp]

But then we'd only be able to talk about the specifications and not the sound!

No, not at all.....haven't you ever heard that variety is the spice of life?...lol

This is a hobby and an art. Anyone trying to make a science out of it is missing the point of our all being here.

[csuzor]

But then we'd only be able to talk about the specifications and not the sound!

Isn't that all that martinf wanted anyway?

[Bostonears]

I don't trust a SINGLE review in the entire history of reviews anymore that doesn't discuss the room treatments involved. Without A FULL CONTINGENT of room treatments with adequate absorption, diffusion, and bass trapping... ANY commentary made about ANY piece of audio equipment is purely irreproducible drivel. Any perceived pitfal or benefits of a specific piece of gear may be just simply the specific frequency response in a particular room that the listener happens to like.

While I agree that most reviews improperly ignore room acoustic issues, I think that Blazar overstates the case. I do most of my critical listening with a pair of AKG K1000 HEADPHONES (or more accurately, earspeakers). Besides being awesome phones, the K1000s are unique in that they are driven by conventional power amplifiers, not puny headphone amps. I have done many comparisons of the sound quality of various source components, preamps, amps, not to mention source materials, using the K1000s, and I assure you these phones allow you to hear extremely subtle differences without any interference of room acoustics. Of course the K1000s have their own signature sound that impacts reproduction. Nevertheless, they are more revealing than any loudspeaker I have ever heard, and they are not affected by the room.

[RebelMan]

That statement unfortunatly is a falicy. Just the point that Blazar was trying to make. Different amps/sources/speakers empasize different portions of the audio spectrum (sweet, bright, neutral, etc) , therefore room reflections (even in the same room) are different. If a room has a lot of glass for example, it's first order reflection is heavy in the 12khz-22khz range. A brighter amp (or speaker or whatever)will sound harsh or shrill or compressed (choose your own description) in that room. The amp really isn't harsh...it's the room.

Room acoustics are key to bringing out the performance capable in ones system. That is to mitigate excessive reflections and reverberations that would effect the sound in a negative way. However, when conducting comparisons such as this, influences beyond the subject under test MUST remain constant. If room acousics played as signifact a role as you suggest, precluding the possiblities of a fair comparison, then ANY piece of equipment can be made to sound the same, good or bad.

What would be the point of this hobby and this forum if that were the case? Furthermore, if this is not fallacy then how would you explain the 802D's that I have listened to many times in different rooms in different dealers with the same equipment to maintain sonic consistency? I think I will let my ears be the judge, and not JUST the room.

[simonb68]

I no longer own any Rotel and I confess to not having read the entire thread, though I was following the early posts when I used to visit here regularly.

Anyway I do still follow Rotel as a brand and thought you might be interested in a review by UK mag Hi-Fi News. They partner a 1077 with 6 B&W 803D and large B&W Centre (doesn't say which). In summary they loved it, especially the compactness of the unit and the cool running. They were themselves surprised at it's ability to drive these B&Ws, and commented on how well it coped with both blockbuster and atmospheric soundtracks.

The impression I get from the review is that whilst it is very good, it may not be the last word in audio reproduction, but as an AV amp it is superb.

Their (highly respected) lab report

Power output into 8 ohm
Rated: 100w
Measured: 125w

Output Impedance
Rated: 0.03%
Measured: 0.03%

Distortion, 1kHz/10W
Rated: 0.03%
Measured: 0.007%

A-wtd Signal-to-Noise (re. 100W/8ohm)
Rated: 105db
Measured: 100db

Verdict:

The efficiency of Class D or PWM amplification lends itself perfectly to multichannel applications where compact enclosures and cool running are otherwise difficult to achieve. Just look at (and feel, for that matter) the size of an Arcam P1000 for example [this is Class H for those not aware], which is more efficient than most competing multichannel power amps. But PWM amplifiers have rarely, if ever, achieved the audiophile sound quality demanded by committed home cinema enthusiasts. Until now, and the sensitive implementation of B&Os ICEPower technology by Rotel's 'golden eared' engineers. The RMB-1077 is not only a long-awaited milestone in the evolution of Class D amplifiers, but it's also a pocket-sized power station for the grandest of home theatres. Buy with confidence.


The full review can be purchased here

[DrJRapp]

ANY piece of equipment can be made to sound the same, good or bad.

Not even close to true, good room acoustics won't improve a poor piece of gear. Proper room acoustics will only allow a piece of gear to be heard at it's best. However, poor room acoustics will distroy the best.

Room acoustics are a large consideration of what I do as a luxury home designer/builder. People won't buy a home where the living room will give them a headache during a normal conversation. My theater installers are always amazed out how well my dedicated rooms perform without extensive room treatments. It's all in knowing what is happening, geometry and how to deal with it.

[DrJRapp]

OBTW I brought home a new pair of B&W XT4 today. You will soon get my impressions of the 1077 driving speakers that are considerably less efficient then my Klipsch.

[RebelMan]

Not even close to true, good room acoustics won't improve a poor piece of gear. Proper room acoustics will only allow a piece of gear to be heard at it's best. However, poor room acoustics will distroy the best.

True, however you took my comment out of context. Your stated position implies that room treatments will alter the acoustical characteristics of different components in such a way that they could never be compared.

In effect you are saying one treated room can make amp A sound better than amp B and vise versa. Therefore making it impossible to compare one amp to the other because the conditions of the room would have to change to suit the strengths of the other amp. Hogwash! :lol:

The real truth is that the room should be treated to allow ANY piece of equipment show its capabilities, period! What you hear then has nothing to do with the room and everything to do with the component. Unfortunately, most dealerships do not afford us that luxury. Their auditioning rooms are less condusive. Regardless, inorder to conduct a fair comparison the conditions of the room cannot be changed to suit the device.

By the way, if your position spoke the truth, how could you possibly PROVE what a poor piece of equipment sounded like? Unless you tried an infinite combination of room treatments it would be IMPOSSIBLE to say. Hence, the truth I speak is real.

[DrJRapp]

Your stated position implies that room treatments will alter the acoustical characteristics of different components in such a way that they could never be compared.

By the way, if your position spoke the truth, how could you possibly PROVE what a poor piece of equipment sounded like? Unless you tried an infinite combination of room treatments it would be IMPOSSIBLE to say. Hence, the truth I speak is real.

This is not what I have said or implied at all. That's your thinking, not mine at work. I wish you would please stop putting such foolish sounding words in my mouth. Go back and re-read. (a few times if you have to).

In reality, proper room acoustics will reveal a poor piece of equipment faster than proper room acoustics with show off a good one. You'll notice I use the word proper. We don't want a dead room. We want a linear room. Due to the superior testing and measuring equipment available today, the proper positioning of equipment (and acoustical control) can be measure and calculated, so one doesn't need to try an infinte combination of room treatments and equipment placement. You may find the following link enlightening.

http://www.rivesaudio.com/CARAquick/CARAframe.html

[r100gs]

After looking at the room acoutics page link you have posted, It looks like you have put the science back into listening. I suggest you re-read your post.

This is not what I have said or implied at all. That's your thinking, not mine at work. I wish you would please stop putting such foolish sounding words in my mouth. Go back and re-read. (a few times if you have to).

In reality, proper room acoustics will reveal a poor piece of equipment faster than proper room acoustics with show off a good one. You'll notice I use the word proper. We don't want a dead room. We want a linear room. Due to the superior testing and measuring equipment available today, the proper positioning of equipment (and acoustical control) can be measure and calculated, so one doesn't need to try an infinte combination of room treatments and equipment placement. You may find the following link enlightening.

http://www.rivesaudio.com/CARAquick/CARAframe.html

[RebelMan]

You need to re-read what you wrote. Better yet, allow me to point a few things out...

That is why one simply can't just a/b equipment without making other adjustments such as speaker position and toe. If a piece of gear sounds different from another, it's room reactions are going to be different.

Now, change your speaker position and toe so that the point of maximum intensity of the white noise coincides with the 1st test (if you can get it to..it may not be possible)

I am not disputing that room acoustics do not play a part in what is heard and that proper treatment is important to get the most out of the equipment we buy. However, I am disputing your conjecture that one cannot a/b a piece of equipment and determine which sounds better while keeping the ROOM constant. Room treatments are meant to control the less desireables of reflected and reverberated sound, NOT the equipment. Moving speakers around is NOT changing the ROOM. You quoted me saying, and I repeat it here for you to re-read...

my analysis was conducted in the same room thereby negating any need for room treatment descriptions at this stage of my review.

Blazar's comments which you endorse CLEARLY states that room acoustics make it impossible to compare equipment.

I don't trust a SINGLE review in the entire history of reviews anymore that doesn't discuss the room treatments involved. Without A FULL CONTINGENT of room treatments with adequate absorption, diffusion, and bass trapping... ANY commentary made about ANY piece of audio equipment is purely irreproducible drivel. Any perceived pitfal or benefits of a specific piece of gear may be just simply the specific frequency response in a particular room that the listener happens to like.

This is flat out bogus. Don't say what you don't mean and you won't be misunderstood.

[Kobus]

As a lay I can buy the fact that a speaker that has excessive highs (or lows) in an improperly treated room can sound better than it should. And therefor a speaker that is more balanced can sound worse in that same room.

Is this not the point Jerry is making.

I know there is a more technical correct way of putting this, but you know what I mean.

Thank you and keep posting.

Kobus

[bigburner]

Everyone else, please go and listen and compare for yourself, preferably in your own home, and keep your review to yourself.

Postings are verboten!!!

[sprout]

Postings are verboten!!!

What is forbidden :roll:

[Gump]

1077 + 803D's

Well, I went into the stereo store today and demo'd the 1077 with 803D speakers and at the risk of flogging the proverbial deceased equine I thought I'd voice my opinion, as humble as it may be.

Don't worry, I'm going to make this as painless as possible. First of all, I don't have the training nor credentials to launch into an audiofile jargon filled critique so I'll spare you all the feeble effort. I also don't have the technological background to debate specifications with aerospace engineering terminology. So I'll try to keep it simple.

I thought the 1077amp with the 803D speakers sounded very, very good. I own the 803D's and am familiar with how they sound. I am currently searching for an amp upgrade and have demo'd several different ones with the 803D's prior to this.

Contrary to the common B&W stereotype (pun fully intended) the 803D's are not difficult to drive. I'd say they are "efficient speakers" but then I'd be dabbling in that technological area I promised to stay away from. The 1077 drove them without breaking a sweat. There was no sign of strain and the more volume I gave it the more effortless they seemed to sound.

I'm not sure what I was expecting , but I was surprised at how good the 1077 made the speakers sound. There was a warmth and naturalness to the music that I found compelling and attractive. Yet there was still enough detail and clarity to keep me fully involved. Maybe the word "digital" had me expecting something else.

The soundstage seemed a bit narrow perhaps, but I'm attributing that to the acoustics of the demo room. This is the same room I demo'd my speakers in prior to buying them so I have experience with the room. Also, the speakers were neither bi-wired nor bi-amped with the 1077 so there was room to improve there as well.

For comparison sake I listened to a rotel 1095 on the same set-up. The difference in steroidal muscle was evident, especially in the lower end, but I wouldn't describe it as overpowering. The power of the 1077 seemed almost more refined, less "in your face " than the 1095. Of course, sometimes "in your face" ain't a bad thing. 8O

Both sounded good and, as with most things in this endeavor of ours, it comes down to personal preference.

Overall the 1077 impressed me alot and I thought it sounded pretty darn good for a 7 channel amp at that price. Is it the optimal amp for the 803D's? Probably not. So far the Classe is my favorite soundwise, but my least favorite bank account-wise.

But, if I was told that I was going to be stranded on a desert island with the 1077/803D set-up (with a long extension cord of course) , I believe I'd be quite content.

For those of you keeping score, the demo was done with:

Marantz 9300 cd/dvd player
Classe pre-amp
Music: Best of Bonnie Raitt;
Best of Seal;
Michael Mcdonald "Motown";
Kahni Cole "places"

I played several selections off all these cd's until the salesman finally had enough and left me alone. At which time I played several more

[csuzor]

the speakers were neither bi-wired nor bi-amped with the 1077 so there was room to improve there as well.

For comparison sake I listened to a rotel 1095 on the same set-up. The difference in steroidal muscle was evident, especially in the lower end, but I wouldn't describe it as overpowering. The power of the 1077 seemed almost more refined, less "in your face " than the 1095.

This is very interesting... the 803D are demanding in the bass region, with their 3 drivers in parallel and 3.0ohm dip, and from your comments that is where the 1095 had the upper hand. And bi-amping should help extend the response... I wonder if the 1077 would match the 1095 in bi-amped mode for bass power?

[Kobus]

Thanks Gump for that review.

Kobus