Combo 1098+1095 vs. flagship recievers

[radim]

What do you think about comparsion 1098+1095 contra flagship
amp/recievers of firms denon, onkyo or marantz ?
Have you personal experiences ?

radim

[PewterTA]

1098/1095 hands down will do what the flagships will not (in terms of performance/quality).

If you have to have the latest and greatest gadgets and gazillion surround effects...then the flagships are you better choice.

But on a pure sound basis, Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, Yamaha, Sony, JVC, etc...

Don't come close.

I've used all of the above mentioned (though not all flagship models for everyone).

You just can't really beat separates vs. an all-in-one component in terms of sound quality.

Just think about the price/space difference of an integrated piece vs. separate.

[aud19]

What he said

I'll also add that seperates offer a better and more affordable upgrade path :T

[radim]

Yes, I think your right, too.
But on the other side, the price of flagships is the same as the rotel combo.
And they have above for example new ad/da chips,hdmi+i.link,eq correction,option bi-amping speaker connection. Of course some surround modes are non-interesting for me.
Is interesting also to read another thread about wish-list of new rotel a/v processor. There are just the same technical things in this thread as in flagships, and this thread was (is) written by rotel funs.

radim

[gianni]

As far as the chips in the flagships, I don't think there will be an audible difference compared to what you will get in the separates. The chip is usually not the limiting factor in sound quality.

As for EQ, I think you could do better with some stand alone units. Besides subwoofer frequencies, I would not bother with this unless you have addressed room acoustic issues and still have problems.

When it comes to HDMI. yes it appears to be the future. However, it is still in it's infancy and in many cases creates more problems than it solves and there are still some compatibility issues.

Yes, this is a Rotel forum, But I'll bet if you asked the same question and sustituted any other separates; Parasound, Anthem etc, you would get the same replies from people. I just don't think flagships are a good investment. Their strength is features and features are always the first thing to become obsolete. At that price I would prefer sound quality and good basic flexibility.
Besides, who wants a small refridgerator sized box that weighs more than a tank.

At this price point, go with the separates. You will not regret it.

[radim]

Gianni:
I own rotel combo about 2 years and I am conmfortable (altogether).
But lately I was reading about new flagships and I must say all positive reactions.
Therefore I had based this thread.

thank you, radim

p.s. this is neverending story

[Dmantis]

Receivers in general never sound better or as good as seperates. But Denon and other receivers do have the latest and greatest features. If this is what your after , then most new receivers will fit the bill.

The Denon lines are untouchable when it comes to features. Rotel makes high quality sounding gear.

[gianni]

Gianni:

p.s. this is neverending story

That is so true. We should spend more time listening and enjoying and less shopping and dreaming about our next upgrade.

[PewterTA]

Well you have to decide, to you want the latest and greatest out there, or do you want quality?

Because for all the new features out there, I have yet to use any of them typically. I've tried all the DPLIIx applications out there, different room effects and while neat... just never hit home with me.

I will say that I do love DPLIIx for watching TV and movies to get the extra 2 channels behind me...so there's a strike against what I say. But as for all the other nice features... bah, it's mainly for "simple minded" (hope no one takes offense to that) people that don't want to take the little bit of time to do some reading on how to set things up for themselves.

Even when I had my Yamaha receiver and it had a room configuration, I used it, and while cool making all those sounds from the speakers... me with a simple Radioshack sound meter and Avia disc...made the system sound MUCH better than it did with their auto tool. Granted things have come a farther way now...so the auto configs are better...but they still can't beat the tried and true method of calibration.

Another thing that I would say, "hold out for," is for all them to start carrying digital switching amps, which will mean they will be able to have the power to push all the speakers. This will make them better....however, you place a flagship receiver up against something like the NuForce Ref.9 or Rotel RMB-1077...and it still won't hold a candle in the wind to the other two... And the reason is because while the flagship has about a million functions to accomplish, the amps only have 1...and it's much easier to create a quality product that does one thing, than one that does a million.



Just my $.02

[radim]

I'm fain that I had based this thread.
I clearied this problem and now I'm at rest.

By the way, I love the music too.

radim

[Blazar]

As far as the chips in the flagships, I don't think there will be an audible difference compared to what you will get in the separates. The chip is usually not the limiting factor in sound quality.

As for EQ, I think you could do better with some stand alone units. Besides subwoofer frequencies, I would not bother with this unless you have addressed room acoustic issues and still have problems.

When it comes to HDMI. yes it appears to be the future. However, it is still in it's infancy and in many cases creates more problems than it solves and there are still some compatibility issues.

Yes, this is a Rotel forum, But I'll bet if you asked the same question and sustituted any other separates; Parasound, Anthem etc, you would get the same replies from people. I just don't think flagships are a good investment. Their strength is features and features are always the first thing to become obsolete. At that price I would prefer sound quality and good basic flexibility.
Besides, who wants a small refridgerator sized box that weighs more than a tank.

At this price point, go with the separates. You will not regret it.

I would strongly differ with the opinion that the chips are not a limiting factor. The best d/a converters from 4-5 years ago are far inferior to some of the cheaper newer chips out there now. This will all depend on the exact unit you buy of course and is not a blanket statement. The main thing is that I don't always see receiver manufacturers putting in the best chips.

Look at the measured stats on professional dac's like the benchmark dac-1 or an apogee unit and then compare to the stats on most pre-amps or receivers and they simply don't come close.

A $1000 benchmark dac-1 has as good or better d/a conversion as a lexicon 12b pre-amp for around $10000.... at least for 2 channel audio.

[gianni]

I would strongly differ with the opinion that the chips are not a limiting factor. The best d/a converters from 4-5 years ago are far inferior to some of the cheaper newer chips out there now. This will all depend on the exact unit you buy of course and is not a blanket statement. The main thing is that I don't always see receiver manufacturers putting in the best chips.

Look at the measured stats on professional dac's like the benchmark dac-1 or an apogee unit and then compare to the stats on most pre-amps or receivers and they simply don't come close.

A $1000 benchmark dac-1 has as good or better d/a conversion as a lexicon 12b pre-amp for around $10000.... at least for 2 channel audio.

Blazar,

I am speaking of current production units - today's receiver v today's pre/pro.
We have to compare apples to apples. In some cases, it is the high end receivers that have the latest chips - look around. Regardless of the DAC used, if the analog section downstream is not up to snuff, the benefits of a better DAC are lost. You can quote stats all day long but there is more to it than that.

My point to Radim is: just because a new receiver has the latest chip, it does not automatically equate to the best sonic performance.
It seems people get so fixated on chip performence specs. Now if we were talking PC's,I'd say performance numbers are more relevant.