My RMB-1077 review.

[Kevin D]

I've waited a while to post this, because I wanted to really run through the paces. My old system consisted of a RSP1098, RMB1095, a RMB1066 (with four channels bridged for center rears), and a RDV1040. The new system has a new 1098, the 1077, and a RDV1050.

So aside from the 1050 (that should be the same as the 1040) and a new 1098, the only changes that could skew the results are going from two different amps with different power (1095 & 1066) to a single amp with equal power all around.

So with that, no speaker was moved, all connections remained the same, and the only settings that changed from the original 1098 were speaker levels. Also keep in mind that I generally keep to 3 results: sounds worse, sounds better, sounds the same. I don't analyze sound, I enjoy it. So I won't be in much help of subtle differences, I just give my honest opinions.

Now with all that out of the way, holy crap what an amp!!! Throw everything you know away. This thing easily blows away my 1095. No fatigue at higher levels, my 1095 would get really loud and make noise. The 1077 gets equally as loud, but is just as clear as it is at lower levels. I watched a DTS clip of Master and Commander and could clearly pick out subtle sound elements on top of the cannon-ball destruction, the 1095 just gave me really loud cannon-ball destruction. On music, I've found myself moving back to stereo more than PLIIx. It would usually take PLIIx to get to the sound quality and clarity I need for my exaggerated listening levels. The 1077 still gives me great imaging at high levels, not to mention better bass from my CDM9's (Before I liked PLIIx for the extra umph given to the bass).

So for the techie's, here's some of the 'details' I've noticed:

1) Stage width is decreased a tad. Goes from speaker to speaker instead of 1' to the outsides.
2) Imaging is better at moderate volumes, extremely better at higher levels.
3) Stage height range is increased by 3-4 feet. Before the height range would equal the speaker height. Now it actually has range! (this more then makes up for the decreased width)
4) Improved bass response out of all speakers++++
5) Slight roll off in treble, works out great with my B&W's. With the 1095 I had to go -1 to -2 on the HF tone controls to not get fatigued, all tone controls are set to bypass with the 1077.
6) My Wife heard a difference!! Amazing feat in and of itself.
7) More room in my rack for other goodies..

The only downside I can see is visually, this does not make your rack very impressive. It really looks like I've added a Rotel line conditioner. I wish they would have added some fake heatsinks or some speaker LED indicators. I guess next year I'll have to add some of the 500w guys to gets some looks back.

Kevin D.

[Azeke]

So you like it then .

Seriously though, from all accounts it seems like a serious piece of equipment.

Congratulations Kevin,

Azeke

[DrJRapp]

It appears your findings concur with mine. Thanks for the review.

[Martinf]

The -1077's PWM-induced roll-off in treble dynamics & HF distortion would be a serious downer for me, I'm afraid! :cry:

I listen to DVD-A music mainly, so high-resolution in the treble is absolutely paramount! (not the explosions).

As for the bass, I'm running tuned bass-management with an 80Hz crossover to my two 'kick-ass' REL subs in 5.1 surround mode, so I don't rely on my 'humble' RMB-1075 for earth-shattering bass. The RELs amply deliver that better than the -1077 ever could -- and in turn, my -1075 has an easier time, power-wise, since most of the low-bass is being re-routed, leaving more power & dynamic headroom for the mid & high freqs.

Anyhow, my main speakers are efficient, and in stereo I get as much bass as I need, with tone controls "flat", no crossover, and the subs switched-off.

And regarding the amusing and oft-quoted phrases "sound-stage" or "stage width" -- I think people who use them, invariably don't really know what they are referring to. Granted, to them, something about the output does appear to sound "bigger" -- but in this case, that's probably more to do with a perceptively expansive bass extension (affording greater low-freq "wraparound" ambience & reverberation), which the -1077 -- being a digital amp -- is evidently good at maintaining up to high gain settings.

[Other than that, the ONLY other factor affecting the soundstage "image" will be phasing between the channels. However, since these amps are "symmetrical" devices electronically, there's NO WAY phase could be a factor here.]

Moreover, it is totally ridiculous to refer to attributes such as "height" :rofl: when talking about these sorts of systems!

Anyway, the RMB-1075 has been measured, and it's frequency response is as flat and accurate as other amps which are much more expensive. And its THD distortion is lower than the -1077. Check-out this interesting group test. In particular, look at the -1075's "lab report" at top-right of "page 115" (p6-of-8 in the following PDF) and compare with the twice-the-price Krell etc.:-

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/displayreview.php?reviewid=3368

.

[DL86]

So assuming the rmb-1095 is similar to the rb-1080, as I have not yet heard the 1095 and already have a 1080. I am looking to buy a multichannel amplifier for the rest of speakers and I have been considering the 1095, 1075 and 1077. Would the results of the 1077 vs 1095 hold true against a 1080 vs 1077?

David

[Andrew M Ward]

which the -1077 -- being a digital amp -- is evidently good at maintaining up to high gain settings.
.

The Rotel 1077 is a class D amplifier but it's not digital... it's PWM,

PWM is not digital...

[Kevin D]

Martin,

I tried to preface my review with you in mind, but I have been anticipating your reply. Doing a search, 25% of your posts here are bashing the 1077, and not one of those have you actually said that you have listened to it. We get the point, you don't like this amp and never will. Why you choose to argue someones personal impressions of something is beyond me. Now, on to my individual retort..

The -1077's PWM-induced roll-off in treble dynamics & HF distortion would be a serious downer for me, I'm afraid! :cry:

I'm sorry you're afraid, but trying new things can be a great experience. The 'PWM-induced roll-off' seems to be just what MY SYSTEM needs. I've got DVD-Audio support now and it sounds great! Big improvement over regular tracks, but I shouldn't be able to tell since I'm 'missing out' on my extended high end.

I listen to DVD-A music mainly, so high-resolution in the treble is absolutely paramount! (not the explosions).

I like explosions, I like music, with my new 1050 it seems I'll like DVD-A as well. The 1077 does all of these fine for me.

As for the bass, I'm running tuned bass-management with an 80Hz crossover to my two 'kick-ass' REL subs in 5.1 surround mode, so I don't rely on my 'humble' RMB-1075 for earth-shattering bass.

Wow, same here. Two SVS 39-20's on a 1000w amp. All speakers are crossed at 80hz and I have a beheringer 8024 on the subs. I was referring to the improved bass response in the regions my speaker play 120-80 and then the slope down from there. I still use my sub for stereo playback and still enjoy the improved bass response.

The RELs amply deliver that better than the -1077 ever could -- and in turn, my -1075 has an easier time, power-wise, since most of the low-bass is being re-routed, leaving more power & dynamic headroom for the mid & high freqs.

Same in my situation, my 1077 has an easier time too.

And regarding the amusing and oft-quoted phrases "sound-stage" or "stage width" -- **SNIP** which the -1077 -- being a digital amp -- is evidently good at maintaining up to high gain settings.

They may be amusing to you, but to me they help describe what I hear. I'm sorry that you would like to apply techno mumbo to what I'm 'experiencing'. It's easier for me to say 'The sound used to go from here to there, now it goes from there to here'.

[Other than that, the ONLY other factor affecting the soundstage "image" will be phasing between the channels. However, since these amps are "symmetrical" devices electronically, there's NO WAY phase could be a factor here.]

So basically, I'm imagining the differences because there's nothing written on 'paper' that could account for what I'm hearing.

Moreover, it is totally ridiculous to refer to attributes such as "height" :rofl: when talking about these sorts of systems!

Ok, this is actually an easy one. I have a certain set of tracks I listen to to determine differences. The center that the TV is in is very geometrical and has several horizontal 'lines' I can use for reference. Nothing I ever listened to before ever sounded as if it was coming from much higher then my main's (39"). With the 1077, several tracks have several instruments that sound like they are coming from the top of the TV (64"). Now over here, something that sounds 25" higher then something else can be described as have more 'height' then the original. If you would like to let me now how the British would describe something higher then something else, I'll be glad to use that in my future posts.

Anyway, the RMB-1075 has been measured, and it's frequency response is as flat and accurate as other amps which are much more expensive.

That's fine. We all know by now that you live by the specs. The graphs from the 1077 could look like a question mark for all I'm concerned. It sounds better then my 1095 did, in my system. Can I guarantee that it will always sound better? No. I'm stating my basic impressions that in this setup the 1077 blows away what I had.

Kevin D.

[Gump]

The Rotel 1077 is a class D amplifier but it's not digital... it's PWM,

PWM is not digital...

Somebody needs to let Rotel know that then, because they refer to it as a "digital" amp.

[Andrew M Ward]

Somebody needs to let Rotel know that then, because they refer to it as a "digital" amp.

I work for Rotel, it's not a digital amp... for simplicities sake (Consumers) marketing gives the Class D thing a digital name-plate, otherwise you have 40 pages of technical manuals to publish to clarify the difference.

But:
When somebody comes on the forum and talks "technical jargon" as Martinf does and then makes an obvious gaff like "PWM=Digital" I’m going to point that out.

Example:
Samsung says they have a 1080P TV...they don't...but they do because they have 1080 fixed pixel lines of resolution... but they don't, because when you feed them a 1080P HDMI signal, it hand-shakes at 720P (Ooops) not 1080P...

For consumers sake... try to keep it "lite"

No worries..

[DrJRapp]

Anyway, the RMB-1075 has been measured, and it's frequency response is as flat and accurate as other amps which are much more expensive. And its THD distortion is lower than the -1077. Check-out this interesting group test. In particular, look at the -1075's "lab report" at top-right of "page 115" (p6-of-8 in the following PDF) and compare with the twice-the-price Krell etc.:-

Some people have a hard time accepting change.

I once saw a man trying to walk across the lake I lived on while carrying a large rock from the back yard of his brother's home to the back yard of his home. He fell and and nearly drowned while carrying that rock. When I asked him why he didn't just drop the rock and try a diferent one his response was somewhat enlightening and puzzeling at the same time. He said that it was his rock and nobody was going to make him give it up for a different one even if he sank over it. This was a sound argument, but didn't make much sense from a "big picture" point of view.

Martin's comments on the 1075 in these threads about the 1077 make about as much sense to me as my neighbor's efforts. However, the 1075 is HIS rock, and if he wants to keep it...let him keep it! Some people have a hard time accepting change.

[grit]

Anyway, the RMB-1075 has been measured, and it's frequency response is as flat and accurate as other amps which are much more expensive. And its THD distortion is lower than the -1077. Check-out this interesting group test. In particular, look at the -1075's "lab report" at top-right of "page 115" (p6-of-8 in the following PDF) and compare with the twice-the-price Krell etc.:-

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/displayreview.php?reviewid=3368

.

I've not heard the 1077. I do have a 1075. I've compared it to a Classe amp. I don't care WHAT the stats say, the Classe sounds OBVIOUSLY better (to me), even when comparing a Rotel 1080 amp with the same wattage. It would seem there must be more than just frequency response that makes up the quality of signal an amplifier produces.

Reading other people's personal experiences with different audio equipment clues me in to things I should pay attention to when I myself get to compare the same equipment. Martinf, is there any way you can borrow or demo the 1077? I'm interested in your opinion, but it be more meaningful (for me at least) if you could personally compare it to another Rotel amp.

[bigburner]

Martinf, is there any way you can borrow or demo the 1077? I'm interested in your opinion, but it be more meaningful (for me at least) if you could personally compare it to another Rotel amp.

Excellent suggestion grit. Comparing and contrasting the 1077 to the 1075 would be a good start.

Martinf, if you write it, I'll read it.

[Martinf]

Kevin, I won't go into the detail right now, but I do think it irresponsible, especially for a ‘moderator’ to say on a forum read by many impressionable people things like: "Holy crap what an amp!!! Throw everything you know away . . ." ;-)

To me that smacks of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’.

The fact that Paul Miller’s own listening panel detected a dryness / softening etc. in the treble which did not bring out the best in high resolution audio sources speaks for itself. In short, those folks were not distracted by the -1077’s HT-friendly ‘ear-candy’ lower down in the frequency range.

And life is not all about having a loud fat bass. FWIW I listen to a lot of strings (i.e. classical ensemble music) where the subtleties in upper treble resolution & dynamics are most important to me.

Moreover, if in future I want to spend cash to get a better sound, then I’ll simply move from Rotel to better analog amp(s) such as a Bryston, Classe etc. etc.

[DrJRapp]

Martin,

I need to ask you an honest question. Have you ever considered system synergy, or do you live and breath solely in the realm of numbers and specifications?, in which case it's your own "dryness" that perhaps could be examined? (and that's coming from an engineer that most people call a stuffed shirt...me...lol). The 1077 in my opinion sounds dry and soft with music on my B&Ws yet alive and emotional with my Klipsch.

The fact that Paul Miller’s own listening panel detected a dryness / softening etc. in the treble which did not bring out the best in high resolution audio sources speaks for itself. In short, those folks were not distracted by the -1077’s HT-friendly ‘ear-candy’ lower down in the frequency range.

I think you are misleading yourself and trying to mislead others about Paul Millers comments. Let me quote more accurately from Paul Miller's review:

One or two of the panel were not convinced that the 1077 was quite as "musical" with DVD-A and SACD software. He also went on to warn us all not to overplay this suggestion.

Not only do I perceive that are you overplaying this suggestion to the n'th degree, but you are also interpreting it, twisting it and misquoting it to justify your argument (even if only in your own mind). THAT IS OK! However, I fail to see how that serves anyone here ...while comments like "Holy Crap" from a moderator tend to serve by enLIGHTening and entertaining us all. I'm sorry that this forum doesn't meet your standards of technical anal retentiveness. Please try to keep that in mind when you take shots at any of us.

[Martinf]

>> He also went on to warn us all not to overplay this suggestion. <<

Big deal. He's talking to the HT crowd.

b.t.w. Jerry, you also forgot to also mention that he warns of : "sweetening of attack in the mid and treble" ;-)

[Andrew M Ward]

It's been a lively Tuesday morning! I can't tell you how much I have been enjoying this debate (discussion) very exciting...

.................................................. .................................................. ....

I do have an RMB1077 audio precision report on a full sweep (20 to 20K) I can fax to the key players on this debate (if you’re curious)

~the RMB1077 shows a very slight roll off and is approximately 00.25 dB down at 20Hz
~its basically perfectly flat (and I mean perfect) all the way to about 15K where it shows again a very slight roll down and is 00.50 dB down
~The roll continues slightly and is about 00.75 dB down at 20K

Actually the thing specs-out very well considering any price range and performance criteria. That said, it is audibly different than Classe' and or any traditional torroid capacitor type A/B design. Better or worse is in the ear of the beholder, arguments can be waged on either side with good points.

[grit]

>> He also went on to warn us all not to overplay this suggestion. <<

Big deal. He's talking to the HT crowd.

Does he say/imply that, or are you inferring it?

[Martinf]

Note:-

(a) The review in question is printed in the "Audio-Vision" i.e. HT section of the magazine (not in the main audiophile part);
(b) Paul Miller's main sonic references are to film soundtracks;
(c) In several places Miller is clearly specific in the -1077's applicability for "home-theater" and "home-cinema". (Including the "verdict" at the very end).

Look, I'm not saying this product ain't good. Far from it: It does posses an astonishing capability in a very small, neat package.

However, what I am saying is that it is not an audiophile amp for music with high frequency extremes. I don't think even Rotel itself disagrees with me on that one. Note that its dynamic & freq spec is optimised for up to 20kHz, whereas, even the -1075 goes way beyond that (up to 100kHz) with low noise.

In short, for music, the -1077 is no Krell, Bryston, or Classe 'killer'. And for me it's no RMB-1075 killer either!

[Sim reality]

I find this "audiophile quality" arguement kind of ridiculous...

I mean if were only considered an audiophile if you only like what is "technically perfect" then wouldn't that mean a car enthusiest would only drive a Lexus (after all, who could fault a Lexus?) gourmets would only eat potatoes (the perfect people food), fasion designers would only use polyester (low maintenance, infinitely variable, fast drying... In general much better then that high maintenance cashmere), architects would live in square homes (much more space efficient), etc...

Anyways, that was my rant...

I do have one question though... What is a Digital Amp? I understand what Class ____ (Just fill in with whatever letter you feel like) amp is but Digital Amp seems like a rather vague term... To me it's just means something is voltage switched which covers 4 different amp classes...

[Martinf]

In short the one we're talking about uses "pulse-width modulation". Very simplisitcally: A greater width / density of the sequential pulses denotes a higher amplitude level. However, you eventually reach a point where the average pulse density cannot be increased further (i.e. all the pulses are '1's) and here the amplitude will plateau at its max value. That is why a PWM amp does not "clip" in the traditional sense. But the downside is that the dynamic range is reduced/compressed.

To some people, this dynamic "compression" gives the impression of a nice full and relaxed sound -- since the dynamic transient peaks are rounded-off at high volume levels. In essence, with PWM, the result typically sounds less 'stressful', at high volumes, compared with a technically more accurate conventional system which is not as dynamically limited.

[sprout]

Note:-
However, what I am saying is that it is not an audiophile amp for music with high frequency extremes. I don't think even Rotel itself disagrees with me on that one. Note that its dynamic & freq spec is optimised for up to 20kHz, whereas, even the -1075 goes way beyond that (up to 100kHz) with low noise.

We have heard all this from you before

100KHz :E
What are the average speakers rated up to ops:
What can the human ear receive, oh dear ops:

You make out there is a whole world out there that people would be missing, well only if you were canine (Canine Hearing. May hear from 15 Hz up to 65000 Hz, humans UP to 20000)

Audiophile listening? Well I feel that is for two channel stereo

sprout

[Martinf]

Yep: The ability to do 100kHz with a good S/N ratio IS important: It's a measure of the amp's inherent accuracy, compared to one that craps-out at anything above 20kHz. ;-)

[Andrew M Ward]

To some people, this dynamic "compression" gives the impression of a nice full and relaxed sound -- since the dynamic transient peaks are rounded-off at high volume levels. In essence, with PWM, the result typically sounds less 'stressful', at high volumes, compared with a technically more accurate conventional system which is not as dynamically limited.

All of the above is basically correct

[Andrew M Ward]

All said and done, Rotel has made an amplifier that people like the sound of. Trust me in understanding, that was no mistake, or stoke of luck.

The amount of research in development has been astonishing.

Point being: It sounds great for 99% of the humans that listen to music or movies (Period) no other argument is meaningful...

100 KHz bandwidth or 20 to 20 is all basically meaningless if you do a comparative experience between A-B-X products... But if you listen to it and like it, like virtually every human being has done, well then you've made something valuable...

It doesn't clip, it'll drive anything and it sounds terrific (to the 99%) what's to argue about.

Martinf argues correctly (up and down) this forum, but he doesn't sit in your living room and Rotel makes a product he already likes!

We win! We get him and you!!!

[kirkj]

I agree with Andrew. It comes down to personal preference as usual. Rotel knows this and sells two amps. The conversation will only get interesting if they stop making traditional amps and only sell PWM ones. Maybe PWM-only receivers?

- Kirk.

[DrJRapp]

However, what I am saying is that it is not an audiophile amp for music with high frequency extremes. I don't think even Rotel itself disagrees with me on that one.

I would tend to agree since it is a 7 channel amp, I think it was intended for theater use. However, it does a credible job with 2 channel. The 5 channel 1075 was built for theater use also.

However, unlike Martin, I have had them both side by side (actually above and below, I put the 1075 on top of the 1077 so the 1075 could dissipate it's heat) in a shootout. My 1075 now resides somewhere else making a RSX 1056 owner very happy.

OBTW department. I don't use the 1077 for everyday 2 channel listening. I just reported on it's ability to do so in my review as most people don't have multiple systems as I do.

[Kevin D]

I concur, it doesn't matter which one a person likes better, it's all personal opinions. What chaps my butt is when one wants to argue my personal opinion of an amp with 'specs' that have no bearing on my ears.

As far as the 'throw everything away' comment, as a moderator I 'moderate', but I'm also entitled to my opinion. I'm sorry if my opinion as a moderator might have more of an impact and make people go try this amp out. I realize that having more people like this amp would really hamper your efforts here. In truth my comment was geared towards the people that are concerned by specs, basically stating let go of what you 'know' about amps and try this guy out.

I would like to thank everyone (including Martin) to keeping this to a spirited debate without resulting in personal insults (more or less, it's not out of hand yet..) We all know there's no winning, but it is fun to throw it around every once in a while.


Kevin D.

[obiwan]

Jerry, what amp do you use in your stand alone stereo system. I'd like to know how an RB1090 compares to the 1077.

[Andrew M Ward]

In truth my comment was geared towards the people that are concerned by specs, basically stating let go of what you 'know' about amps and try this guy out.
Kevin D.

Dear Kevin D.
My name is mud (on this forum) ask Dr. J ...But
I have a slew of high-end power amplifiers, some of them considered among the worlds finest, and I love the sound of the RMB1077...

Feel no shame, the damn thing sounds awesome. Frankly two channel application for this product is excellent.

Just my 2 cents, (I am horribly biased)

[Andrew M Ward]

Yep: The ability to do 100kHz with a good S/N ratio IS important: It's a measure of the amp's inherent accuracy, compared to one that craps-out at anything above 20kHz. ;-)

Martinf !!!! You are pretty darn funny...

In regards to the RMB1077's accuracy: it's dead on accurate according to the sweep report I have...

If you're referring to the whopping 3/4 of one dB down at 20,000Hz as making it "Inaccurate" or that its "crapping out" (A phrase I giggled at when I saw it, you're quite funny, I'll have a beer with you any day you feisty bastard) I think that you know (in fact I know you know) the very gradual declining slope is designed and executed exactly as intended.

My point is: The RMB1077 sounds just like it's supposed to sound...

You know the Jeff Rowland Class D ICE Power mod is 3dB down at 15K !!!!! and that's just how he likes it I suppose (Vinyl old school roll off)

We are ushering in a generation of electronics that sound exactly as intended. Torroid & Big-Caps guys buy Torroid Big-Caps amplifiers for the 10Hz to 100kHz balance, but there is a price to pay for that, so don’t get me started.

The new Class D stuff can be modeled to sound great and has advantages that are mind-boggling performance enhancers I just can’t give up anymore for upper-end harmonics!

Of course I’m 41 now so... Harmonics be damned.

[DrJRapp]

Jerry, what amp do you use in your stand alone stereo system. I'd like to know how an RB1090 compares to the 1077.

Actually, it's an RB 1080, no preamp (as my Shanling CD 100T has volume control). All this powers a pair of B&W XT4s, (which so far are a terrible dissapointment, and will ultimatly be replaced).

To answer your question, I did get to compare the 1080 (not the 1090) to the 1077. For the Klipsch RF7s I prefer the 1077 since the speakers are 2 way and the greater mid range articulation and forward nature of the 1077 just works better.

I recently purchased an Aragon 3005 (which sounds amazingly similar to a Classe CAM 350) that I will ultimatly use to power my future "new" speaker setup which will be either B&W 802D, Revel Salon or Wilson Sophia II based. The Aragon has the ability to "go on for days", it just never seems to run out of gas. The bottom end is very clean, tight and solid (much more so than ANY Rotel amp) and the top end is extremely extended and smoother (less grain) than any Rotel amp. (10khz-100Khz +0/-.5db) For an amp with the power and glory of 3005 the detail and nuaunce is unreal, soundstage (my one minor area of dissapointment with the 1077) is to die for.

[obiwan]

Interesting Jerry. I'm now currently using my Bel Canto eVo2i just as a preamp to drive my Rotel Michi 200W power amp which in turn drives my Dynaudio Contour S5.4's. I don't think I'd be game to try a 1077 as I don't want the midrange any more forward than what it is. The 1090 is supposed to be more "darkly" balanced which may suit me, but I've yet to hear one.

[Martinf]

>> In regards to the RMB1077's accuracy: it's dead on accurate according to the sweep report I have... <<

Andrew -- that sweep, if I understand you, was just a freq-response sweep to just 20k. But what about the compression and transient-rounding artefacts which you did acknowledge in another post? Of course compression does make music "sound" louder — which is why rock-recordings and radio stations apply it all the time, but I really don’t want it in my system because it strips out the transient detail / dynamics to a noticeable degree.

Moreover, you must know that much of the soundstage "image" depends on phase interaction in the high-frequency detail, but if these details are smudged over in the PWM-induced compression at high volume (not to mention the ‘averaging' effects of the PWM integrator even at low volumes), then, not surprisingly, you’ll inevitably lose some of that soundstage image — as IS already being reported in posts here regarding the -1077!

b.t.w. I have a $2,000k universal player, and I’m simply not going to even contemplate strangulating its analog DVD-Audio output signal by routing it though PWM circuits whose dynamic and frequency resolution is no better than standard Redbook CD. ;-)

[DrJRapp]

b.t.w. I have a $2,000k universal player, and I’m simply not going to even contemplate strangulating its analog DVD-Audio output signal by routing it though PWM circuits whose dynamic and frequency resolution is no better than standard Redbook CD. ;-)

Martin.....you're way way over the top with that one....I think that statement is unfair coming from someone who has never even listened to the 1077 with either a Redbook CD or his so called high end $2000 universal player. The major limitations of the 1077 exist mostly in your mind, not in the equipment. You strongly imply that the 1077 would limit the potential of your player. I don't believe so, not even close.

I did my testing with a $2000 CD player; the Shanling CD 100T, and added in a $500 CA Azur 640C player for kicks. The difference in SQ between the two was obvious, even though the CA is a very highly touted CD player. If your stated hypotheses were even the slightest bit correct, then I might as well have used a $69 player from Walmart, because I would never have heard the difference. I also got to do some tube rolling in the Shanling, just for kicks. The differences were just about the same as they are while listening with the 1080.

Also, just for kicks, I have had the opportunity to listen to SACDs on my (once very highly touted) Denon 2900 SACD player on both the 1075 and 1077. The same differences in sound profile that could be determined in 2 channel were there, but were less obvious because of the multi-channel "busyiness". I did not think that the SACD was any less enjoyable than it was with the 1075, in fact it was difficult to descern much if any difference. I will admit that my collection of hi-rez music on SACD and DVDA is VERY limited because of my overall preference to 2 channel.

[grit]

RE: "compression" - Just so I can find an 'at home' example to which I can relate... My Rotel processor (and every other DD processor I've seen), allows you to set the dynamic compression level. The intended effect is that the volume of the quiet sounds and the loud sounds is brought closer at maximum compression, creating a more "home friendly" playback. At no compression, you get the full range of sound, as it was intended.

Is the compression you're referring to similar to the affect of dynamic compression we can adjust on Dolby Digital 5.1 playback?

[DrJRapp]

The compression that some mention here is nowhere near as severe or dramatic as that externally applied by the processor. What is in your processor is there to compensate for the limitations of the human ear at lower volumes. The human ear is a notoriously nonlinear transducer. This is called the Flecher/Munsun effect after the two guys who originally theorized it. HiFi equipment used to be equipped with circuits and switches labled "loudness" that would also attempt the same compensation. The problem with the whole equalizing thing is it tends to ignore the different efficiencies and non-linearities of different speakers.

[Martinf]

>> I did my testing with a $2000 CD player; the Shanling CD 100T, and added in a $500 CA Azur 640C player for kicks. The difference in SQ between the two was obvious, even though the CA is a very highly touted CD player. <<

But nonetheless, a CD player is a CD player, and CDs are all 16bit/44.1kHz!

As for SACDs, that format uses a flavor of one-bit PWM. And consequently SACD also suffers from treble softening artefacts. That too has deteriorating S/N & dynamic range with increasing signal frequency.

[DrJRapp]

>> I did my testing with a $2000 CD player; the Shanling CD 100T, and added in a $500 CA Azur 640C player for kicks. The difference in SQ between the two was obvious, even though the CA is a very highly touted CD player. <<

But nonetheless, a CD player is a CD player, and CDs are all 16bit/44.1kHz!

Bad assumption, you may be a tad out of touch. Perhaps you should do some homework. Not all CD players are alike. The CD 100T is an upscaling CD player with 24bit/96Khz processing.

[Martinf]

>> The CD 100T is an upscaling CD player with 24bit/96Khz processing <<

That's irrelevant, because an upscaling CD player does not create audio resolution which did not exist beforehand on the 16bit/44.1kHz disc. All it's doing is interpolating and/or bit-stuffing which can 'smooth' things out -- but that does NOT add detail & resolution, and it does NOT increase dynamic range.

[sprout]

>> The CD 100T is an upscaling CD player with 24bit/96Khz processing <<

That's irrelevant, because an upscaling CD player does not create audio resolution which did not exist beforehand on the 16bit/44.1kHz disc. All it's doing is interpolating and/or bit-stuffing which can 'smooth' things out -- but that does NOT add detail & resolution, and it does NOT increase dynamic range.

Similar to the fact that owning any of the products does not extend the human hearing range

[Martinf]

>> Similar to the fact that owning any of the products does not extend the human hearing range <<

Loss of dynamic details & compression can clearly be heard. With PWM this extends into the audio band.

[bzrk]

well... i never listen to dvda or sacd so this amp is perfect for me i think

[Andrew M Ward]

Martin.....you're way way over the top with that one....I think that statement is unfair coming from someone who has never even listened to the 1077 with either a Redbook CD or his so called high end $2000 universal player. The major limitations of the 1077 exist mostly in your mind, not in the equipment.

Doc,
You're right on the money, given a 2 hour A-B-X blind test, more people might pick the RMB1077 than previously imagined.

The art of sound and the science of sound come together better in Class-D more-so than any other area in consumer electronics.

Lot's of sour-mouthed naysayer have really enjoyed the RMB1077

it's not about "preconceived ideas" its about what you really like during the actual execution of the process of playing music....this is the biggest stumbling block for this product, the fact that 75% of the people who don't like it have never even heard it.

frankly that’s pretty interesting (in a lot of ways) and very telling about our industry.

Just more 2 cents...

[Claude D D]

The RMB-1077 looks to be a pretty cool piece. We just got one in our store today. I hooked it up to a pair of Dynaudio 3.4's using a RSP-1098 Pre/Pro and a RDV-1050 as a source. Initial impressions are quite possitive. In the new year I'll take it home and do an evaluation against my RMB-1075 and my Krell KAV-400xi. Should be interesting. :T

[sprout]

The RMB-1077 looks to be a pretty cool piece. We just got one in our store today. I hooked it up to a pair of Dynaudio 3.4's using a RSP-1098 Pre/Pro and a RDV-1050 as a source. Initial impressions are quite possitive. In the new year I'll take it home and do an evaluation against my RMB-1075 and my Krell KAV-400xi. Should be interesting. :T

Great, another prepared to listen then comment

Somewhat more useful than just listening to your old system and putting down the new because of the spec sheet.

Also, dynamic range is something I have found to be limiting from the original recorded piece and not the equipments ability to re-produce.
What I am saying is I do not think many peoples music collections have much to prove or disprove the dynamic range of the equipment used. It will not stretch it to the spec sheet.

However it will push it to the human ear, which is what every manufacturer is trying to acheive no matter what technology is being employed.