1066 vs 1068

[mrVoodoo]

Hi all, my first post and I could use some quick help here. Upgrading from my current setup to a 1066 or 1068. Now the 1068 will obviously be more expensive, but how much of an improvment would it be?

My priorities are first of that it sounds good in 2ch, is there a great deal of differance there between them?

1068 does have PL2x, a feature I'd like to have using a complete 7.1 setup (B&W 700 series). Is there an option to use all 7 channels on the 1066 as well? On my Pioneer that I use at the moment I can force it to use the surround back channels with 5.1 materials, even though the reciver don't have PL2x. How does that work on 1066? Even if it could only play SR L/ SR R in the Surround back channels as well I think thats enough for me atm.

Are there any other differances of importance that could help me decide? What do you people out there think? Mostly I'm woundering about the soundquality, is there a differance?

Hoping to get some help and input on this, rather fast would much appriceated, as will have to decide rather fast.

Many thanks // Peter

[soundhound]

Peter, I have never compared the 2. I own a 1068, the 2 channel is quite good. I would suspect the 2 channel of the 1066 to be very close. I would suspect the major differences are in the suround processor and formats for surround.

[bleeding ears]

Mr VooDoo

I have heard the 1066 and I own the 1068, both are pretty clean sounding compared to the a/v receivers I have heard.

The 1068 has tone controls for each speaker (each speaker can be adjusted seperately) which the 1066 does not have. This could help getting the sound just right in a home theatre set.

The 1068 also has crossover settings for each speaker and the subwoofer so they all can be adjusted seperately to get things just right. I am not sure that the 1066 has that ability.

As for 2 channel listening the 1068 has bypass mode (eliminates tone controls) in addition to normal stereo mode which is another option the 1066 does not have.

I think both are good sounding units, the 1066 is obviously superseeded by the 1068 and can be bought (used) at great prices nowadays (around $750- $800 Australian).

The 1068 would most likely be double the price of a 1066, (used or new) so If you need to upgrade any other parts of your system you may be better off financially to get the 1066 and put the money you saved into better speakers or the like, which can IMO make a bigger difference.

I got the 1068 because it was an extremely good deal which I coudn't resist, but I dont know if the sound is that much different from the 1066?

Others should be able to add something to the sound comparison.

If possible let your own ears be the judge.

Pete

[bleeding ears]

Mr Voodoo, I have just re read your post and see that you do indeed have decent speakers so perhaps the 1068 would be your best option if you can afford it.

I have found that if I go for the cheaper option I am forever wondering what it might have been like to own ... xyz. But then again perhaps we all will be wondering what something else sounds like as newer models and new technology appear, all the talk about the new Rotel digital amplifiers has me wondering right now!

Unfortunately the funds aren't endless. LOL

Pete

[mrVoodoo]

Thanks alot for the input so far. :T

No, unfortunatly I will have to buy either of them without listening to them first. Wich is a bit harsh, but I really want one to match the rotel poweramp (991) and the 985mkII/1075 that I will get for my surround channels.

The by-pass mode and the better bass management sounds very tempting though.

More thoughts/input anynoe?

[DrJRapp]

Peter, I have never compared the 2. I own a 1068, the 2 channel is quite good. I would suspect the 2 channel of the 1066 to be very close. I would suspect the major differences are in the suround processor and formats for surround.

Actually not. When the 1068 first came out I did an a/b/c comparison with the 1066/1068/1098 and found that there is a huge difference in midrange clarity between the 1066 and 1068. The 1066 is warmer and smoother, while the 1068 is more neutral.

[Mark_C.]

I have the 1066 and compared it with a 1068 when the 1068 was still relatively new. Other than the 1068 being more flexible (individual speaker crossovers, for instance and pure stereo bypass) I didn't notice a sonic difference.

[mrVoodoo]

Thanks again for more input guys.

I wounder how much of a differance that Stereo Bypass have when listening in 2ch mode. As I spend quite some time with 2ch as well. Anyone tried it out?

[bleeding ears]

Mr VooDoo, I have compared the sound of bypass mode to stereo mode on the RSP1068, with quite a few different cd's and in different settings.

To be as fair as possible in the comparison or to compare "apples with apples" so to speak, in stereo mode I adjusted the tone controls to "0" for bass and "0" for treble and I turned off the subwoofer for stereo mode. (bypass mode bypasses tone controls and sends nothing to sub)

I then switched back between bypass and stereo.

I found that bypass mode does seem to sound a little better.

Hard to put into words but perhaps a little more open sounding or a little more depth, it is not a major difference.

Remember though, I usually (but not always) prefer stereo mode with the tone controls set at -3 for bass and +2 for treble.That is how I like the sound, and I find that is what suits my speakers (Energy C9's) and room best.

I sometimes find that bypass gives me too much depth or bass (depending on cd) and I then switch to stereo with the tone controls set, it seems to clean things up a bit (not so much bass). But that may be because of my room or my speakers etc.

- Is bypass mode better than stereo with tone controls set at 0?
I found "yes" (probably because of shorter circuit path)

- Is bypass mode better than stereo with tone controls set to your
preference? I found "sometimes" but not always.


Put it this way it is a nice option to have and as I said earlier if you have it you wont have to wonder what it would have sounded like.

Good luck :T Pete