My experience with RCD 1072

[spinners]

Hi to all,

After 2 weeks of listening here's my experience with the RCD 1072:

First of all the looks; few brands can beat it.
About the sound: To tell you the truth I was (and still am) a 'little' disappointed, I expected more of this cd player. Not that it's bad, not at all.
The thing I'm missing the most is emotion, it's not very much alive.
The pro's: backgrounds are deepblack, no noise at all. It's very very neutral, a thing I like in a source. Placement is good, a bit to much in the middle. Would have been nice if the soundstage would expend more to the sides of the front speakers. It's fast loading and reads the cd's at lightspeed.
In comparison to my RDV 1050 the 1072 sounds better, cleaner. The 1050 is more alive, and brings more emotion to the music. Depending on my mood of the day I can at least switch sources

ps. All listening in 2 ch. bypass mode.

[audiojunky]

Hi - may I ask what interconnects you used with the Rotel CD player? I'm planning ot buy one but the dealer tell me that I need to spend $350 on interconnects (by Siltech). I was thinking of going for $80 cables from Cobalt Cables. I'm curious to know if I need to make that $350 investment.

Thanks!!

[bzrk]

350$ interconnects for a 750$ dollar player

[audiojunky]

350$ interconnects for a 750$ dollar player

lol! That was exactly my thought when the dealer told me that

[gd]

Speaking from experience ---

Check out forum sponsor CatCables for high-quality cables at right prices.

[spinners]

I use cables from IXOS. €40. Tried more expensive cables €200 from a friend,
both him and I didn't notice a difference. A salesman trying to sell you $350 cables huh? I guess that's why they call that salesman. General rule: cables should be costing roughly10% of what your gear costs.

[foeth]

General rule: cables should be costing roughly 10% of what your gear costs.

Or you spend $10 on a soldering iron, buy some well-shielded 75 Ohm cable and a few plugs (1-2$ each) and you'll have high end cables. I most certainly did not spend 10% on cables, not even 1%. I even tried the cheap cable my CD player came with and compared it to the digital interconnect. Not really a difference. And if you have a friend who can tell, set up your system for blind testing and see if he can tell.... you get the best result by picking the same cable over and over; he'll notice the difference /sarcasm

[Aussie Geoff]

Guys,

Probably enough about cables - this thread is going off topic...

Geoff

[BTB]

Hi Spinners

Hardly the place to put Rotel products down, I know, but I was also dissapointed by the 1072, I tried it against a Arcam CD 73 T and chose the Arcam instead, in my set up RC 1070/RB 1070 & B&W 704's the Arcam left the Rotel standing. Don't get me wrong, many people have really good results with the 1072, but in most regards (transparency, dynamics etc...) the Arcam bettered it, especially opening up a gap in the "emotion" and listener "involvement" factor. By comparison, the Rotel produced quite a small 'stage, sounded pretty veiled and never really demanded my attention. I tried them both with the same cables, music, volume level, etc...

Not to hammer on the cable topic, but maybe try a few out, maybe that can help your situation, yet after two weeks only, maybe you should give the sound a little time to settle on you? Good luck whatever you decide.

[audiojunky]

... the Arcam left the Rotel standing....

Is the Arcam CD 73 price comparable with that of the Rotel RCD-1072?

I don't think you can be aboslute in that statement - I mean this is all rather subjective. I found the Rotel to be warmer than the Krell SACD Standard ($4,000) which I thought was too bright, too harsh on the ears.

Now any review would say that the Krell SACD standard is far far far superior to the Rotel, but would you buy it just because of that or the sound (provided of course that the price wasn't of concern to you) according to your liking or preference?

[jim777]

Hi to all,

After 2 weeks of listening here's my experience with the RCD 1072:

First of all the looks; few brands can beat it.
About the sound: To tell you the truth I was (and still am) a 'little' disappointed, I expected more of this cd player. Not that it's bad, not at all.
The thing I'm missing the most is emotion, it's not very much alive.
The pro's: backgrounds are deepblack, no noise at all. It's very very neutral, a thing I like in a source. Placement is good, a bit to much in the middle. Would have been nice if the soundstage would expend more to the sides of the front speakers. It's fast loading and reads the cd's at lightspeed.
In comparison to my RDV 1050 the 1072 sounds better, cleaner. The 1050 is more alive, and brings more emotion to the music. Depending on my mood of the day I can at least switch sources

ps. All listening in 2 ch. bypass mode.

That's funny, I think the 1072 can sound pretty much alive and pass the emotions too. Maybe the mac integrated helped with that..

And the "deep black background" is not a "pro" IMO. If you compare to a better (4x the price) player, you will realise that this black background is the complete lack of air around instruments. You here the direct sound of the instrument, but it sounds like if it was playing inside a huge vacuum tube.. The 1072 also lacks a bit of bass definition - sounds a bit thin (again, compared to something 4x it's price).

And yes, the 1072 loads fast - the transport/firmware is great!!

Overall, IMHO, it is the best player you can buy at that price. If I already had a 1050, I would have looked for a DAC instead of a 1072 though.

[spinners]

First of all, thanks Geoff. It's funny to see if someone is questioning gear, others reply to try other cables. Enough about that.
I do have good results with the 1072, only to me it's not the dream player most are raving about. And yes I know, spending more (4x) will get you better results. Now didn't I read that thing about lack of "air" in a review somewhere about the 1072? Probably. All aside, it will serve me years to come, and it looks great in the rack.

[jim777]

Now didn't I read that thing about lack of "air" in a review somewhere about the 1072? Probably. All aside, it will serve me years to come, and it looks great in the rack.

The "black background" vs "lack of air" has been discussed in a review. I might post it later if it is still online. The point is, I thought that comment was complete B.S. until I heard a better player that has plenty of "air" (or "ambiance" is the way I call it). I specified better as costing 4x more because the 1072 is still the best 700$US player I know of (and a lot better than the 1050 DVD player).

The "4x the price" player also has a bit more perceived detail and sounds more soft/musical at the same time. That is a trade-off (detail vs warmth) so you have to pay more to get both

For the "air" thing, I prefer to hear the instruments blend together while remaining at a precise point in the sound stage. The 1072 is precise, but lacks the real blend of instruments played in a real environment. This is a "minor" lack though, because it is not a problem that will bother a 1072 owner at all. The overall sound is great.

[Taito]

My feelings on the 1072 are that while it may not be my 'dream' player, I always find it a very satisfying listen. The choice of one player over another is subjective. I auditioned the 1072 against the Arcam CD73 (at least I think it was the 73 - it was quite a while ago now) and ended up buying the Rotel.

-Ben

[BTB]

Hi All

Yes audiojunky, the Arcam is price comparable... in South Africa (where I live) they cost virtually the same amount (both around 7000 ZAR), in the UK the Arcam is almost 200 GBP cheaper than the Rotel, don't know about the US or Australia etc...

As for making "absolute" statements, as I said in my post, many have good results with the 1072, I was merely stating an opinion. I think Rotel make high quality, high performance, value for money equipment, (I have in the past and presently own Rotel equipment I'm very pleased with). I replied as I did to spinners post because I shared his view of the 1072's performance (in the specific areas he mentioned) and felt that the Arcam offered a performance I considered to be better. Truth be told when I tested them the Rotel was the one I wanted to like, but the Arcam gave such a good account of itself I went that way instead.

Like I said, just an opinion. :T

[spinners]

I was listening last night at higher volume levels, and the 1072 became more alive.
Another (non-audiophile) option is switching from bypass to 2 ch.stereo and turn up the HF a bit. Taking the front grills off my speakers completed the "tweak" ofcourse, but that didn't turn out to be a WAF proof solution. :lol:

[gianni]

I know some here will disagree with me. With my 1072, I found that rather than 2 weeks, it took more like 2 months for this thing to reach it's peak and finally settle in.

I was a doubter regarding this break in and always thought that it was my ears getting used to the sound. Well, I can say that the differences are more dramatic now compared to the 1055 dac in an a/b listening session than they were when the 1072 was new. Part of this may be my increased intamcy with my system and being more familiar with the nuances of it's sound, but the 1072 has clearly been an improvement.

Whether or not you will be satisfied with the 1072, only your ears will know. My suggestion is to not rush to your conclusion and give it a little more time. Get to know the subtleties of your system. Then if you decide that the 1072 must go, you can move forward better equipped to find the player that works in your system and suits your taste.

[Stev]

I too have the 1072 and find it a bit of a let down relative to the hype surrounding it. Dont get me wrong it is good but I'm comparing it to a pioneer universal dvd player at 1/5th of the price - it should be an improvement. As far as giving yourself time to get used to it's sound IMO if an upgrade doesnt provide an imediately noticeable benfit to your system there are plenty of better options for uprgades that will. That said I am not getting rid of my 1072 just yet !

Steve

[bleeding ears]

Probably the wrong place to ask but has anyone compared the 1072 with the Cambridge Audio Azur 640 version 2 ?

How do they compare?

Anyone ?

[audiojunky]

Probably the wrong place to ask but has anyone compared the 1072 with the Cambridge Audio Azur 640 version 2 ?

How do they compare?

Anyone ?

Personally I found it better than the 640 v2 and also the Music Hall (don't recall the model number) and all 3 were roughly in the same price range. I think in this price range, this is the best buy.

Does a more expensive player create a better soundstage than the Rotel? I mean how is a more expensive player better than the Rotel at $700?

[jim777]

Does a more expensive player create a better soundstage than the Rotel? I mean how is a more expensive player better than the Rotel at $700?

I went from the $700 Rotel to the new $3300 McIntosh MCD201. Even if the RCD1072 is a great player, it was the bottleneck in my system. Now it's the other way around; the MCD201 is probably a bit overkill.

This is what made a difference:
- There is now "air" around the instruments, instead of instruments and "black" all around.
- The soundstage is better because it doesn't stick to the speakers. At first it felt like changing speakers, not my source. This must have something to do with my first point (air).
- The soundstage is larger. Again it must be the air/ambiance thing. This ambiance is larger than the speakers. (Well it was before, but now it's even better).
- The bass has more presence and it is more defined. At first I thought it was just louder but I compared with the 1072 and no, it isn't "louder", but it has more presence and you can feel it. I didn't "feel" the bass before with the 1072. Again, it is like changing your amp or your speakers, so I was surprised.
- Overall, the sound is more detailed, but it is also more sweet and warm at the same time. You get everything the "audiophile" wants, but it sounds so musical that you just forget about it and listen. As I say, after a live show, I don't ask my friends if the bass was defined or if there was air around the instruments, I only remember how the music made me feel. Well my new player gets me closer to this emotion in the music.

So if I resume, more "ambiance" (air) and more "presence" (you feel the bass). It's a step closer to really being there.

But don't get me wrong, I repeat, the RCD1072 is a great player. What it does do is fine, and what it doesn't do isn't annoying. My MCD201 is better, but you won't be depressed if you compare it to the RCD1072. The 201 is better, but the 1072 doesn't lack anything annoying. The difference between the RDV1050 and the RCD1072 is different, I wouldn't want to listen to CD's on the 1050 after hearing the 1072 next to it. The lack of detail in that case does annoy me.

[Audiophiliac]

I have heard the Rotel. We also have Krell, Classe, and Musical Fidelity. I think to my ears (the important thing for everyone), the best "bang for the buck" players have been the Musical Fidelity ones.

Some people have suggested trying an outboard DAC. You might try and find a MF DAC or the X10 tube buffer. These options MAY get you the sound you feel you arent getting. Just a suggestion.

[Boombox]

I still don't care......

RCD1072 is still holding the number 1 slot in the "add to cart" list...