1057 vs 1068 as a Pre/Pro

[AM4966]

Well since everyone has answerd the quality question. I need to get advise on wether you can hear a difference between the 1057 and 1068 as a Pre/Pro....Since I have been wondering if the difference is worth the extra 400.00

Are their any Pros and Cons to running the 1057 instead of the 1068? Since I have also been thinking about using a 1080 or 1070 to run the mains and have the receiver run the center and surrounds(2)...BTW the speakers that I am going to use are Paradigms Studio 60's CC570 ADP 470

I also have heard the 1067 with they 60's and liked the sound, but I want to run seperates. Since I am thinking that the sound will either be equal or better.

AM

[Elvis]

The 1068 and a good amp sounds better than the 1056/7 and a good amp.I've owned both and if you're a critical listener you'll hear a difference.The 1056/7 is very capable and sounds good,the 1068 is just a little better.

[Sim reality]

Pro's of using the 1057:

You get a tuner
You get amps thrown in to run the surrounds (so you can concentrate your money on nice 2 channel amps)
Its' cheaper

Cons:
It's sounds a bit less "transparent"
If/when you need to change your pre/pro you lose your surround amps as well
The amps inside are not as good as separate amps.

[nikos]

Pro's of using the 1057:

You get a tuner
You get amps thrown in to run the surrounds (so you can concentrate your money on nice 2 channel amps)
Its' cheaper

Cons:
It's sounds a bit less "transparent"
If/when you need to change your pre/pro you lose your surround amps as well
The amps inside are not as good as separate amps.

Also you get the HDMI..switching atleast.

I was in the same boat and decided to get the 1057. If you can wait for the next gen 1068 (guestimate not more than 5-6 month wait) WAIT... I needed a fix now...and decided the 1057 would get me by and do the trick nicely.

Nikos

[ICEMAN70]

^^^^ I am with Nikos,

If you need the fix now, get the RSX 1057. This way you will have a nice unit with HDMI. When the new Rotel Pre/Pros come out 6-8 month time than you can allways upgrade.

That's what i did. I needed HDMI, so i sold my RSP1066 and got my self the RSX1057 for now. When the new Pre/Pros come out from Rotel with the HDMI i will prob. Upgrade.

Would you hear the difference? It depends on your room setup. Furniture,drapes ect. In my Bonus room i can't tell the difference between the 1068 and the 1057. I auditioned both in my room before i bought the RSX 1057.

I also use Paradigm Studio 60's V.3 I have them hooked up to the RMB-1075. They sound great with this setup.

cheers,

[Dmantis]

"THE FIX".....

I love it. I think sometimes alot of my upgrading has everything to do with it. But HDMI switching is now nessary for me and I'm thinking of getting the 1057 and replace my rsp1068. I could wait but "the fix" is starting to come around.

I would like to wait until Rotel releases the new processors, I would like to upgrade to top of the line this time. I also need more Optical inputs then the 1068 and 1057 have.

Receiver companies upgrade so much faster then most seperate companies. I hate it but thats the way it is.

Dan

[Robert]

I upgraded to the RSP-1068 from the RSX-1056 and there is no way I would ever go back due to the difference in sound quality. As an alternative for HDMI switching, few people here mention that you can purchase an external HDMI switch box for $150 or less (e.g., eBay, Videogon). Other than space issues, is there a specific reason why an external HDMI box is less desirable than a HDMI switch system integrated into a receiver? If not, it may be a good option to consider.

[shadow]

I will wait until there is an affordable pre/pro with HDMI switching and upconverting. Many main brand receivers have this now.

[WI Rotel]

I'm wondering what all the hubub about HDMI switching is all about! There is only one source that uses HDMI, a few 1080P players. There are very few TV's with it too! You can get high definition video through your component video including 1080P! So who cares! Just as DVI I can confidently predict that HDMI will be another flash in the pan that will disappear in a couple of years. The only components at this time that require HDMI connections for high definition are the new high definition DVD players which will probably flop too since downloadable high definition material will make disk media irrelevant in a few years! HDMI connections as they are at this time are not very well standarized so you end up with interconnection issues to begin with!
Well enough of that. If you can afford separates by no way buy a reciever. The RSP 1068 with any rotel amp will put any receiver to shame whether in video or in audio performance. They are simply not in the same league. :T

[nash]

HDMI isn't exactly a flash in the pan. Anything that outputs high def video is going to be using HDMI - that includes HD-DVD/BluRay, your Satellite/Cable set top box, your HD DVR and your XBox 360/PS3. Heck, even your desktop video card is going to output HDMI to your HDMI-ready monitor so you can watch high def video on your computer. Soon even laptops will have HDMI output.

There are numerous sources that have HDMI output already, and many more to come. It will be the de-facto standard for all A/V interconnects for the next 5-10 years at least.

[RebelMan]

Here is an ear opener... according to Rotel, and yours truely, the RSX-1056/57 with an outboard amplifier will sound identical to an RSP-1068 and amplifier combo and virtually identical without. Plan your money wisely. OBTW, the 1057 actually costs hundreds more than the 1068 overseas!

[shadow]

There is no technical reason why the 1068 should sound better than the 1057 as pointed out by Rebel Man. The specs and features are identical. Noise may be marginally lower with the 1068 since no power amps are in the pre/pro, but that is pretty much it. I think the noise rating is identical in the spec sheets, but you can check this at the Rotel site. You should listen to both in a matched volume A/B comparison. I did a couple of years ago and bought the 1056. My dealer claimed it would sound better than the receiver, but I brought my handy Radio Shack sound meter and there was NO DIFFERENCE in subjective sound quality. However, only you can make these subjective decisions based on your personal experience.

[WI Rotel]

Here is an ear opener... according to Rotel, and yours truely, the RSX-1056/57 with an outboard amplifier will sound identical to an RSP-1068 and amplifier combo and virtually identical without. Plan your money wisely. OBTW, the 1057 actually costs hundreds more than the 1068 overseas!

REBEL
I did the comparo since I had a 1067! The noise floor is orders of magnitude lower. That is specificaly due to the 1068 power supply. In addition video noise is also dramatically lower. The 1057/1067 are wonderful receivers but suffer from the same defects all receivers suffer, putting all the eggs in one basket leads to the amp interfering with the other sensitive electronics in the box. Unfortunately, as the volume goes up so does the noise :uhoh: For inefficient speakers as the XT are, the back ground hum was simply unacceptable and it was loud enough to veil the sound. So I don't know who fed you that story but I can verify to you that it is plain wrong.

You are correct however in that the 1068 is less than the 1067, but you are not counting the amp which in my case, the 1095 itself was 300 bucks more than the receiver!
Also note that I qualified my comparo on $$, if separates is going to break the bank you are better served spending that money on speakers. :T

[RebelMan]

REBEL

I did the comparo since I had a 1067! The noise floor is orders of magnitude lower. That is specificaly due to the 1068 power supply. In addition video noise is also dramatically lower. The 1057/1067 are wonderful receivers but suffer from the same defects all receivers suffer, putting all the eggs in one basket leads to the amp interfering with the other sensitive electronics in the box.

Rotel has done a superb job of implementing many of the benefits once reserved for separates into one box. Companies like Rotel have developed methods to significantly reduce or even eliminated signal contaminating influences from their all-in-one products, like their receivers. Separates still hold an advantage of mitigating the most noise and interference (what little differences there may be), but they also require more materials to manufacture. To maintain the market price points Rotel has outlined for their separate pre/pros, R&D dollars that could have gone into making the product better are instead spent on making the product more profitable, unlike all-in-one solutions that are already more cost effective. Furthermore, Rotel has an well known history of voicing their equipment to sound very similar.

There are some topological differences between the RSX-1057 and RSP-1068 but those differences are very unlikely to be heard. I owned a RSX-1056 and I demoed the RSP-1068. With the exception of a very slight noise floor difference on a very revealing pair of B&W 802D's they were audibly indistinguishable. Now I am not advocating that Rotel's receivers are the be all and end all of component systems, their pre/pro separates do have their place, but it's not a sonic determination that puts them there.

Just to be clear these statements only pertain to Rotel's pre/pros and receivers. Their dedicated pre-amplifiers are audibly different from the rest.

BTW, the story is true!

[slowrey]

I bought the 1057 last week mainly because of the fact that I would like to build my system slowly and also because of the HDMI issue. I have a lot of items that are HDMI and I like the fact I only have to run one HDMI cable to my projector instead of the common component and HDMI. Also with the 1057 you get 3 component video in's and 2 HDMI inputs which makes it more attractive for those of us who have more than two components that they want to do all the switching.

As far as a seperate box to do the HDMI switching, for me it's all about girlfriend factor of being able to do everything with the least amount of clicks.

Yeah the 1068 might sound better but at the cost of the 1057 + an amp I think it's a pretty good deal!

[Elvis]

Here is an ear opener... according to Rotel, and yours truely, the RSX-1056/57 with an outboard amplifier will sound identical to an RSP-1068 and amplifier combo and virtually identical without. Plan your money wisely. OBTW, the 1057 actually costs hundreds more than the 1068 overseas!

Nothin wrong with the 1056/7,if Rotel thinks they sound the same as the 1068 they need to get some real speakers.

[Dmantis]

Nothin wrong with the 1056/7,if Rotel thinks they sound the same as the 1068 they need to get some real speakers.

That made me laugh.... :P

But I assume Rotel knows what there talking about since they built them. You can use a B&K avr507 as a preamp and it sounds the same as the ref50 running there 200.5 amp. The B&K has the ref50 built inside.

Dan

[shadow]

When people buy something, they become very positive about its superiority regardless of technical proof or objective evidence.

[Russ L]

Rotel has done a superb job of implementing many of the benefits once reserved for separates into one box. Companies like Rotel have developed methods to significantly reduce or even eliminated signal contaminating influences from their all-in-one products, like their receivers.

Glad to hear this since I recently purchased the RSX 1057. Compared it with 8 other surround receivers from Integra, Marantz, Yamaha, Cambridge Audio....a few were near the price point of the 1057. The sound superiority of the Rotel was obvious when compared with the others through B&W 604s and with a top of the line Marantz universal player as the source. Surprisingly, the cheapest surround receiver I compared sounded the closest to the 1057 in the voicing of the sound (not quality) that being the Cambridge Audio Azur 540R Receiver at <$1000 still had the "British Sound" like the Rotel but lacked the power supply. Great bang for the dollar. -Russ

[Elvis]

When people buy something, they become very positive about its superiority regardless of technical proof or objective evidence.

You said it! What's really wild is they may think they can save a bundle and still even get more.Human belief systems,most amusing.

[apodaca]

I own the 1056 and recently sampled an RA 1062 integrated for a secondary system. I was surprised to find a notable difference with noise with the receiver having more while I pause a CD via analog input for example. The RA-1062 is dead silent at max volume. (In defense of the 1056 an Outlaw and Harman Kardon receivers/pre pros I sampled also had the same level of noise). Is there such a difference with the 1068 or the 1066 vs the 1056/1057 ?

[WI Rotel]

I own the 1056 and recently sampled an RA 1062 integrated for a secondary system. I was surprised to find a notable difference with noise with the receiver having more while I pause a CD via analog input for example. The RA-1062 is dead silent at max volume. (In defense of the 1056 an Outlaw and Harman Kardon receivers/pre pros I sampled also had the same level of noise). Is there such a difference with the 1068 or the 1066 vs the 1056/1057 ?

In my expirience the difference in noise is very, very significant and noticeable, furthermore, I can tell you exactly where the noise is from, it comes from the surround processng circuits since using the 2 channel bypass completely eliminates it. Thus, despite what the promotional specs may imply the difference between using the 1067 or 1057 as a preamp vs a 1068 are night and day. As any saavy audiophile knows the printed specs are of little use in real life, primarily because stated specs are far from standarized and second because they just gloss over general electronic performance, that is why stereo magazines have made a living testing audio equipment

[Elvis]

That made me laugh.... :P

But I assume Rotel knows what there talking about since they built them. You can use a B&K avr507 as a preamp and it sounds the same as the ref50 running there 200.5 amp. The B&K has the ref50 built inside.

Dan

Dan,you should note the 507 cost more than the ref50 pre(as you would expect with the ref50 built in).I owned the ref50II but not the 507 so I'll take your word they sound the same.On the other hand I've had the 1056 and 1068 hooked to the same amps,the 1068 is clearly superior,not night and day but significant.

[shadow]

In my expirience the difference in noise is very, very significant and noticeable, furthermore, I can tell you exactly where the noise is from, it comes from the surround processng circuits since using the 2 channel bypass completely eliminates it. Thus, despite what the promotional specs may imply the difference between using the 1067 or 1057 as a preamp vs a 1068 are night and day. As any saavy audiophile knows the printed specs are of little use in real life, primarily because stated specs are far from standarized and second because they just gloss over general electronic performance, that is why stereo magazines have made a living testing audio equipment

Your proof that Rotel does not provide accurate specs for its receivers and pre/pros is where? Promotional specs?? Assume since the difference between the 1068 and 1057 is night and day, you could easily pick the 1068 in a blind test seven out out of ten tries? My experience with savvy audiophiles is that often times they say to hell with the specs and blind testing, if I say there is a difference, that is conclusive proof that it exists, which of course is no such thing. :W

[apodaca]

In my expirience the difference in noise is very, very significant and noticeable, furthermore, I can tell you exactly where the noise is from, it comes from the surround processng circuits since using the 2 channel bypass completely eliminates it. Thus, despite what the promotional specs may imply the difference between using the 1067 or 1057 as a preamp vs a 1068 are night and day. As any saavy audiophile knows the printed specs are of little use in real life, primarily because stated specs are far from standarized and second because they just gloss over general electronic performance, that is why stereo magazines have made a living testing audio equipment

This is true I have noticed in the past that sound processing on the multichannel inputs does raise the noise floor, but in that case I got full bass management in exchange. As for the Rotel I am using multichannnel inputs which go direct to volume control and then the 1070 amp. Its not offensive nor distracting (and no worse than other receivers/pre pros connected the same) but there is a difference between the RA1062 and the RSX1056. It seems a Rotel pre-pro might be in my future but I will most likely wait for some sort of HDMI support.

[apodaca]

Your proof that Rotel does not provide accurate specs for its receivers and pre/pros is where? Promotional specs?? Assume since the difference between the 1068 and 1057 is night and day, you could easily pick the 1068 in a blind test seven out out of ten tries? My experience with savvy audiophiles is that often times they say to hell with the specs and blind testing, if I say there is a difference, that is conclusive proof that it exists, which of course is no such thing. :W

Blind testing is misleading. There are always rules to follow such as running under clipping conditions with fairly stable and easy loads etc. Nine out of ten times you WILL pick out a receiver vs a dedicated amp when you crank the volume on moderate loads/speakers as things tend to turn nasty with a receiver a lot faster. That is the real world where we take things to the limit not limit how we use things. This is why people pay $$$ for good amps so things do not get nasty and it takes good quality parts and engineering to build a stable/powerful amp. All amps sound the same at volumes and with speakers no one cares to listen to.

[shadow]

I use a 1095 so I agree regarding amp quality. Remember the issue is 1068 vs. preamp section of 1056/1057, so amp clipping is not an issue. The pre/pro designs of both are identical so it is logical they should sound very similar, not a night and day difference. If ones claims such a difference, I would want to see a blind test protocol to prove it, since there is no objective reason to prove that degree of difference.

[nikos]

I agree... I can see where the 1057 as a receiver vs a 1068 + good amp will be night and day.... but as a pre/pro very minimal.

I never even connected a 1057 to my speakers.... I used it straight as a pre sent to the 1077 now that I think about it...I should have tested that the channels work ... :P

I'm a happy camper....

N

[WI Rotel]

I agree... I can see where the 1057 as a receiver vs a 1068 + good amp will be night and day.... but as a pre/pro very minimal.

I never even connected a 1057 to my speakers.... I used it straight as a pre sent to the 1077 now that I think about it...I should have tested that the channels work ... :P

I'm a happy camper....

N

Sorry night and day may have been an overstatement, what I mean is that its readily discernable specifically in noise levels. Remember I was driving very inefficient speakers with the 1067, that forced me to drive it to no less than -60 in order to get acceptable sound levels, below -50 the noise was not objectionable but easily heard if no music was being played. With the 1068 and 1095 there is no backgroung hum or hiss whatsoever. My other radically better improvement in sound might all be due to much better amplification. One thing must be made clear the fact that the 1067 and 1068 share "chips" makes them far from being the same since they have completely different analog stages, power supplies and build. It like saying that 2 cars are the same because they share the same engine one might be a truck and the other one a sports car :W