1070 amp with 4 ohm speakers

[bleeding ears]

I cannot seem to find any info on the watts rms output of the 1070 amp when using 4 ohm speakers, anyone know ?

Better still, does anyone know of any reviews of the 1070 amp ?


Thanks

[Joey_V]

I think around 200. I had them running Polk LSi9 and Martin Logan Vantages before... both are 4ohm speakers. The 1070 can handle the load.

[Boombox]

Rotel claims that it doubles its output, i.e. 260W, but I'd go with Joey_V, 200W seems right. Also, its driving the Dynaudios quite comfortably, seldomely getting hot...

if the RB1080 is shown by Stereophile measurements to do this: "the Rotel puts out 291W into 8 ohms with one channel driven (24.6dBW), 558W into 4 ohms (24dBW), and even 800W into 2 ohms (23dBW)!"; then one can assume that its lesser sibling the 1070 might do the same.

[bleeding ears]

thanks guys, I cannot see how it could do 260 W a channel as it only consumes 400 watts , so yes about 200 watts or less would seem right.

Joey are you happy with its performance with your speakers ?

I am considering changing to 4 Ohm Dali speakers and my current 990 amp may be a bit over the top at around 400 watts per channel (rough guess) into 4 ohms.

A 1070 amp could be a good option here.


Thanks

[Joey_V]

BleedingEars,

Am I happy? I thought it did a very admirable job with those speakers and even with my new speakers the Martin Logan Summits. Talk about a lowly $700 amp powering speakers that are 15x its cost. :E

BUT... I knew it was a temporary solution as I felt that the imaging wasnt as solid as it could've been nor was there the stage volume I wanted. So I ended up getting the Rotel RB1090 (after comparing to the Rotel 1091 digital monoblocks).

I got the 1090 used from a local friend who also has the ML Summits and I brought the 1070 over to his listening room to hear the differences. Well, the difference is there and it was exactly what I was looking for. Also, I compared the 1090 to his Classe CA400 amplifier (which costs like 3x the 1090) and I was hard-pressed to hear a significant difference. Maybe a slight better control over vocals and dynamics... but that could just be my head playing tricks with me.

So in the end, to answer your question... sure I was content with the 1070, but I was saving up the whole time to get the 1090 or similar caliber amps.

Now.... I'm real happy!

If you are eye-ing some remarkable hifi speakers, dont go for the 1070, go for the 1090 if you want to stick with Rotel.

Yet.. here's the catch22.... you wont appreciate the 1090 unless you've lived with the 1070 for some time (or listened to them in A/B fashion). So, with this taken into accout... go for the 1070 and keep the 1090 on backburner until you can afford it.

JOey

[Boombox]

Yet.. here's the catch22.... you wont appreciate the 1090 unless you've lived with the 1070 for some time (or listened to them in A/B fashion). So, with this taken into accout... go for the 1070 and keep the 1090 on backburner until you can afford it.
JOey

Joey,

you make a good point here.

I'm using my 1070 to drive a pair of Dynaudio Focus 140s, which are 4 ohm. I appreciated my Shanling CD player more for the significant improvement it brought (better soundstage, depth, etc.) after having listened to the Rotel RCD02 for quite some time. I'm also hunting around for a new power amp, prefereably a pair of mono-blocs, but so far, the 1070 is doing an admirable job!! I think that once one's ears have adapted to the character of the amp, then you can pick up differences in "better" amplifiers, etc.

[Clepto]

thanks guys, I cannot see how it could do 260 W a channel as it only consumes 400 watts , so yes about 200 watts or less would seem right.

Thats why it's an AMPLIFIER, it takes a certain amount of power, and AMPLIFIES it to a higher output (;

[bleeding ears]

Thanks Clepto, I know that an amp amplifies the sound, but, I was not aware that you could get more watts rms output than what an amp consumes.(not including class d amps)

The above comment is of course on the condition that the amp is honestly rated in rms with all channels driven simultaneously (such as with Rotel amps)

In fact I do not know of any honestly rated class a/b amp that can deliver more watts rms output to the speakers(at the manufacturers recommended minimum speaker impeadance of say 4 ohms) than what it consumes.

Do you know of any ?

Does anybody know of any?

Is it possible or is that only manufacturers over rating their watts rms output, as is apparently often the case with receivers ?

This is probably solved with a simple electrical formula.

[philly boy]

From the Rotel web site under support>frequently asked questions> model RB1070>last question addressed, says the RB1070 puts out 160 watts into a 4 ohm load. This may not be enough current to control the low frequencies in speakers whose impedances drop to 4 ohms and below.

I was using a RB1070 to drive the Vandersteen 3A signatures and found the bass end to be a bit loose at times. The 3A's are rated at 6 ohms nominally and 4 ohms minimally. I have now gone to an amp that doubles its rated wattage when driven into 4 ohms and it does have complete contol of the bass.

[Clepto]

The vast majority of amps for the home, have to be designed to run on a 15amp circuit... maybe on a ridiculous 1000wpc stereo amp, they may dictate that a dedicated 20amp circuit is required, but you can bet that for the most part, they're designed to output their designated amount on a brief peak load, but definitely not for constant output...

With caps, etc, they can accomodate the brief peak loads that require all that current, but you'd definitely be blowing breakers left and right if they drew all that power constantly.