Rotel RB-1090 vs RB -1080

[BWLover]

What are the pro and cons, strengths vs weakness etc. I have a 1080 and would like to get a 1090 and would like some input on these amps

[Kevin D]

More power, more control, more weight, more power consumption.

I would tell you to search, but everyone that likes the 1080 loves the 1090. If it's within your budget and space, go for it.

Kevin D.

[wkhanna]

IMHO, even if it isn't......get it anyway.

The 1090 transformed my system far beyond its cost.
If you listen to 2ch music, you will never regret it.

[Kreyfish]

I agree with the posts above.
You could say that the 1090 is the 1080 amplified! :T
In other words, the 1090 has similar qualities as its smaller brother but has considerably more drive and headroom to really bring out the dynamics in any given soundtrack.
Frequencies at the lower end of the spectrum (bass) require much more power at the same spl than those higher up, so if you are bass hungry and have the speakers to produce it, the 1090 will broaden your smile more than the 1080.
Runs cooler than the 1080 as well.
Looks a million bucks in a rack/tower etc.
Has serious WOW factor.

As for cons, about the only thing I could say is that at low listening levels the 1090 can't really get into its stride. Here I feel that the 1080 is superior, however once you start to increase the volume (or are hit with a sudden sound effect in a movie) the 90 clears its throat and really starts to perform.

The only other possible con as I see it could be WAF, depending of course on her point of view. For advice on how to cope with this, just check the byline below my posts...

[bigburner]

As for cons, about the only thing I could say is that at low listening levels the 1090 can't really get into its stride. Here I feel that the 1080 is superior

That's interesting because I think that low level listening is a weakness of my setup which includes the 1080. Lovely and clear but limited oomph. Not everyone is into ooomph though...

Nigel.

[Kreyfish]

That's interesting because I think that low level listening is a weakness of my setup which includes the 1080. Lovely and clear but limited oomph. Not everyone is into ooomph though...

Nigel.

I think perhaps you would find the effect even more pronounced with the 1090. By having the volume turned down, you are obviously limiting the "ooomph" because the amp can only apply gain to the level of signal it receives.

This also depends greatly on what spl we are calling "low level".

From the amps point of view, the output current for a given spl is dependant on the efficiency of the speakers, the mass of the speaker cones and various other factors, therefore the point at which the amp "comes alive" will differ with each individual setup.

Makes this hobby fun though

[Mikael]

Yes the RB1090 has got a way better bass than the RB1080, but just remember that it is a bit leaner in the midrange and a bit brighter in the treble compared to the RB1080. so it´s give and take a little.IMO
As I have said before i vent from the RB1080 to RB1090 and ended up with the RB1072 and it out performce the other 2 when it comes to be a musical amp, it has a more linear sound.IMO
happy listening.

[DL86]

I am using a single channel from the rb-1090 to temporarily power my DIY 18 sound 21lw1400 21 inch subwoofer. I can comment that the rb-1090 drives this woofer a lot better than the rb-1080. Does not sound as effortless with the 1080.

Using the other channel of the 1090 to power my FL and a channel from the 1080 to power my FR speaker. I can't really hear a difference though between the FR and FL being power by two different amps though, I might have bad hearing or something.

More juice would definatly help my situation of pushing the 21" woofer to its limits, looking at something like a behringer EP-4000, however even with the close to 400w of the RB-1090 it manages to provide a hair raising experience, that leaves ones jaw dropped.

[BWLover]

the 1090 appeals to me, for one, the POWER, I'm 22 years old and have been in this world for around 5 years or so, and the main thing i keep hearing is power. The second, the size. When i walk into my dealers shop and see a HUGE krell/classe/mark levinson amp in between 2 speakers, i don't know, its like a car guy looking at a fancy BMW. It's a beautiful sight. And when i look at my 1080 it just doesn't do it for me. If i had a 1090, every single person that walks into my stereo room is going to say HOLY SH*T!. I own the 683's there good but my dream is the 802D's maybe when i retire lol. I can get a lot out of my 1080/683's but i do like bass. Don't confuse me with your typical kid that drives by and all you hear is a 30hz tone. that's not me. but when there's a drum kick i want it to KICK. is the 1090 going to make this happen. i don't want to get a sub. i want to stay strictly 2 channel. thanks guys

p.s. and the last thing. the PRICE. I can probably get one for under $1500 used. Most of the used ones on the market are in good condition. And it doesn't look like Rotel is going to make another beast any time soon. I spoke to a Rotel guy and asked him why they discontinued it and he (in a nutshell) it cost to much to make/ship. He did however give it a huge thumbs up and told me it was not discontinued for any bad reasons. it simple costs to much money for Rotel to keep it in the line.

[Opus007]

I also Love ooomph.I just love it when a drum kick hits me square in the face.And if I could afford a 1090 it would have a nice home.

[Mig17]

1090 uses better power transistor than that used in 1080
1080 use Senken A1492 and C3856
I think 1090 a lot better

[bigburner]

but when there's a drum kick i want it to KICK. is the 1090 going to make this happen. i don't want to get a sub. i want to stay strictly 2 channel.

That's precisely why you need a sub. To get that sort of kick from regular speakers you would need very substantial floorstanders. If you listen to a lot of live recordings as I do then a sub is essential. For studio recordings it's less important.

A kick drum has a frequency of about 60Hz so if you have a sub you need to make sure that it's crossed over at above 60Hz.

Nigel.

[BWLover]

I don't want a sub. i want to stay strictly two channel. i want to get a much as possible out of my speakers. Would I have a greater benefit adding another 1080 and bi-amping?

[gianni]

If I were you, I would see if you can borrow a more powerful amp than your 1080 to see if you get the desired results. My opinion is that you are not going to see a huge difference going to the 1090. If you want noticeably more bass slam you need to pursue other options which you prefer not to.

A bigger amp may give you an incremental improvement depending on how hard you drive your system but the 1080 should do quite well with your relatively sensitive speakers. Not trying in any way to diminish the 1090...it is a great amp. Save yourself some potential hassle and see if you can demo a bigger amp before you take the plunge.

[rantzmar]

I don't want a sub. i want to stay strictly two channel. i want to get a much as possible out of my speakers. Would I have a greater benefit adding another 1080 and bi-amping?

Well I can tell ya. I have book shelf speakers and while I have a sub, I don't need it. These puppies have a lots of bass for bookshelves. I have a dedicated 2 channel room, and the Cantons go pretty low with ooomth. It may be the position of your speakers. If you have a two channel setup that does double duty in a hometheater, you may not have the best positioning for two channel and if thats the case, then a sub would do you good.

[rantzmar]

If I were you, I would see if you can borrow a more powerful amp than your 1080 to see if you get the desired results. My opinion is that you are not going to see a huge difference going to the 1090. If you want noticeably more bass slam you need to pursue other options which you prefer not to.

A bigger amp may give you an incremental improvement depending on how hard you drive your system but the 1080 should do quite well with your relatively sensitive speakers. Not trying in any way to diminish the 1090...it is a great amp. Save yourself some potential hassle and see if you can demo a bigger amp before you take the plunge.

I agree with you...simple positioning of speakers can improve the bottom end of the speakers he has. But in my experience with others who are into this hobby, they have a nack for running the bottom-end to hot any ways.

[BWLover]

My system is a 2 channel system. the speakers are set up as best as i can in the room i have (triangle set up). This is a basement however and i think that's why it seems like there is less bass. Because if i go above this room the floor is pounding. As for speaker position I guess i could move them closer to the back wall to get more bass out of them. Yes?

[PewterTA]

You need to get it for the "Wow" factor. Trust me.

.

That's a 1090 sitting on the left and the 1095 on the right, plus I have the 1080 sitting in a box, it doesn't really get used much as of right now. Might sell it, dunno yet.

The differences are this...
1090:
-Much better bass control. It's not as "heavy" or "bloated" as the 1080. It's extremely quick and accurate and definitely deeper, almost like there's weight behind each bass hit.
-The highs, at first, I think are softer. What I'm hearing is that I think the the 1090s highs are more defined. They aren't as powerful as the 1080 or the 1095 for that matter. But they are more accurately produced. After a few days listening I really like the sound better, miss a little bit of the brighter sound of the 1080 and 1095, but the accuracy makes up for it. Plus you can hear differences in how cymbals are rolled against or hit. Definitely easier to picture if the cymbal was hit in the center or outer edge.
-Mids: About the same on either, the 1090 I'm finding has a little more detail to the voices, but there's not as huge of a difference as the rest.

Imaging between the two is is almost identical, with me tipping my hat towards the 1090 ever so slightly. I really think they kept this almost identical.

The biggest thing you will notice is the quickness of the 1090. It's like you're playing music faster, everything has attack, bass drum hits, bass strings plucked or fingered. Even guitar strings have a quickness when strummed quickly. Which all creates a much more accurate/real-to-life quality to the music.

For me, I was a little hesitant to get the 1090 as I already had the 1095/1080 combo, but after having it now for a few weeks (I had let wkhanna use it for the last 5 months or so) and done some serious A/B, not blind mind you, but as best I could A/B, these are what I notice with my measly B&W 604s3s,

...and the best part, when powered on, it dims the lights in the house (even on it's own dedicated 20amp circuit in a 200 amp service on the same leg). Yeah it draws some power on start up. lol

I ONLY wish it had a 12v trigger, that would have made me very very very very happy! But I guess that means I need another APC unit...maybe a H15 to go along with my S15. :B

But do you need anything more than it does look bad a$$!!!!!! Isn't that enough!? :rofl:

[BassThatHz]

BWLover I have only two questions...

When you walked into your dealers room (with the HUGE krell/classe/mark levinson amps in between 802D's and so forth)... Did you listen to them and did they KICK they way you are expecting? If the answer is in anyway no, then I need-not explain myself further.

The second question is:
If you have $1500 to spend... why you are so adverse to evaluating some high-end subwoofers in that range?

The Velodyne HGS-15X and SVS 13-Ultra comes to mind. If you have evaluated some and didn't like their output then list them out here with a description of the problem you found.

[bigburner]

I don't want a sub. i want to stay strictly two channel.

Adding a sub to a two channel system maintains its two channel status. You're not putting the source through a multi-channel processor and getting 2.1. It's still 2.0.

Returning to the subject of this thread, by adding a sub you will reduce the need for a 1090 by taking the load off your 1080. As you know, it's the low frequencies that make big demands on an amp.

That's not to say a 1090 wouldn't still be better, and I agree 100% that appearance wise the 1090 is one mean mother of an amp!

Nigel.

[BWLover]

explain to me how adding a sub will change the amps load. i have a rotel rc-1082 pre amp. so would i not use the 2nd set of pre outs to the sub. the first set of pre outs would go to the amp with the same full freq. would it not?

[rantzmar]

you dont have to use the second set of pre-outs with the sub if its active.

[BWLover]

ya an active subwoofer has an amplifier in it i get this. someone explain to me how you remove the low freq. from being amplified by the RB-1080 and sent to the 683's

[rantzmar]

on my sub I have a low pass filter, but even if it does not , what difference would that make? You want it to hit harder right? The sub would serve that purpose, while blending into your mains perfectly by the low pass filter and the level control. The bottom end would only add to your mains bottom end while still being 2 channel.

[BWLover]

yes i understand that a sub will give me more thud. how is the sub going to take the load off my 1080?

[chrispy35]

It won't unless the sub has high-pass line level outputs that you feed to your 1080 which seems like an extra level of signal conditioning you want to avoid.

[BWLover]

this is exactly why i do not want a sub

[rantzmar]

I just don't understand what the problem is. Nothing wrong with a sub. We have given you the solutions, but you still dont want a sub. Sorry man, I see nothing wrong with a sub if you have the filters. I have some Paradigm towers in my hometheater that I also gave double duty as a two channel and some times I would run a sub. It still gave more to the bottom end of the Paradigms, but the ideal situation is to get some very good book shelves with very good build and drivers. Most times they can be had at a cheaper price point without sacrificing good quality sound if you have a sub.0 I dont ever think I will buy floor standers as long as I have a good sub.(unless I hit the lotto)Most times I dont even need a sub in 2 channel because the Cantons have a very good bottom end going down pretty low for its size. With good speaker placement and good speaker stands, the same sound can be achieved as if you had towers. But you know the sound you want. And if you dont want a sub, then you wont be satisfied until you get what you want. But please keep an open mind.

[BassThatHz]

There are several methods that can be used to extend bass response with an existing stereo system.

As with anything... each will have their own advantages, disavantages, complexities and associated cost.

In summary you are basically stuck choosing one, or a combination of the following: (Feel free to change or extend it)

Method 1:
Set -3db low-pass filter frequency at the -3db roll-off of the main speakers (40 to 50hz or lower is common).

Pros:
-Deeper bass, greater dynamics and louder bass(at the low end)
-Seemless itegration
-Flatter frequency response
-Relatively cheap and simple

Cons:
-Existing Amp and woofers will work just as hard as before, thus does nothing to remove any distortions or problems they had from before. Hopefully these remain inaudible.
-Does nothing to prevent bass overlapping and phase problems

Method 2:
Set low-pass filter higher than -3db roll-off point of main speakers (typically 80hz or more).

Pros:
-More bass
-Relatively cheap and simple
-Can easily choose to switch back to 1st method

Cons:
-Same as method 1, but with even more overlap and phase problems

Method 3:
Use signal filtering before amp/speakers (outboard or with subwoofer if available)

Pros:
-Most of the pros from Method 1
-Minimizes bass overlap and overlap-phase problems
-Amp and Woofers don't work as hard

Cons:
-Filtering introduces mid-range and treble distortions (How much depends on the quality of the filtering)
-Extra cost and complexity with setup and wiring
-Disabling this requires re-wiring and re-config.

Method 4:
Upgrade Speakers

Pros:
-Better sound in almost all areas
-Simple to do
-Filtering and phase alignment is already factored in and likely optimized

Cons:
-Possibly the MOST expensive of all options
-Most likely even MORE amp limited
-May still not exceed the output, depth or quality of a subwoofer in the bass-area

Method 5:
Upgrade Amp

Pros:
-Better sound in almost all areas
-Simple to do
-Minimal space requirements
-Filtering is a non-issue

Cons:
-Increases in Bass is proportional to the Treble volume to your ears
-Very likely to still be limited by speaker design/distortions
-Possibly expensive for return value
-Likely to not match or exceed the output, depth or quality of a subwoofer in the bass-area

[wkhanna]

(I had let wkhanna use it for the last 5 months or so)

Hey! What is my amp doing in the pic of your system!

Oh Wait.......That is my old amp. And it does look V nice in your system too , BTW.

Thank the gods I now have my own all BLACK 1090. The improvements is.....well...... like day and night.

All of the above is a joke between friends (a friend, BTW, that would let me use his own premium equipment with no reservation all....thank you, Dan!), but everything that Dan so well described about the 1090 is a true account of what happened when I put a RB 1090 in my system.

In fact, after having Dan’s 1090 in my system for a week, I was compelled to searched out and find one for myself. But my all black RB 1090 is just a slight bit better. :W

[gianni]

yes i understand that a sub will give me more thud. how is the sub going to take the load off my 1080?

Here is one option: filter

[bigburner]

yes i understand that a sub will give me more thud. how is the sub going to take the load off my 1080?

I have the same kit as you - RC1082 + RB1080 and a pair of B&W floorstanders that are below 803Ds.

You need to buy a sub that has filters in it. You connect the output of your 1082 to the sub. The filter in the sub sends frequencies 80Hz and below to the built-in amp in the sub. You connect the output of the sub to your 1080. The filter in the sub sends frequencies 80Hz and above to your 1080 and thereby onto your floorstanders.

The result is that you take the load off your 1080 so that when you turn the volume up there's less chance of distortion from your floorstanders. The bonus is that you get deep rich low frequencies from your sub too. The sound may not be as good as a pair of 800Ds but check out the price difference.

Integrating a sub is fun. Don't get stuck on the 80Hz crossover frequency. Experiment and see what sounds good. For some live DVD recordings I play frequencies 120Hz and below from my sub. I want a concert feel and that's how I achieve it best on my system.

The volume on the sub is critical too. Too loud sounds like a boy racer's car (that thud) and too soft produces a thin sound. Be prepared to adjust the volume frequently.

The position of the sub is important too. I find the best position is dead centre between my floorstanders because that's where the drums and bass come from on the soundstage of most recordings. It's less of an issue if you turn the sub up a bit too much.

The last thing is the tone controls on your 1082. Like me you are lucky to have these because most of the members of this forum don't. Use your tone controls as part of your sub integration toolkit.

The golden rule is to use your ears to decide what sounds best, not what other people tell you to do, including me.

Anyway, it's up to you mate.

Nigel.

[BWLover]

I have the same kit as you - RC1082 + RB1080 and a pair of B&W floorstanders that are below 803Ds.

You need to buy a sub that has filters in it. You connect the output of your 1082 to the sub. The filter in the sub sends frequencies 80Hz and below to the built-in amp in the sub. You connect the output of the sub to your 1080. The filter in the sub sends frequencies 80Hz and above to your 1080 and thereby onto your floorstanders.

The result is that you take the load off your 1080 so that when you turn the volume up there's less chance of distortion from your floorstanders. The bonus is that you get deep rich low frequencies from your sub too. The sound may not be as good as a pair of 800Ds but check out the price difference.

Integrating a sub is fun. Don't get stuck on the 80Hz crossover frequency. Experiment and see what sounds good. For some live DVD recordings I play frequencies 120Hz and below from my sub. I want a concert feel and that's how I achieve it best on my system.

The volume on the sub is critical too. Too loud sounds like a boy racer's car (that thud) and too soft produces a thin sound. Be prepared to adjust the volume frequently.

The position of the sub is important too. I find the best position is dead centre between my floorstanders because that's where the drums and bass come from on the soundstage of most recordings. It's less of an issue if you turn the sub up a bit too much.

The last thing is the tone controls on your 1082. Like me you are lucky to have these because most of the members of this forum don't. Use your tone controls as part of your sub integration toolkit.

The golden rule is to use your ears to decide what sounds best, not what other people tell you to do, including me.

Anyway, it's up to you mate.

Nigel.

this is what has been confusing me the whole time. how was the stress actually taken off the 1080. THANK YOU

[Kevin D]

this is what has been confusing me the whole time. how was the stress actually taken off the 1080. THANK YOU

A sub with an active equalizer will strip everything below the crossover frequency and send it to the sub. Everything above then gets sent to the 1080. The 1080 now doesn't have to try and amplify the frequencies below the crossover point which leaves more power available to the other frequencies.

Kevin D.