Rotel 1056 or 1067 ?

**Aussie Geoff** · 28 June 2004, 09:07 Monday

Sharnyo,

The RSX-1056 is a 5 channel reciever with (as you say) 70w (Rotel W) per channel.

The RSX-1067 is a 7 channel reciever with 100w per channel. It also has some better components (A/Ds, Op amps etc than the RSX-1056.

If you have room to contemplate 6.1 or 7.1 and can afford the the RSX-1067 - I'd grab one - it's relatively future proof.

If 5.1 is your room limit and the RSX-1067 would be a stretch - you will still love the RSX-1056's sound on those B&W 600 series

Geoff

**aud19** · 28 June 2004, 11:52 Monday

Rotel rates all of it's amps with ALL channels driven and even that they rate conservatively. Most of the major companies rate their equipment with only 2-channels driven. At all channels driven most of those supposed 100wpc etc receivers end up closer to 70wpc or less :roll: (I've seen some as bad as low 40's 8O ) Other than that I'd say your probably best off with the 1056 and if you desire even better 2-channel an RB-1070 amp for the mains which would also allow for 7.1 or power for second zone. Once you get into the 1067 price territory you're better off getting the 1068/1075 seperates IMO unless space is a serious problem/consideration.

Jason

**Andrew Pratt** · 28 June 2004, 13:39 Monday

If you can afford the 1067 and since music is a priority I'd actually look at the 1056 and add a 2 channel amp such as the 1070 or 1080 to get even better sound and the total cost shouldn't be far of what the 1067 costs...this assumes of course that you have room for two peices of gear.

**shadow** · 28 June 2004, 18:38 Monday

I am not aware of any difference in the quality of components used between the 1056 and 1067. Far as I know the only substantive difference between the two is the extra two channels and 30 wpc which is negligible.

**stantheman2** · 28 June 2004, 19:11 Monday

I have a 1056 mated to B&W 600 Series 2 speakers (603s front, LCR6 center, 601s rear) in a 13' x 14' room. The 75 "Rotel watts" per channel is more than enough to cleanly drive the speakers in that size room to theater plus listening levels. Before I bought the Rotel, I was about 70% movies and 30% music. Now, I am 65% music and 35% movies. I'm not watching fewer movies - the sound with the Rotel is such a vast improvement over my previous Denon AVR that I am listening to that much more music, because it sounds sooooo good!

My dealer is of the opinion that (for a five-channel system, at least) the 1067 is not worth the extra $$. If you want/need 7.1, I'd also recommend the 1056 with a 1080 stereo amp - that would give you killer 2-channel plus great HT sound.

**sharnyo** · 28 June 2004, 21:36 Monday

Thanks for the quick response from everyone here.

At least, I am confident Rotel would be the right combination with my speakers. I have my HT in the master bedroom of 16" x 20". I don't think it will ever grow to 6.1 or 7.1, nor a second zone.

Even now I've to be careful with the volume so that it'll not start any complaint from my neighbors. Loudness is not what I am seeking but rather sound quality. I read somewhere that a larger watt receiver gives a better sound quality at the same volume level. That's what leads me to this post. Is this a correct statement ?

Also I need to understand how adding a separate stereo amp can help in the two-channel sound. I am new to this receiver+amp stuff.

**Andrew Pratt** · 29 June 2004, 08:46 Tuesday

Also I need to understand how adding a separate stereo amp can help in the two-channel sound. I am new to this receiver+amp stuff.

Simply put the seperate power amp will have a much larger power supply so it'll have better control over the drivers in the speaker then the amps in the receiver. Now this will come into play mainly with increased volumes but even at lower volume it should be audible. If you have no plans for more then 5.1 and volume is an issue you might as well stay with a receiver for now and if that changes add a power amp later on.

**sharnyo** · 29 June 2004, 10:07 Tuesday

Andrew,

Based on all the inputs, I see 3 possible scenarios:

1. Start with 1056 (70w/ch for 5.1) and later add 1070 (130w for better 2 ch. sound)

2. Get the combo 1068 + 1075 (120W/ch for 5.1)

3. Get 1067 (100W/ch for 5.1)

Which one is the best choice given my set of speakers (overkill ?) and listening pattern ? Look forward to any remark on the pros & cons of the above choices.

**Andrew Pratt** · 29 June 2004, 10:54 Tuesday

1. Start with 1056 (70w/ch for 5.1) and later add 1070 (130w for better 2 ch. sound)

This would likely be my choice if budget is tight and you really don't see going to more then 5.1 any time soon.

2. Get the combo 1068 + 1075 (120W/ch for 5.1)

This would be the ideal combo for future proofing your system and providing you with the best sonics for now and the future.

3. Get 1067 (100W/ch for 5.1)

This would be a small step up from #1 but at a higher cost and if you can justify the cost of the 1067 I'd lean towards #2. The advantage this does offer though is the fact its a single box solution versus a two box set up which may or may not be important.

I guess for me it would boil down to space and costs. If you have the room for both the amp and the pre amp and the cost isn't a limiting factor #2 offers the best sonics and sets you up nicely for future changes. #1 is the better bang for the buck esp. if you're going to stick with 5.1 for the next little while.

**aud19** · 29 June 2004, 13:03 Tuesday

I think that's what I recommended way up in post 3 :B :B

Jason

**sharnyo** · 29 June 2004, 22:35 Tuesday

For price comparison sake, I checked the retail prices for these choices:

1. 1056+1070 : $1300 + $700 = $2000
2. 1068+1075 : $1700 + $1000 = $2700
3. 1067 : $2200

I can possibly get the space for two boxes. I am also evaluating to replace my old CD player and DVD player with a universal player that can do SACD (still debating between Denon 2200 and 2900).

My system usually stays for a long time before I upgrade. That's why I am very particular about making the right choice.

My choice narrows down to either no: 1 or 2, simply for sonic superiority.
I am inclined to take choice 2 for best sonic and futureproof. But looking at the price difference and also the cost of additional interconnects, that's quite a figure.

Are there any other differences between 1 and 2 ? I notice that option 1 gives 130W for the front speakers and 70W for the rest, whereas option 2 gives an even 120W to all. Any significance to that ?

**Bing Fung** · 29 June 2004, 23:54 Tuesday

Given those choices, and knowing cost is a factor, I would say the 1056+1070 is the play. The 1056 would give your B&W's respectable theater performance and the 1070 would give you great stereo music performance. You can alwasy keep the amplifier and upgrade the processor in a few years.

I always look at amplifiers as a more mainstay piece to the equipment collection that can remain through a couple of processors changes, where as Processors will force changes & upgrades more often that the amplifiers.

Option 2 is the best of the bunch there, however cost precludes that.

As for the variance in power, I would say it's not that critical seeing as you have different front and back speakers anyway.

**aud19** · 30 June 2004, 11:55 Wednesday

Ditto, the 1056/1070 is the best option on a budget.

However You may still want to consider the 1068/1075 as this offers a better upgrade path. If you were to sell the 1056 in a few years you'd also have to purchase another amp besides your 1070. Upgrading you'd be more likely to go for something like the 1075 and the 1070 may not offer the additional juice you may desire in comparison. As such getting the 1075 now and upgrading to a 1080 down the line to improve stereo performance may actually end up more affordable in the long run.

Jason

**sharnyo** · 30 June 2004, 21:40 Wednesday

I am sold on the 1068/1075 combo. You guys are right. Long term wise, this is a better investment. I'll just hold off my CD/DVD upgrade for the time being and use the cash for them first.

Just a small question on the power consumption. I notice from the tech. spec. that these units consume 840Watt of electricity. Is this the maximum, or what they consume whenever turned on ? I'm looking at the capacity of my power conditioner unit.

Rotel 1056 or 1067 ?

Rotel 1056 or 1067 ?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Topics