Between two brands [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Between two brands



G. Smiley
06-13-2005, 05:28 AM
Hi ,

This is my first post here and I would like to hear your opinions .

I'll buy this month a cd player and an integrated but I will not have the chance to hear them first , have to buy in the dark , unfortunatelly .


My options are :

- Rotel mod. 1062 & Rotel mod. RCD-02



- NAD mod. C372 & NAD mod. C542


- Or a mix of the two brands above .


Obs : musical style are classical and jazz .


Thank you all in advance ,

G.

topspeed
06-13-2005, 09:40 AM
Both are great companies. I haven't compared those these models directly, but when I was looking at the C320bee vs. the RA01, I found the NAD to offer more weight in the bass while the Rotel was tad more neutral. Companies generally have a house sound that permeates the entire line, so I would think the differences would hold true with these models as well. Naturally, these aren't night and day differences I'm talking about here but you asked for opinions, so that's what you're getting :). Then again, you know what they say about opinions...

From an empirical standpoint, Rotel has a better track record for reliability and quite honestly, has one of the best reps in the business. As you aren't going to listen to either, this fact alone may carry more weight than it would otherwise.

Hope this helps.

RGA
06-13-2005, 10:23 AM
Rotel on both products. The NAD 372 has a lot more power but it's also a little gritty sounding. If I had to buy unheard I would say Rotel is the SAFER amplifier in terms that it will get along with everything -- In fact in every system I have heard Rotel has never sounded bad -- I may have liked something better mind you but Rotel is safe in that it doesn't really have any grossly bad habits.

The RA2 is a very nice unit and sounded good with the Audio Note E speakers - which generally shows up the SS colouration very quickly. It did that on the NAD 320 bee interestingly showing the amps poor design.

NAD also has more QC issues over the years. BTW you can always buy a used power amp from Rotel to add to the RA2 if later you decide you need more power -- but if you have reasonably sensitive and more importantly efficient (they are nto the same) speakers then the Rotel is enough power.

kexodusc
06-13-2005, 10:33 AM
Rotel on both products. The NAD 372 has a lot more power but it's also a little gritty sounding. If I had to buy unheard I would say Rotel is the SAFER amplifier in terms that it will get along with everything -- In fact in every system I have heard Rotel has never sounded bad -- I may have liked something better mind you but Rotel is safe in that it doesn't really have any grossly bad habits.

The RA2 is a very nice unit and sounded good with the Audio Note E speakers - which generally shows up the SS colouration very quickly. It did that on the NAD 320 bee interestingly showing the amps poor design.

NAD also has more QC issues over the years. BTW you can always buy a used power amp from Rotel to add to the RA2 if later you decide you need more power -- but if you have reasonably sensitive and more importantly efficient (they are nto the same) speakers then the Rotel is enough power.

Why would you consider efficiency more important than sensitivity?

RGA
06-13-2005, 10:39 AM
Why would you consider efficiency more important than sensitivity?

The better question is why you would consider sensitivity more important than efficiency. If i am running a 10 watt amp (which i am :D ) and i have two 90db senstive speakers and one dips to 1ohm and the other stays at 8 ohms -- well?

G. Smiley
06-13-2005, 11:20 AM
Thank you all indeed ,


An unanimity : ROTEL Integrated Amplifier " 1062 " & ROTEL CDP " RCD-02 " .


Regards ,

G.

kexodusc
06-13-2005, 01:15 PM
The better question is why you would consider sensitivity more important than efficiency. If i am running a 10 watt amp (which i am :D ) and i have two 90db senstive speakers and one dips to 1ohm and the other stays at 8 ohms -- well?

Well, I'll give you a billion dollars if you show me where I said sensitivity was more important. I view both equally important, very much related, just a slightly different measurement (well, except when people use them interchangeably). I would have asked the same question if you picked sensitivity. Terrific efficiency in a 60 dB sensitive speaker isn't going to help you much though either. And you lose bass response all things equal as efficiency increases.

If you've got a speaker nominal at 8 ohms that dips to 1 ohm you've got bigger problems... Not sure I follow where you're going with the 8 ohm, 1 ohm example... Perhaps you could elaborate...I'm a little slow this week.

RGA
06-13-2005, 02:20 PM
Well efficiency is ease of drive sensitivity is more about how loud something will play given power supplied. Impedence variations or large swings is harder to drive than easy impedence loads - so two speakers that are 8 ohms and 90 db sensitive at 1 watt 1 meter is all well and good but if one of the sepakers is nominal 8 ohms and doesn't swing much will be easier to drive than the one that dips to 1ohm at 40hz and 20khz - the amplifier is under duress if given that job. Thus if sensitivity is the same Impedence efficiency is mroe important -- crossovers suck power as well apparently UHF's engineer wrote about it some time long ago. how much has to do with the speakers.

Sure 60db sensitivity and the easiest impedence in the world is not much help -- but if you have an incredibly high watt amp which is not capable of driving 4 ohms and assuming the speaker can handle a kabillion watts would still be easier or just as easy to drive as a 90db speaker ithat is .0000000001 ohms.

I am thinking more along the lines of fairly similar speakers. I'd take the 90db sensitive flattish impedence speaker over the 95db 2 ohm speaker anyday...it sure makes amp hunting easier.

Both my speakers are benign for amplifiers neither of them dip below 5ohms - The Wharfedales while about 4 times the volume have less bass - but then Wharfedale don't have the engineering ability it would seem to get deep bass, high efficiency, ease of drive, into their larger cabinets -- the other company manages much more bass, almost the sensitivity, easy drive, a far smaller cabinet and didn't need to horn load it and also get far superior sound...the fact that many companies don't know how to competantly design loudspeakers does not mean that it is impossible -- it means they cheap out and then claim it is impossible --- for some perhaps but then maybe those should be best avoided.

There is no need for inefficient speakers -- there are no advantages as it also forces one to buy high powered and non SET amplifiers. And even ofone does not agree with the merrits of SET I think it's always nice to have the OPTION - I like a speaker I can run a 6 watt SET or a top of the line high powered KRELL. And if I don;t have tosacrifice bass or much in the way of size then that's my pick. (see no mention of the speaker I'm talking about either :D

i also know that i recommedn Dynaudio and magnepan but the latter is not a huge impedence dippy doodly speaker -- it more or less hovers around 4 ohms -- so assuming you have a 4 ohm capable amp which even my little amp can do I would expect to get reasonably good results. I have spoken to a maggie owner who recently told me that a SET amp (to remain nameless) was the best amplifier he had ever heard with his 3.6. I have heard similar results with staunch Electrostat lovers -- I'm not really surprised because Stats usually show up difficiencies up stream better than most boxes so it's a wonder any of these owneres could stomach SS with their speaker.

Sorry for being on an anti-SS kick -- there are many i do like -- but the many I like are so dwarfed by the many that to me SUCK that it's hard not to generalize.

I would like to hear the new Sugden A21SE -- Surprisingly Hi-Fi Choice awarded it Editor's Choice and they deemed it to run with amps 3 times the price)or that may be the original version they said this about). But then it's class A and SE. And after listening more and more to amplifiers -- really Class A for whatever reason I have always liked better -- and that was before I even knew what class A was. These amps typically don't like large impedence swings -- they were built for competantly designed speakers.

4ohm 86 db with dips under 3ohms and only capable of 90 watts power intake and cost $2,000.00+ dollars and sorta get to 40hz on a good day at -10db to me is unnaceptable...sub added or not.

kexodusc
06-13-2005, 02:56 PM
Okay, I see where you going, yeah I agree...for SET's the low impedance would be a huge problem...for SS's it would be less, but still problematic the larger the difference. I thought you were going to tell me that the volume to the speakers would differ or something.

I generally like SET amps, I don't find them any more or less musical than SS amps. I just like them for the cool factor. But if some people hear benefits in them, go to town, I'm sure they're preferrable in many systems.

I rarely, in my 20 X 24 room drive my system to levels that 10 wat SET couldn't handle. My speakers' efficiency is only 88-89 dB. I think that's average today. Maybe some dynamic peaks would push a 10 watt amp to clipping. For many, many people, and many speakers, I maintain power is very over-rated. Much like THD. More power is better, but there's a point where it's useless. If you never listena above 90 dB in a medium size room with 90 dB efficient speakers, you don't need a 200 watt/channel amp. But given that it's usually cheap, it's a good idea to buy a bit in excess.

Crossovers can suck out some power, good speaker probably don't lose much if any though. Most tweeter have higher efficiency than woofers. It's very rare that drivers are equal. So the usual method is to pad the tweeter, plug a few resistors into the network to lower the SPL to the same level as the woofer. You're not really losing efficiency here of the system, just a driver. Zobels and other compensation circuitry migh eat up more power on the woofer circuit or tweeter circuit though, and here you could lose efficiency. It's not unheard of to lose 2 or 3 dB to a crossover, which would require double the power. This is mitigated in multi-woofer speakers usually.
Generally, crossovers that eat up more power are probably doing such a good job for the sound that's it's a fair trade-off. If too much compensation is required, the speaker probably never makes it to market, or it shows up in listening at the store and nobody buys it.

RGA
06-13-2005, 07:34 PM
See though Kex you understand -- Most people do not that THD and Power are not only not things to really worry about they are in MOST cases NOTHING to worry about. Consider THD -- all SET amps on the market will do worse than SS counterparts -- but no one can HEAR it and the question is where and WHEN you hear it and how the two are measured -- SS measures their amplifiers at full power where they typically do their best while SET amplifiers perform their best at lower volume and increase with higher volume. This to me is the biggest fundamental advantage of SE class A circuitry because if you have 90db speakers and SS amp performs worst at that volume you have to cranbk it to get the best performance --- SE designs be they tube or SS will have negligeable numbers.

And since no one listens to Peter Qvortrup babble about it maybe nelson pass is more believable since I don't own his stuff "Class B and many AB designs have distortion products which dramatically increase with decreasing signal." UHF everyone says this. http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.passlabs.com/seclassa.htm

I first became aware of power being the BIG LIE in this industry when i heard a CJ or Carver amp (it had big meters on it) that never passed 10 watts and in the big open room at a dealer in Vancouver was absolutely deafening. Beside it they had the top of the line Adcom Power amplifiers (massive high powered SS units hooked up to other non sensitive speakers and it was a pitiful joke by comparison.

Mind you the Adcoms with the sensitive speakers and now you're really going to have a rock concert levels going.

IMO it matters which SE amps you hear and with what. A reviewer for Audiofile magazine reviewed the OTO and he said he would buy if he was no longer reviewing -- he loved it. But his review was absolutely principally wrongheaded -- placing the amp which he "assumes" is 15 watts when in fact it is 10 watts according to AN and really that's a stretch of about 2 watts per channel apparently because it sounds louder, with some ungodly impedence infriendly THIELS and then claiming the amp has limited frequency extremes is bizzarre. Nelson Pass also notes that famous amps ones that are sought after are NOT the ones championed by the SS crowd.

Not all Class A Single ended amps are created equal -- just like no all SS amps are created equal(despite the DBT crowd) -- with SETs and tube amps the differences are no doubt much wider. I now know three people who traded multi thousand dollar Cary SETs in for that little Audio Note Kit at a song. I have not heard it and this is hearsay but my dealer/repair/designer himself indicates that one of the huge things in a SET is the transformer -- and many of AN's competitors like WAVAC and Reichert use Audio Note transformers -- call me a homer all you want but they ARE considered the best transformers in the world - Von Sweikert apparently uses the Conquest Monoblocks in voicing their loudspeakers. Who cares what I think or forumers think -- it's more of a compliment when competitors (worthy competitors not the McSpeaker makers in Canada or the ones who NEED to advertise constantly) use your stuff to voice equipment on, or contract AN designers like Quad has done for their best amplifiers, and have top recording engineers buying your stuff to listen to at the end of a long day (Chesky).

Sorry got into advert mode again it's a tough habit to break but you're catching me after just listening to music for several hours and just pouinding some Aerosmith to pain levels with the so called gutless lack of head room no bass no treble Single Ended tube amps that also supposedly can't do rock. Tell it to the neighbors they won't be convnced either. :D

Also this article should show people watts are as phony as Cher's nose http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm

grigore
06-14-2005, 10:50 AM
Dear G Smiley, I've been listen to both sistems you askd for but realy the Nad is more beter in every respect than Rotel. Nad haz mor musicality and good dinamic. On jazz music will perform better than Rotel. The voices on Rotel are grainy and not very clear. Nad is an audiofile product still but Rotel haz turned into a mass market product.

anamorphic96
06-14-2005, 12:13 PM
There both equals. They just present music in slightly different fashions. The NAD will have a warmer, weightier sound. While the Rotel will gor for a more detailed up front presentation but also maintain some warmth.

There both high quality kit. Just doing thing in slightly different fashions.

kexodusc
06-14-2005, 12:26 PM
Dear G Smiley, I've been listen to both sistems you askd for but realy the Nad is more beter in every respect than Rotel. Nad haz mor musicality and good dinamic. On jazz music will perform better than Rotel. The voices on Rotel are grainy and not very clear. Nad is an audiofile product still but Rotel haz turned into a mass market product.

This couldn't be further from the truth. NAD is far from an audiophile product, and Rotel is anything but mass market.

G. Smiley
06-14-2005, 02:21 PM
As I didn't purchase the components yet , I believe that more input is always welcome .
My main concern now is more about the CDP brand , as I'm inclined to use Rotel's amplification ( the model 1062 or the recent released " RA-03 " ) .

Thanks again ,

G.

kexodusc
06-14-2005, 02:47 PM
RGA, that article is provocative, but it really misses the mark on a couple of issues, especially when talking about sealed box speakers. It starts with a conclusion and logically works its way backward, effect and cause. Sealed speakers didn't just come along, they were around for years. Before T/S parameters ported designs were much harder to design and sealed cabinets were around.
I'm not sure it's fair to state that inefficient speakers are made to save cash. If power is in abundance and it's cheaper than sensitivity, why not use big ss amps and less efficient speakers? You arrive at the same destination, just a different path.

I completely disagree with the notion that digital doesn't sound better than analog, or that SET's sound better than SS. 60 year old, mature analog sounded better than early digital (which is probably why you see so many "remastered" cd releases). I have a few Deutsche Grammophone albums on both vinyl and CD, and generally the CD's are better. Analog fans tell me it's the cheap vintage Technics/Thorens turntable I have, but surely my $180 Yamaha CD player would be equally poor? tQuality SET's (there aren't many poorly designed, mass production McSET amps out there) will sound better than entry level SS. I've heard some rather dull sounding SET's and some painful SS and examples of both that have brougth smiles to my face. Ya generally get what you pay for.

For every SET fan you get a guy like Woodman who couldn't be happier to wash his hands of them after 40 years. Then in between either extreme you get a guy like me who just wants what sounds best to him, loyalties to technologies aside.

I'm skeptical of any "article" written by a manufacturer with a vested interest in the product he's raving about being better than the stuff he's competing against. That same crap was eagerly flung the other way at the SET camp when SS's hit the market...and worked pretty well. In this case, it's written knowing very well that the audience will 99% of the time be proponents of SET gear. Read that at an SS fan club and they'd provide so many "proven" examples of why that article is all hogwash because they "know" SS amps are just far superior.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

RGA
06-14-2005, 03:00 PM
The truth in whom you believe is in the lsitening experiences -- I grew up on CD and Solid State -- I have heard the top of the line Krell, Mark Levinson, Classe, YBA, Mcintosh, MF's as a start - And my first major exposure to tubes was Copland which didn't impress me.

Ihave heard unglodly pricey high powered SS amps with low efficiency speakers -- it is NOT the same as high sensitivity speakers and low powered "good" SET amps and truthfully I have heard very very few SET amps so I can't really say which are good and which are not - one is limited to what equipment one can get access to.

I never get into the SET versus SS because my exposure to SET is largely one company and it may be they're one of a select handful that do it properly -- since most say it comes down to the transformers and they make the best transformers then those not using the best or very near them may have all sorts of problems for all I know. But listening to Bryston separates versus a half the price SE amp on the same speakers well it is clear to me which is the one that sounds like music and the one that sounds etched and highly fatiguing -- gotta go with personal experience -- I don't care about the technology either I care about what sounds better to my ears -- it's too bad it happened to be a tube amp because tubes are a royal pain the ass compared to SS.

Woochifer
06-14-2005, 03:35 PM
Sorry got into advert mode again it's a tough habit to break but you're catching me after just listening to music for several hours and just pouinding some Aerosmith to pain levels with the so called gutless lack of head room no bass no treble Single Ended tube amps that also supposedly can't do rock.

Who's saying that SETs can't do rock? (A speaker like yours with a sensitivity above 90 db can already go to very high volumes on less than one watt of power, so your statement about "pain levels" is already on thin ice) And who's talking about SET amps as "gutless lack of head room no bass no treble"? The way that you concoct these whacked out presumptions about other people's perceptions never ceases to amuse.


The truth in whom you believe is in the lsitening experiences -- I grew up on CD and Solid State -- I have heard the top of the line Krell, Mark Levinson, Classe, YBA, Mcintosh, MF's as a start - And my first major exposure to tubes was Copland which didn't impress me.

And the whole point of Kex's response is that you're going to get good and bad examples of ANY technical approach. I've heard plenty of impressive demos with tube-based systems, but I hardly regard them as the ultimate solution for all situations.


I never get into the SET versus SS because my exposure to SET is largely one company and it may be they're one of a select handful that do it properly -- since most say it comes down to the transformers and they make the best transformers then those not using the best or very near them may have all sorts of problems for all I know. But listening to Bryston separates versus a half the price SE amp on the same speakers well it is clear to me which is the one that sounds like music and the one that sounds etched and highly fatiguing -- gotta go with personal experience -- I don't care about the technology either I care about what sounds better to my ears -- it's too bad it happened to be a tube amp because tubes are a royal pain the ass compared to SS.

If you "never get into the SET versus SS" then why waste all that bandwidth on these long diatribes about how the industry is perpetuating a "BIG LIE" about SS amps, and linking to a VERY flawed article that IMO makes a lot of nonsensical generalizations about sealed speakers and digital audio. So you're in a state of puppylove over your Audio Note SETs, but how does that therefore translate all of these other tangents that you've picked up on this thread (like once again namedropping what some recording engineer over at Chesky listens to)?

If you don't care about the technology, only what sounds good to your ears, then why do you focus so much energy discussing the design aspects of the amps? Just because you like a certain sound does not therefore mean that everything about the approach taken is superior and everything else is crap. So you don't like the Brystons, does that therefore mean that EVERY SS amp is inferior to EVERY tube amp?

RGA
06-14-2005, 04:32 PM
Firstly I want to end this discussion as it's getting way off topic -- Many people like skeptic who no longer posts here complain that SETs are too simple to work properly as amplifiers or was it mrtycrft.

"And the whole point of Kex's response is that you're going to get good and bad examples of ANY technical approach. I've heard plenty of impressive demos with tube-based systems, but I hardly regard them as the ultimate solution for all situations."

I agree and have had the same experience -- there are plenty of SS amps i like even some from the list I mention including Bryston. I happened to have found what for me is the ultimate solution for the situation of listening to music. If I was into home theater then it would indeed be a costly circumstance for me to retain this solution. However I am not projecting this personal response to others in any way shape or form -- if tubes don;t do it for ya or SET doesn't do it for you that is fine by me -- as I say I cannot talk in generalities with regard to SET amplifiers or for that matter tunbe amplifiers -- most dealers don't carry them. My experience is far greater and far longer with SS. I conceded the fact that "perhaps" I FLUKED and hit upon the rare good SET maker and my opinion might be far different if the first one I heard was whoever makes atrocious examples of the technology.

The big lie is not SS amplifiers but high wattage necessity...there are 800 watt Tube amps as well so it has nothing to do with the technology but selling the watts. You can bring the 400Watt JVC boom box to my house and I'll learn ya on what a 10 watt amp can do with the speakers. Just yesterday there was a fellow telling his friend wow check out these 400 watt speakers...People have been programmed to only look at volume in terms of wattage -- of course most posters here know this but most average folks likely do not. The question even on here crops up MANY times which amp should i get the one that is 80 watts or the one that is 100 watts.

I am not at all saying all SS is worse than tubes -- I purchased a SS over a tube amplifer. My first exposure to SE tube amplifiers from AN was in some respects a blind test since I did not know about the company and did not know I was listening to a tube amplifier since they are covered boxes. And I immediately was drawn into what I was listening to as the best "amplification" and system i had to thatpoint heard. Then i was told it was 8 watts and a 300B SET. So it made me wonder what the extra 92watts were providing for the sound quality -- maybe louder yes but better to me not remotely not tremotely as good. But hey your mileage may vary -- I have heard some pricey tubes that i would not take over the Sugden A21 (which I have never owned).

Remember I have not said anywhere that every SET amp is better than EVERY SS amp. Kneejerk responses are tough to avoid sometimes but this is personal experiences from me and in no way is a commentary what I think you or anyone else should buy into. It merely happens to be the case that I have been drawn to the sound of class A SE topologies more so than others even before I knew what class A was or for that matter what a tube was. Granted there are VERY few Class A SE topologies I've heard -- one of them is the Sugden a SS amp which obviously I greatly like.

theaudiohobby
06-15-2005, 01:04 AM
RGA,

I wonder whether it has occurred to you that your folks at Soundhounds showcase products that they will prefer to sell to you, IOW they have conditioned your outlook.

RGA
06-15-2005, 12:44 PM
I don't think that is possible since I don't tell them I'm coming -- they carry so many brands they don't care what you buy since they make money no matter what -- very different than the dealer who only carries one expensive line and has to hard sell you on it.

And how can they condition a person sho sits down listens to music wioth zero advertising spiel -- and AFTER you love it they say yeah pretty good for 8 watts eh?

Man that sure is heavy handed of them. Conditioning is spending hours reading reviews and graphs and advertising in Stereophile endlessly talking about design. Since SET in all of those current established parameters does poorly and coming from a more scientific backgorunds SE I would not have bought into from reading the reports. I bought into it because it sounds better to me pure and simple. Contrary to your belief people actually like the sound of Audio Note for musical reasons and most people who go to good set amplifiers high efficient speakers don't go back.

I grew up on SS and CD and I frankly think Tubes are a pain in the ass as is vinyl - and despite my Vinyl system which is Rega based and the relatively cheapo cartridge and thus not great vinyl, it is still more enjoyable to listen to than most digital I've heard.

I disagree on many of the opinions of the salespeople at Soundhounds. One of them thinks Magneapn is pure rubbish innacurate disasters...And he sells the freaking things. From where he comes from i get his view but I disagree. Just because he sells what the owner brings in does not mean they are ALL going to like ALL of thsoe speakers amps etc. They like most make mistakes and it costs them money. They brought in a very highly touted turntable line because they were impressed at the CES with them but over long sessions they did not sound very good -- they had the distributor come down to check them as maybe it was a bad batch - eventually they decided they could not stand behind the turntables. And this is a tutrntable from a SALES persepective that would be FAR better to carry than some ugly no name Audio Note. This turntable line has huge press in Britain and very SEXY looks and is very well known here as well.

Some high end dealers in Vancouver have picked up Bose and the other picked up Bang and Olluffson. This is a cop-out and for pure sales and profit. Soundhounds may carry lines that I think are higher end equaivalents, but at least they "sound" acceptable and not grossly horrible. If I worked there I could stand behind every brand they carry.

I can recommend stuff that i would personally not buy - PMC I think does what it does extremely well and fairly priced -- but I would not buy it.

GMichael
06-15-2005, 12:56 PM
Smiley,

Have you looked at Adcom at all?


http://www.adcom.com/

G. Smiley
06-16-2005, 01:12 AM
Smiley,

Have you looked at Adcom at all?


http://www.adcom.com/

No , GMichael . I don't live at US and I only have these , say , "direct import options . Otherwise I would have to pay around 150% to 200% above the price you use to pay at US , for the same brand/model .

theaudiohobby
06-16-2005, 02:20 AM
When I refer to conditioned thinking, I am implicitly implying that it is done with subtilty, advertising is just one method of achieving conditioned thinking, there are industries over here (and over in the US), that do not advertise their products but sell those products through an exclusively through agents, the goal of the salesman is to present the product as the best available product on the market, some of this agents sell multiple products, but the agents tend to promote products that are most profitable, as a consequence show other less profitable products in less favourable light. If their goal is to present certain products in more favourable light, then those products will be setup better vis-a-vis less favourable products irrespective of who is walking through the door, the B&W 802D debacle being a case in point, I have never ever seen an Nautilaus series speaker demoed with a Rotel ever nor even heard anyone recommend it, why would a dealer provide such a mismatch? The response of those listening to such a mismatch is unsurprising and it provides a good entre to selling a well-matched product. Conditioning the buyer is all about subtility.

grigore
06-16-2005, 01:58 PM
This couldn't be further from the truth. NAD is far from an audiophile product, and Rotel is anything but mass market.

Maybe you are right, but believe me I don't like the reproduction of voices by Rotel. Maybe Nad is not an audiophile company but it's stil sounds better then Rotel . this is my opinion. I realy don't love Rotel.

RGA
06-16-2005, 06:05 PM
When I refer to conditioned thinking, I am implicitly implying that it is done with subtilty, advertising is just one method of achieving conditioned thinking, there are industries over here (and over in the US), that do not advertise their products but sell those products through an exclusively through agents, the goal of the salesman is to present the product as the best available product on the market, some of this agents sell multiple products, but the agents tend to promote products that are most profitable, as a consequence show other less profitable products in less favourable light. If their goal is to present certain products in more favourable light, then those products will be setup better vis-a-vis less favourable products irrespective of who is walking through the door, the B&W 802D debacle being a case in point, I have never ever seen an Nautilaus series speaker demoed with a Rotel ever nor even heard anyone recommend it, why would a dealer provide such a mismatch? The response of those listening to such a mismatch is unsurprising and it provides a good entre to selling a well-matched product. Conditioning the buyer is all about subtility.


So you are saying I like Audio Note because in your opinion the 802 was mismatched because the dealer was "TRYING" out a Rotel power amp (which is better than Bryston musically to me anyway and probably to many -- which also has more than enough OOMPH to drive any B&W which are very easy to drive relative to many others??) all when I happened to walk through the doors? Who has been conditioned here? maybe it is you whop has been conditioned to believe that ROTEL sucks just because it is not obscenely priced. Since B&W recommends Rotel as they share imports and Rotel is as I've been told the amplifier company used to voice B&W speakers then why should any dealer not at least TRY Rotel with their gear. This dealer has run McIntosh, Naim, Bryston, Anthem, Arcam ,YBA and even tried Audio Note monoblocks. I see nothing wrong with a dealer who on a slow day happens to be sitting on his couch listening to speakers he PAID for and now is looking for a good combination (not JUST the most expensive combination).

This same dealer in the second room had the Rotel RA-02 and a TEAC cd player running Auduio Note E loudspeakers -- funny how you don't give Audio note the same consideration that the dealer must have been trying to deliberately make Audio Note sound lousy using Rotel but they will with B&W. And AN if anything as a design team is ADAMANT about what SHOULD be run with their specific speakers -- is B&W? If anything my dealer was doing AN more of a disservice by your reasoning.

See this dealer actually listens to music when he is there all day in the middle of the week when it's not busy. He actually tries to put together a system that sounds good and carries lines that he admits do absolutely dreadful business but he retains in the hopes that they will pick up when he could just as easily drop it and pick up Sony amps.

Rotel makes nice gear - they make excellent power amps for sane prices. And my own experience with the N801 is that the best SOUND I heard coming from them was an 11 watt tube amp (nuVista or something) -- could not play loud enough to my taste but at the volumes it did it made Classe monoblocks sound like crud.

theaudiohobby
06-16-2005, 11:55 PM
A dealer of B&W 800 series, but does not know what makes them sing, that seems to me like a copout in my books, I have owned a lot of Rotel gear over the years, I have owned RA971MKII, RB971, RC1070 as well as the the Michi series RHB05, RHC05, RHA05, so I am in a very good position to discuss what Rotel is capable of, the Michi Series was by far the best of the Rotel amplification series but it has not been around for a while. It simply beats me how a dealer will take delivery of a speaker such as the B&W 802D and match it with an unsuitable Rotel power amp, only the RB 1090 is suitable, the others are not ideal matches by any means. However, the B&Ws 600 series and the Rotel amplification is common recommendation.

By your own accounts, your say that the B&W 802D sounded bad with Rotel power amplification, almost certainly an impedance mismatch, they have access to B&W , surely they could simply just pick up the phone and ask them what amplifiers match the speaker, his comments are a copout in my opinion, I get the feeling that the less than pleasing results were not unexpected.