Between two brands

[G. Smiley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ) and i have two 90db senstive speakers and one dips to 1ohm and the other stays at 8 ohms -- well?

[G. Smiley]

Thank you all indeed ,


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


Regards ,

G.

[kexodusc]

The better question is why you would consider sensitivity more important than efficiency. If i am running a 10 watt amp (which i am ) 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.

[grigore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[grigore]

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.