Rotel 1066 Users... (1 Viewer)

[Mark C.]

I thought we had seen the last of these Outlaw-Rotel flame wars last summer.

Everyone's priorities are different. For me, multi-channel analog inputs is not real high on the list. Does the Rotel sound great in stereo and surround? Yes. Does the Rotel provide rock 'em, sock 'em movie audio? Yes. Is the Rotel flexible when it comes to crossovers? Yes. Sold!

For someone else, the analog inputs might be a deal breaker. Great, buy something else that meets your needs.

 

[Bill Polley]

yes, Darryl. By triple crossover I mean the ability to set different crossover frequencies for the mains, the center, and the surrounds. To be able to cross the mains over at, say 40Hz, the center at 60Hz, and the surrounds at 80Hz is fantastic. The larger speakers can produce more of their own bass, taking some of the load off the subwoofer, and helping to preserve the bass soundstage from being localized in the sub corner.

 

[Bill Polley]

The Rotel does not have a flexible crossover like the 950. you can set each of your speakers to either large (full range) or small (limited range) on the Rotel. Then you select a single frequency for all of the small speakers to be crossed over to the subwoofer.

If you have mains capable of producing bass below 40Hz, and a center capable of 50Hz, but surrounds only capable of 100Hz, you would need to set all of the speakers to small, and cross them all over at 100Hz to the sub. The sub works harder and in small instances, bass may be localized as coming from the subwoofer corner instead of the correct spot on the sound stage.

On the Outlaw, separate crossover frequencies allow larger speakers to produce more of the bass, redirecting only the deepest bass to the sub, reducing the sub's load. At the same time, smaller centers and surrounds are also only fed a signal they can handle, redirecting what they can't reproduce to the sub.

 

[DarrylM]

Apparently, Bill is correct about the limited crossover capabilities of the Rotel. I find this very surprising -- and disappointing -- for a company that "has been in Audio for a very,very long time."

 

[stas]

Dave Ma, I have to tell you that Rotel service sucks.

I sent in a Rotel receiver twice for service due to a hum that it developed. Both times they returned it unfixed claiming that they did all factory adjustments and could not hear the hum. I could not get anyone at Rotel to talk to me, or to work out an exchange. After my local shop pulled some strings with a Rotel rep and convinced them that the hiss was there, they finally (2.5 months later) sent me a replacement unit that was obviously not new and had a couple of blemishes whereas mine looked like new. I was charged for shipping all those times. I just don't see that happening with the Outlaws. On the other hand, I have so far loved the sound of every Rotel piece I purchased.

I am actually in the process of buying a preamp, and I am also in between the 950 and the 1066. Becuase of this experience, I think I am getting the Outlaw.

 

[DanaA]

Stas,

Are you sure the humm eminated from the receiver? Audio humm can be traced to a number of different sources.

 

[Patrick R. Sklenar]

Everyone's priorities are different. For me, multi-channel analog inputs is not real high on the list. Does the Rotel sound great in stereo and surround? Yes. Does the Rotel provide rock 'em, sock 'em movie audio? Yes. Is the Rotel flexible when it comes to crossovers? Yes. Sold!

As Bill & I have pointed out, the Outlaw Model 950 is a darn good piece of equipment - in our opinions. As Mark points out, the Rotel is also a darn good piece of equipment in the opinion of many others.

I've heard a Rotel 1066 and thought it sounded very nice. But at the time I didn't think it sounded better than the Model 950 ... different? yes ... better? no. In my case I ended up with the 950 because 1) I simply couldn't justify the price difference and 2) I had already experienced excellent customer service with Outlaw Audio and had no qualms about dealing with them again. I've had absolutely no regrets.


Darryl,

I spoke up because it bothers me to see something I know is good being dropped from consideration due to it's being put down based on hearsay and/or lack of facts information. But in all honesty I think you'll enjoy either unit.

 

[stas]

DanaA, there is no doubt that the hum was from the receiver. We tested it at the stereo shop with all diferent equipment and it hummed at the shop as well as in my house. Additionally, the identical loaner unit from my dealer and the replacement unit I eventually received had no such hum when used in my system.

 

[Daniel Lindgren]

If you have mains capable of producing bass below 40Hz, and a center capable of 50Hz, but surrounds only capable of 100Hz, you would need to set all of the speakers to small, and cross them all over at 100Hz to the sub.

Well, unless I've misunderstood how the 1066 works (I have one), you would set mains and center as "large", the rears as "small" and the sub crossover to OFF. That would send full range information to the mains and the center but only >100 Hz to the rears.

To do this you need a sub that has a built-in, adjustable low-pass filter since you probably would want it at around 60 Hz. Most active subs do have one.

Having multiple crossover frequencies is a great option, but it may not be a necessity.

 

[DanaA]

Sorry to hear that. I own the Rotel 1066 and would like to think they'd come through if there were problems. If so, I'm disappointed. I wonder if others have had similar problems with their service. I know Outlaw has a fine rep in this regard.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Having multiple crossover frequencies is a great option, but it may not be a necessity.

In fact, some authorities in audio have claimed that it's actually a bad thing, because of phase issues.

 

[DarrylM]

The analog inputs might be a deal breaker.

I wouldn't listen through the analog inputs, either. However, the single fixed crossover for all speakers applies to everything, including home theater.

 

[DarrylM]

Having multiple crossover frequencies is a great option, but it may not be a necessity.

I have heard that multiple crossover can frequencies result in a smoother, more seamless blend of the sound fields, with the least possible localization of bass (not that bass is terribly localized).

This discussion is directly applicable to my setup. I, personally, have Polk RT 800i's for the mains, a 400i for the center, and 35i's for the surrounds. The mains are capable of producing pretty low bass, but I certainly wouldn't want to run a full range signal to them (especially if the subwoofer is engaged). The center and surrounds, while quite large, would not produce the same range.

 

[Bill Polley]

There you go! I would try to cross the 800i's over at either 40 or probably 60Hz, and the 400i and the 35i's over at 80Hz.

The Outlaw can handle that just fine.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

There is an argument that having different crossover settings for different (sets of) speakers can result in phase problems.

The issue being, for example, mains at 60 Hz, center at 120 Hz, and surrounds/rears at 80 Hz (hey, that's my set up! ).

So the argument goes, if I set the phase to be correct between my mains and sub, then it must necessarily be wrong for the center and surrounds/rears. Well, it's not that simple.

The way that phase works, is that it's a continuous *function* of the crossover freq. So in essence, if you match phase with the 80 Hz crossover, it will still be quite close for the 60 Hz and 120 Hz crossovers as well. Heck, even most subs only have a 0 - 180 phase switch, so with a sub like that, you simply cannot be in phase 100% anyway!

Bottom line in terms of this issue, is that I believe that you get more of a benefit from being able to choose individual crossovers in terms of what the response capabilities of your speakers are, vs any issues with phase.

Plus, for example, with the Outlaw, you can *experiment* by using different or the *same* crossovers. Not such choice with the Rotel.

 

[Mary M S]

Back during my decision process it appeared the 972 had run SR 1,300. The 1055 also 1,300 (both receivers so that put a ‘con’ in a column for them. Then the 1066 prepro at SR 1,500.
And as I am sure all are aware the 1098 (different class, but next possible Rotel) @ twice the price of the 1066 is coming down the pike. I see 1066 owners comment they are ‘saving’ up to be ready to snap up the 1098 when it launches. I noticed when I surfed consumer reviews that many of the consumers listed the prior Rotel unit released as their ‘last product purchased’, (a plus in the Rotel column but I found Outlaw had repeat purchasers also). and thought….Well, the upgradability did not last long, as far as actual out of pocket, even though I would see upgradibility listed as a reason for going with the Rotel over Outlaw at the time. Yet the consumer reviews did not appear to support that some get any bang for the extra buck they were willing to spend for that ‘feature’ although they had based part of the ‘value’ of the purchase on that criteria. The very same people that were considering upgrade’s (in sometimes less than 12 months), were commenting that a reason for the upgrade included the ‘upgradibilty’ of the new model!!!

Does this seem funny to any but I? Now I am already very well-versed in the fact that some people “live’ to upgrade, and some will not. But some whom turnover products frequently still like to talk about upgradability as a large factor, when they don’t appear to me to ever ‘wait’ long enough to realize the potential of this ‘feature’. Basically I concluded when considering how I might (or might not) consider upgrading and all the future goodies I could acquire (including used very high end), - in the next 5 years and what’s going on in AV currently I place upgradiblity currently in a “sales pitch” column. (again, just my personal weight scale).

I noted that of a few that heard the 1066 and the 950 in head to head were often split down the middle on which had the ‘hair’ edge in sound. (Both models having advocates) So I concluded many find the ‘sound’ very close. So I factored on top of that observation which unit costs more and lack features important to me.

A personal no in the Rotel column for me was the lack of some user interfaces on the remote, (I don’t like to be forced into OSD) and I believe I had noticed that Rotel had made a change in the chipset which some stated had created conflicts with 2 sets of firmware making upgrades problematic at time.
I know that many who purchased the Rotel are just as happy with the decision on which they spent many thoughtful hours. And I am always thrilled to see excited posts by AV’ers who are happy with there new gear. (so here's mine ) So By mentioning that I ‘feel’ I made the right choice (for me) I don’t discount any other brand (all possible) owned by HTF members.

I did just receive the bluedot 950 which I have barely had time to demo, this added to the ‘glad’ of my Outlaw purchase, I cut part of what I just posted at Outlaw. I own 2 950’s.
….
"You might call the 950 a chameleon, it’s been through changes, the original launch, and two-dot versions.
But through each revision…what I have enjoyed is the heart/soul of the 950’s ability to reproduce music.
I switched 3 versions through 2 sets speakers/2 VCR’s/3 STB’s/3 DVD players/3 displays. Mind you none of these items hit the above 10K price per piece mark.
…….Blue Version: The dynamite sound of my original 950 with increased dynamics are there, with no hiss. Just placed it in my system last night, and without having had time to tweak and demo much source material have already formed an opinion based on playing with 2 other 950’s quite a bit. I’m keeping my original 950 and the ‘Blue Dot’ version. And in my messy way I’ll attempt to detail what I like about the Outlaw sound. ….Outlaw following with the rest of modern processors with higher bit rates and greater processing power keeps improving the digital chain, as do all.

But what the 950 does for me, is appearing to handle what values are possible in Digital applications thereby making (digital) sound more accurate to its organic origins (the music it is attempting to reproduce), but without some of the ‘drawbacks’ the collection of parts involved in current (digital) processing often offers as a by-product. Namely for me my largest grip…. Coloring the sound.
I don’t know why I feel that the collection of parts of a 950 handles this situation better, having no engineering degree, but my ears hear it. I have listened to the low-end to middle-high collections at retail Brick & Mortars……..No processor accurately reproduces live performance as heard through human auditory canals. The 950 gets closer to that experience (more often than most for me), but it is utterly dependent upon source……When I have a recording with sharp fast transients, in your face forward and tending to overload and distort through many systems (hard rock) the 950 images well. I believe its referred to as ‘cumulative spectral decay’ and it’s a drawback of very layered, loud, busy recordings. My ear hears a blurring of everything going on. The 950 reduces this effect. When I give it a spectacular sonic recording with perfect stereo imaging with depth and ambience, and air. The 950 passes it. And the revealing replication of the richness and subtlety of a single powerful loud note or the quietest passages is transparent and pure and closer to the naturalness (or what I’m looking for the RESONANCE) of a live instrument.
If my ear is capable of ‘remembering’ a fullness of tone and correct timbral ‘pitch’ of a single note on a particularly instrument, (a Grand piano and how it sounds at each key, each octave. I think I’m hearing that more faithfully reproduced through the 950.with more of the height, width, and depth that note displays when I’m in the presence of the instrument itself.
What I like about the 950, is whatever I pair it with ….my choice DACS using bypass (as bypass on any pre should easily, - just having to rout it, - but some units do not). With an upgrade to Vienna Acoustics giving it greater frequency range capabilities in a speaker to work with the 950 passes the sound truthfully and accurately. If I bring it a recording rich in subtle detail the Outlaw hands it to me, more naturally than the competition which I have heard.
The 950 is excellent to pair with a lessor cost system as it won’t ‘hurt’ the system by interjecting coloration the can negatively impact whatever limitations are already present. If the speakers are strident, bright and cannot reproduce flat and extended highs, it will not add to the problem, (in fact it cleaned up the imaging and frequency stranglehold increasing extension on my original smaller satellite class speakers) With the 950 and new silk dome tweeters elevated highs which have a potential to wear me out with harshness and strident reflections (or almost distortions) were no longer fatiguing. (Probably my largest recent concern with any system other than bland and emotionless playback). The 950 holds capabilities in reserve allowing it to be paired with higher end DACs and speakers because it does it’s job, routing and processing without negative impacts or interaction in harmonics and detail.

If this sounds like an ‘emotionally connected consumer’ I’d have to state I am. What I have been searching for was a system capable of not just being nice,clean,accurant,capable or feature rich and user interface friendly. But a system, which was capable of pulling an emotional reaction to sound out of me, when the recording has the quality level which, is capable of producing that response. The 950 delivers to the point sending me searching for the ‘best of the best’ in CD’s and DVD’s, and (key test) breathing new life into old recordings left on a shelf due to past overplaying or personal taste revisions.”

And the most exciting part of being an Outlaw at the moment, Is here comes the ‘blue dot’ which the engineering professional audio types that hang in the Outlaw forum and own 950's have recently described as increasing spatiality of the Outlaw sound to a remarkable degree.

I loved my first Outlaw, - yet the unbelievable Customer Service which IS Outlaw, - paid for shipping, an ‘improved’ 950 to my doorstep! For me, it was not only the right choice; it has come with perks I never dreamed.

(by the way Mr Epstein, - I owe HTF one of those donations for this word count)

 

[Tom Lee]

Tom, Are you saying that with something other than the fact that Rotel uses 24/96s and Outlaw uses 24/192s in mind?

Yes, decent quality 24/194 dac's will not outperform very high quality 24/96 dac's. I'm not saying that rotel has very high quality dac's, rather then you cannot compare the 2. I own the 1066 and reall recommend for you to take a listen to both. Most stores, will allow you to have a 2 week home trial of the units, and of course Outlaw has a 30 day money back guarantee. See which one you like and send the other one back.

 

[Andrew Pratt]

I'm trying to say out of this thread but i'm going to comment on a few things mary said about the rotel. Yes many rotel owners are looking at the 1098 as a replacement for the 1066 but remember that when many people bought the 1066 that was the best pre amp Rotel made. Now that the real big dog is available many that bought the 1066 are looking to move upto what they would have bought had the 1098 been availabe at that time. I'm have no reason to feel that I "need" to upgrade to the 1098 since my current unit does me very well. The comment about the two firmware versions isn't a big deal at all Rotel simply changed out the video chip to allow for more bandwidth to pass for HD material as such there a new firmware code. Since they're supporting both versions equally though each time a new firmware is released they provide us with both versions. The value in the firmware upgrades comes in numerous ways but its especially nice to be able to make a request that the way the volume on the OSD works for example be changed and it be done as you asked. As a community at Club Rotel we've helpped to shape the useability of the Rotels to suit some of our needs.

As I've said before I'm not going to comment on the sound quality of the Outlaw vs the Rotel since I haven't had the oppertunity to try an Outlaw in my system...there are plenty of people that have done that so I'll leave it up to them to comment on which they kept and why. At the end of the day its obvious that both are very good models offering similar features...but as they say the devils in the details

 

[Dave Ma]

DarrylM
I gave you" my reasons" why I got the Rotel Yes, I could of gotten an Outlaw for "LESS" money but I did not because I felt the Rotel is of better quality from a company that has been around alot lot longer then Outlaw. It does what I want it to do and is a very nice looking piece to boot! A tuner for me was not needed, it adds more curcuitry that adds to noise in the system. Also for people to say UPGRADEABLE firmware/software is a sales pitch is smoking something kinda funny. The remote pretty much does everything without having to go to the OSD you just have to know how to use it. Every Rotel user I know of would buy another Rotel product in a heart beat.... Firmware/Software upgrades is one of the biggest reasons I got the Rotel besides there quality,reviews and owner satisfaction. If something does happen to go wrong I go to the Audio dealer and get a loaner untill my unit is fixed. That's piece of mind to me.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Darryl- I have a better answer for your question: If I wasn't going to use the analog inputs at all, would I still have gotten the Outlaw, or would I have gotten the Rotel?

Neither.

I would have gotten a used Lexicon DC-2 or MC-1. You can find DC-2's for $1400-ish, and MC-1's for $1800-$2200. Logic 7 baby...