Ok experts which of these solutions?

[dmamsa]

I caught the upgrade bug a month back and upgraded my front 3 (rt800i and CS400i) to the LSi line Lsi9s and LSiC.

I thought my onkyo 787 would provide enough juice, but after listening to stereo for about a day I concluded I needed a "cleaner" amp so I borrowd my friends sr800-a bit of improvement but not enough -so my journey continues ...

My usage is 70% movies and TV and 30% music and I am looking for a cleaner quality solution not just louder

here are the options I am looking at (budget around $2500) and my room size is 15X25 (includes an open kitchen)

Option one:

Rotel 1065(5.1) with a small two channel amp to drive the rear backs. one minor concern that I have is the video switching bandwidth on 1065

Option 2:

B&K avr307 and later upgrade it . I called B&K yesteday and they will annouce an upgrade path in couple of weeks. The tech support lady also told me that the video switching rating of 10Mhz is a typo and its actually 100MHz
Mantis - any guestimates on an upgrade cost?

Option 4: (seperates)
RSX 1055 + RM 985 (MK 11): Use the RB 785 for the 5.1 and the RSX 1055 for the surround backs

OR

RSP 1066 + RM 985 (MK 11)+small two channel amp (RB 1050):

I can get a good used RB 985 for around $600 or should I go for the RMB 1075 (due to height I may have space limitations)

Waiting for your input

[Steve@3dai]

Well, for one, unless you HAVE to, don't use any video switching. Directly to the TV is the best solution.

My Arcam AVR-200 runs my 9/C/FX system just fine.

[dmamsa]

Yes that is my intention- but I only have one component input to my plasma and and two sources. I am looking at connecting my HD receiver to the vga input of my plasma.

[Steve@3dai]

http://www.audioauthority.com/aacconsumers/1154c.html

[goingganzo]

keep your 787 and get the referance200.7 b&k you can have it for around 2.5k that is what i am thinking of. then get the referance50 next.

[dmamsa]

thanks for the link- I am waiting for DVI-HDCP card on my plasma- so that I can run DVI cable diretly to it.

[dmamsa]

goingganzo,

I have space limitations. to have big componets like those...

I have read that mismatching pre and amp is not a good idea.

I really want the B&K AVR507 but the $4000 tag is out of my range.

[gidrah]

In my opinion you are severly limiting your options.

Within that price range I probably wouldn't have considered any of those options, but that's me.

Make sure to get an "in home" demo among your considerations. At this price it is obligatory.

[dmamsa]

would you please elaborate on "limiting my options"?

I am very open to suggestions-


I have to give up this upgrade craze after this- I have been told by the higher authorities that this is going to be my last upgrade for a long time :)

[mantis]

dmomsa,
B&K avr307 and later upgrade it . I called B&K yesteday and they will annouce an upgrade path in couple of weeks. The tech support lady also told me that the video switching rating of 10Mhz is a typo and its actually 100MHz
They are looking at 500.00 to 750.00 range.It's still up in the air.
The avr307 is getting THX ULTRA2 certified with the upgrade.
Your Question about which way to go?
There all good choices but youhaveto deside thats.Money will decide for you unless your open.
If so go with the B&K avr507.......win win as I see it.
The Rotel rsx1065 is a great reciever for it's price.
Rotel seperates are great for there price.
Using your receiver as a preamp???I say no.I'm not a fan of making this move.Want seperates,go seperates.My opnion and I'm sticking to it.
Moneys a problem......buy the amp,save for the preamp.Or save for both at the same time.Your choice here.

[wallstreet]

Originally posted by dmamsa
goingganzo,


I have read that mismatching pre and amp is not a good idea.



What? Where do you hear that wive's tale? That is one of the reasons to go separates.

The 507 got a fantastic review in S&V as a no holds barred top o the line receiver. Beat out the Marantz and Pioneer flagships.

[mantis]

wallstreet,
The 507 got a fantastic review in S&V as a no holds barred top o the line receiver. Beat out the Marantz and Pioneer flagships.
Let me back that up with saying this........there is NO receiver under 5 grand thats better then the avr507........none.The only receiver on the market in the high end market that could compete or take out the avr507 in sound quality would be McIntosh MHT100..........now thats a efin bitchin killer make me weak in the knees receiver if I ever saw one.This badass would shame most lower end seperates......McIntosh is one of the very best sounding companies I ever had the pure pleasure of listening to.Funny My partener(liv4fam)turned me on the Mac.Before I really never really gave them a serious listen...man was I missing out .
Back to the comment.Most Japanese receivers don't give Incredible sound quality.Companies like Marantz,Rotel,Pioneer Elite, B&K,NAD and Mac give you better sound quality.Denon is boarderline making it into the ELITE group i'll call them.They just need alittle help in the dynamic range department and refine there sound just a tad bit more andthey would RULE the receiver market at ALL levels.
If DENON just put sound quality first...........................(deep in thought)

[fireshoes]

Didn't McIntosh just get bought by Denon or something like that?

[danger boy]

but where does that leave Onkyo, HK and Sony?

[mantis]

dangerboy,
they all make fine receivers,but I don't put them in my ELITE class.Sony ES has some issues ......or I have issues with them,great sounding Stuff,better then most.
Remember I refer to flagship receivers.

[gidrah]

Originally posted by dmamsa
would you please elaborate on "limiting my options"?
I am very open to suggestions-


First off, you've already narrowed your search to a few brands that members have suggested. While I'm all for outside opinions, I also understand that it's my money. Any vicarious spending falls on you.

You're looking for a $2.5K unit:
Unless you're deadset on getting "state of the art", I'd give a serious look at a separate pre/pro and separate amps. I recently got a 200w/ch amp for $120.00. 3 of these @ $360 would give $2140.00 for a pre/pro and change. I'd put this amp against many costing 2X.

[dmamsa]

Well guys! I placed my order from the RSX-1055 today (cant wait to get it). I spent the entire saturday driving and auditioning the RSX-1055 at three different location.

I was amazed and delighted at the level of service at these high end audio shops. I did order from a shop which game me the best service (not the best price)- the guy did didicate his time to me while I was at the shop and he got my businees.
I paid $1275 including tax and shipping.

[pjdami]

dmamsa,

Good move on the Rotel bud. I just got mine yesterday and I'm still too flabergasted to write a review. It sounds that very good and its great for HT and two channel stereo too. We can get a seperate power amp later too if we want. The 75 watts per channel is very underrated. Heck, the thing doesn't even break a sweat right now driving my LSis with no distortion at all at about a 60 / 90 volume level (about the loudest I can tolerate).

The setup is a little strange if you are used to Onkyo / Yammer setups like I was. the Remote is a little cumbersome too; but its all about the sound dude. The LSis and the Rotel really tame a lot of sibilance out of some of the cds that I own.

P.

[dmamsa]

pjdami,

Cant wait to get my 1055. I got my lsi9s last week and I am currenly running it with an Onkyo SR800- great speakers.

I almost bought the rb-1050 ( 70X2) but I decided to wait on it.
I am going to buy moster Z2 biwire speaker cables tonight.

you are correct I have to get used to the Rotel remote-its a little "different".

The Sr800 goes back to my friend and I already ebayed my Onkyo 787.

David

[polkatese]

dmamsa,
I believe ATCVenom has a pair that he is trying to unload (Z2 10 ft Monster biwire). I don't know if he still has them, but it's not going to hurt to check with him (it was on Flea Market about a few weeks ago), savings of about $70...

speaking of which, Sean (ATC), are you still around?

[mantis]

He left the forum polkatese due to certain people in here.Shame he posted some cool stuff in the past andI like his writing style.Mature for a man his age.

Glad to see the Rotel following in here growing.You guys are truely getting into some great gear.It's so cool.
See polkatese,see what you started.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[polkatese]

Dan,
I am surprise I don't see that many folks going with 1065....1055 seem to be the HOT ticket item right now......maybe I should speak up more...he..he..he

[pjdami]

Polkatese,

I considered the 1065, but I knew the 1055 would fill my needs for now. A killer furture upgrade would be the 1070 power amp at 130 watts/channel, S/N ratio of 120 db, and damping factor of 500. The Rotel preouts on the 1055 I am willing to bet are going to be a lot "cleaner" sounding than most lesser priced receivers out there. My dealer agreed and said that the Rotel preamp stage / outputs are designed to do this.

So I have room to grow with this receiver.

He also told me about a new line of remotes that he is about to carry. Its called Harmony. A bit pricey, but it has learning functions you can program to "activities" like "watch TV" or "listen to cd" or "watch DVD" and it goes through the program and automatically puts everything where it needs to be. Setup is done online too. I find that pretty cool. If I could get rid of all these dang remotes and just have one it would be great. I'll definitely be checking out this Harmony remote.

Paul

[mantis]

polkatese,
as you know the rsx1055 is easier to get into and has one feature thats better then the rsx1065.The ability to reassign the front amp to surround back duty and add your seperate amp to the main channels.......now thats a cool feature.
The rsx is 1299.99 retail as the rsx1065 is 2000.00.Big difference.

[RuSsMaN]

What Dan, add an amp to a receiver? You sure thats a good idea?

[polkatese]

Paul,
I know you won't go wrong with the 1055 either, it's a great receiver. I am just saying that 1065 seem to be not as popular as the 1055. The redirection of front channel is definitely a plus, as Dan had pointed out.

Dan,
I believe there is one instance of Venom's sighting today. I think he still has the Z2, in case dmamsa is interested in purchasing it. I have to say, though, the 1065 has toroidal power supply, I know it has a bit more current reserve if needed.

[pjdami]

Yes the toroidal transformer in the 1065 is sweet. As you all know, I think its just a price thing obviously why the 1055 is more popular.

I'm pretty much worry free. I have six months with my dealer to "upgrade" to the 1065 if I'm not happy with the 1055. But so far so great...with the 1055.

I do mostly 60% music 40% tv / movies with my main rig so the 1070 power amp does have a toroidal transformer in it so I can take advantage of this add - on in the near future to power my mains in case I feel I'm missing out on something. For about the same price as the 1065 one can have a 1055 + 1070 combo and have the advantage of a seperate power amp with some serious balls to run the mains. I know, I know, why didn't I get a five channel preamp and five channel amp then. Well I know this is really what I would ultimately like to have, but its also much pricier. Maybe in a couple of years.

I'm not really into "loud" music. 90 - 95 db is pretty much the upper limit for me when I listen. Its more about sound quality for me and the convenience of a "do it all" receiver for home theater and music listening. So the 1055 fits these needs perfectly for me right now.

In the office right now with System 2. Cool how my B&K preamp always reminds you "Made in the USA" every time you turn it on. How fitting in these trying times of war.

P.

[TroyD]

Originally posted by mantis
polkatese,
as you know the rsx1055 is easier to get into and has one feature thats better then the rsx1065.The ability to reassign the front amp to surround back duty and add your seperate amp to the main channels.......now thats a cool feature.
The rsx is 1299.99 retail as the rsx1065 is 2000.00.Big difference.

Huh? I thought adding an amp to a receiver was a less than optimal solution???

Man, I'm craving a Belgian waffle...

BDT

[pjdami]

Dan,

You let all these folks "rib" you like this in here??? I guess what goes around comes around. Its all in the fun I'm sure.

As far as adding an amp to the 1055 being a "less than optimal" solution....well that may be true to some extent. However, I did a side-by-side comparison of the 1055 vs. my seperates in the same room and was hard pressed to decide which one sounded better. I didn't push it to ridiculously loud levels (where I think the seperates would shine) but it was still loud (95 - 100 db). If the Rotel preamp stage is sending this clean of a signal to the receiver amps then why wouldn't it be just as good or even better dynamic range if one were to add a seperate Rotel amp. I think it would and the Rotel 1055 is designed to do this.

I believe that Dan was just stating that he doesn't recommend using a receiver for a preamp for most models; but when you get into Rotel, B&K, high end Marantz, PE, etc. the preamp stages are pretty good and you can pull off some decent sound. This is what my dealer told me. Better than strictly seperates....no....but its all about convenience / cost for me.

P.

[mantis]

TroyD and Russman,
You guys really don't do any homework do yeah?You take a simple belief I have which is my personal opnion and turn it into ignorance........Let me take you guys to school for awhile.
The Rotel rsx1055 is a 5 channel receiver.The preamp is a 6.1 preamp built in.Now how can you get 6.1 out of 5 channels???you have to add an amp.Rotel designed there receivers this way and they have there reasons...Current and amps mean anything to you guys???I'll give you a hint......Dynamic Range....Get your learn on would yeah?
The Rotel rsx1055 also has the ability to send the front channels to the surroundbck channel duty.This is unique to the rsx1055 and a cool one nonetheless.even for people like you 2,you could effectively add more powerful amps to the front and not waste any internal amps...........sound good????

Rotel make a matching amp in the rb1050.Use it at the surroundback or fronts you choice,want a bigger amp????allday.

So with that little learning lesson you can see why you need to add external amps.Ther NOT built in.

[TroyD]

School, huh? Why don't you just come out and call us morons Dan.

OK, now, previously you argued vociforously against using a receiver as a preamp. Now, is it because of the brand or because of the design? What about matching the amps? Are you suggesting that the internal amps will match the outboard amps EXACTLY? I mean, we are all about matching, right? If using a receiver as a preamp is a less than ideal situation, what difference doesn't make what channels you use them on, they don't match right? You and Liv made a pretty elaborate case for that with the ML rig. Surely the amps in the reciever are different, right? Different dynamic range and all that, right?

Now, 'splain to me what the downside of a receiver is. (Hint, it has nothing to do with brand). It's the fact that you have a tuner, preamp and amps all crammed in to a very small space. Two problems with this. Inherently, there has to be compromises for a myriad of reasons. The other problem is the tuner. Putting a tuner in the same proximity as the amp introduces noise. If you will notice, there are high end tuner/preamp combos and amp/preamp combos but once you combine all three, for whatever reason you get less than optimal results.

Now, I use a receiver as a preamp and have no issues with it, so, actually I endorse the idea. You are the one waffling on the issue.



BDT

[mantis]

TroyD,
1st of all I didn't design the rsx1055.I don't care to talk about OTHER receivers.This thead isn't about OTHER receivers.The TOPIC is the ROTEL rsx1055.
School, huh? Why don't you just come out and call us morons Dan.
I'm not going to call you a moron,but you speak of a topic you show you know nothing about.Rotel desided not to put the 6th and 7th channel into there receivers for there own reasons.They also don't make a external 7 channel amp.Why??You shuould ask them if you really want to know.I don't think you do,I believe you just want to argue(not debate)that with me for the sake of doing so..........no man I don't wanna play.
OK, now, previously you argued vociforously against using a receiver as a preamp. Now, is it because of the brand or because of the design? What about matching the amps? Are you suggesting that the internal amps will match the outboard amps EXACTLY? I mean, we are all about matching, right? If using a receiver as a preamp is a less than ideal situation, what difference doesn't make what channels you use them on, they don't match right? You and Liv made a pretty elaborate case for that with the ML rig. Surely the amps in the reciever are different, right? Different dynamic range and all that, right?
Yes and you know exaclty why I argue why I don't PERFER PERSONALLY to do this.You remember every last thing I have ever wrote in here right to a quote,why would this be any different?
As far as Matching goes with the Rotel,The rb1050 is what Rotel makes to match the rsx1055.They built it,they said it matches so whats to debate?I think this a cool,I would perfer the amps to be built in(another reason I own the B&K avr307 instead of a Rotel rsx1065 or rsx1055).Do the amps match perfectly????Rotel says they do.Call them and ask that as I never tested the combo.
You know better Troy,matching dynamic range and exact amp all the way around to me is extremely important.
I choose the B&K avr307 for alot of reasons(if you didn't know I bought it over a month ago).Rotel does things there way for there own reasons.Thats doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.
Now, 'splain to me what the downside of a receiver is. (Hint, it has nothing to do with brand). It's the fact that you have a tuner, preamp and amps all crammed in to a very small space. Two problems with this. Inherently, there has to be compromises for a myriad of reasons. The other problem is the tuner. Putting a tuner in the same proximity as the amp introduces noise. If you will notice, there are high end tuner/preamp combos and amp/preamp combos but once you combine all three, for whatever reason you get less than optimal results.
I agree with that.Companies like Rotel and B&K shield the tuner and seperatesit from the rest of the receiver internally to reduce noise.Or attemp to elimate it completely.I 'm not a receiver designer,these questions are beter suited for the manufactor.
If you notice I don't use seperate amps with a receiver inmy theater.Other s do like you for your own reasons.I'f I felt the need to buy seperate amps, then a preamp would also follow.I wouldn't plan around a receiver.For most of the same reasons you just said yourself.The stand alone preamp always sounds better then a receiver as a preamp,agreed???If you feel the need for seperate amps,why stop there,why not go all the way with it??That is where the thinking not money makes no sense to me.
Jst like 2 channel stereo,why would you buy a 2 channel receiver and then add a power amp to it?Why wouldn't you just buy a preamp and power amp???That seems to make sense right????Forget about "O I can't afford to buy the pre amp but I sure can save for the amp"Thats a bunch of bull.Save your money and do it right,why do it half ass.Thats my opnion and I stick my it.Thats why I don't do it that way and why I will never do it that way.
Others who do it,thats there bussiness.

[TroyD]

Calm down Dan, re-read your post.

What you are in essence saying is that:

A. You don't know why Rotel designed it that way, but, since they did, well, by gosh that must be the thing to do.

B. Using a receiver as a preamp isn't something you would do.

My question is, and I'm being serious, is Rotel pushing a bad idea? Regardless of the channels involved 7,9 or 103 you are still using the receiver as a preamp. Rotel isn't the only company to employ this idea. Denon designed an amp (POA-5200) to go with the 4800 receiver a few years ago. They may still offer it, it's been a couple years since I looked at it.

So, are these companies selling a bad bill of goods? Following your line of reasoning they are. I happen to think differently, that it can and does work with very acceptable results. I think if you were to ask why Rotel and Denon offer this option they would tell you that it's because they believe (as do I) that the receiver can function as a perfectly acceptable preamp and that the outboard amps can integrate quite nicely with the internal ones. What other explanation could there be? The only other explanation is that they are money grubbing crooks willing to offer us bad audio for the sole purpose of lining their products. You don't believe THAT do you?

Now, I have to comment on something else I found puzzling...

Forget about "O I can't afford to buy the pre amp but I sure can save for the amp"Thats a bunch of bull.Save your money and do it right,why do it half ass.Thats my opnion and I stick my it.Thats why I don't do it that way and why I will never do it that way

Can we apply this same logic to your argument for the Bose systems? Sure they sound like crap but they have those cool features. Why not apply your logic and save until you can afford a decent system with all the features that you need?

I'm not really trying to perpetuate a pissing contest but I find that the logic, or the application thereof, to be a little inconsistent.

BDT

[RuSsMaN]

...or lack thereof...

[mantis]

TroyD,
My question is, and I'm being serious, is Rotel pushing a bad idea? Regardless of the channels involved 7,9 or 103 you are still using the receiver as a preamp. Rotel isn't the only company to employ this idea. Denon designed an amp (POA-5200) to go with the 4800 receiver a few years ago. They may still offer it, it's been a couple years since I looked at it.
I'll take you seriously.Rotel isn't pushing a bad Idea.WHat your missing here is the fact that Rotel doen't have the amps built in to drive surrounback.They offer it as a add on just like denon did with the avr4800.It's been a long time since Iv'e seen a avr4800 but I do remember the external amp.There's nothing wrong with this,Pioneer did the same exact thing with the M10x amp to go with the vsx36tx,vsx37tx and the mighty vsx39tx.When surroundback came into play,Companies whern't sure what to do.So they added the preouts for surroundback and didn't build the amps in.Then came along the Dewnon avr4802,it had built in amps for surroundback.B&K also released the avr307(which I own) with surroundback built in.Pioneer Elite's vsx49tx had built in amps and now everyone but Rotel has them built in.
This is the only reason to add a amp to there receivers.They don't have them built in.If your not into 7.1 or don't want to use that,then there is no reason to buy seperate amps.
I think we got off on the wrong foot here Troy,you know my why I don't perfer external amps with any receiver.Rotel like B&K build there receiver with the same preamp as the seperate preamp.The rsx1055 has the same preamp internally as the rsp1066.B&K does this to the extreme.There receivers are intergraded.You can remove the preamp section from the avr507 or avr307,get the preamp chassis and have the exact preamp.It's exactly the same.They drop it in a bigger chassis and make a receiver.Cool.
So, are these companies selling a bad bill of goods? Following your line of reasoning they are. I happen to think differently, that it can and does work with very acceptable results. I think if you were to ask why Rotel and Denon offer this option they would tell you that it's because they believe (as do I) that the receiver can function as a perfectly acceptable preamp and that the outboard amps can integrate quite nicely with the internal ones. What other explanation could there be? The only other explanation is that they are money grubbing crooks willing to offer us bad audio for the sole purpose of lining their products. You don't believe THAT do you?
I think I summed this up in the last paragraph but I don't think comapnies are selling a bad bill of goods.This is different here my man.You adding amps to it,not replacing amps.
As you know I feel anyone who want to do this is there bussiness,and there's alone.I don't do it,we as a company don't do it.And with my prior exp[eriences with doing this (replacing amps with external amps) I didn't like the home theater side of things.2 channel improved but It sacrifaced my home theater sound...........thats my own personal feeling.You do and everyone esle can do what they want.

[TroyD]

Ok, Dan, either your not understanding what I'm asking or you are skirting the issue.

Your point WAS all about matching the amps. If you are adding amps (regardless of the issue) they aren't going to match. In this case, you've got 5 channels run on one type of amp and 2 on another. 'Splain to me how this is different from, say, my situation where I run 3 channels on one type of amp that match and 2 on another. It's the SAME thing. Why not, say, stick with a perfect matching 5.1 rather than a half-assed, unmatched 7.1. As I've said, it would seem that you are inconsistent in your logic.

If you have preouts on a receiver, you can, in essence do what you are suggesting B&K and Rotel do with any receiver with preouts: just use the preamp section.


BDT

[danger boy]

I like using external amps off a receivers pre outs.. yeah it's not in the same league as seperate components, but it does improve the sound quality. Why would receiver makers offer preouts if they didn't think it was to some advantage to using them?

Monday i got a Adcom 5400 2 ch amp for my fronts. replacing my Marantz MA500 amps. now I have external amps for all 5 channels. yeah they are a mix of Adcom and Marantz mono blocks. but they are all 125wpc. I'll admit the Adcom does sound better than the Marantz mono blocks. it must be the huge transformer. that Adcom is heavy too. about 25 lbs

I went this route so that down the road I can go with a seperate pre amp. and move the receiver to the spare bedroom.

I guess if I had a high end receiver like Dan I wouldn't need the external amps. But then i don't have $$$ for just one component either. that one receiver costs more than my entire system.. then some. :p

[mantis]

TroyD,
are you dense or do I need to start calling you names?Look
Rotel design this receiver(intergraded) with only 5 amps.They want you to use there power amps that match.Whats so hard to understand????Call Rotel yourself and find out exactly why they did this.I already called them when I was in the hunt for buying the Rotel rsx1065.I wasn't completely happy with it so I moved onto there seperates.I'm completely anal about my sound quality and senergy in my system.You or anyone else don't have to feel the way I do.

Your point WAS all about matching the amps. If you are adding amps (regardless of the issue) they aren't going to match. In this case, you've got 5 channels run on one type of amp and 2 on another. 'Splain to me how this is different from, say, my situation where I run 3 channels on one type of amp that match and 2 on another. It's the SAME thing. Why not, say, stick with a perfect matching 5.1 rather than a half-assed, unmatched 7.1. As I've said, it would seem that you are inconsistent in your logic.
You situation is a big difference Troy,you have a Denon receiver and use some of the internal amps,then you add carver amps which will not match.I don't hear you complaining about your theater sound so whats your point?You feel this is how you like it,you added the amps for your own personal reasons,feel that the rears make no difference..........what else do you need to know?I have no Idea why you want to drag this along.I have made my point and explained why I don't enjoy adding amps aside this issue.If a company like Rotel says there external amp will match there internal amp in there receiver,why question that with me?I don't work for them.
Personally I don't think you give one rats ass about this other then trying to make me look like some kind of ass......
Whatever dude........
I don't like it, others like it............you do it.....who cares.......

My logic is my own.You don't understand my logic with replies like yours.You have no idea at all from what I read.
Think about how I build my personal system.My logic remains.I think your brain is inconsistent.
Like I said ,you don't wanna know,you just wanna do all this right?????????????

[TroyD]

Ok, got it. You endorse it in some situations and not in others. Gotcha.

Still seems inconsistent but that's fine.

BDT

[gidrah]

Originally posted by mantis
The ability to reassign the front amp to surround back duty and add your seperate amp to the main channels.......now thats a cool feature.


I'm confused! I understand the need for an external amp for the center rear, but how is this reassigning thing inherently better than using a receiver and all separate amps? In order to not "mismatch" the amps that your so against, does Rotel sell an amp that "matches" the amps that would be reasigned? If so, what would be the possible benefit anyways?

I think the only reason a manufacturer would give this option is because their 2 ch. amps are better. This restates my belief that at this price level separates could be a better option.

dmamsa: Nice receiver.
Don't mind us. The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round. There just seems to be a bit of back peddling now and then that

[mantis]

gidrah,
the matching amp is the rb1050.

[TroyD]

Is it the EXACT same amp as the ones in the receiver?

BDT

[mantis]

TroyD,
It matches according to Rotel But I don't think it's exact.The spec's show a 5 watt difference between the 2.Tonal quality is the same,so listening will provide the same sound.

Like the Rsx1065 which is 100 x 5,Rotel doesn't provide an EXACT amp to match perfectly.The closest thing would be the RB1070.It is 130 watts by 2.The other amp you could use would be the same,the rb1050 which is 75watts.I don't know the dampening factor of the receivers so I can't compare the spec's there.If you go down the line spec by spec,you will find slight differences.This bother me personally as you know I like Perfect Matching amps all the way around.I called Rotel about this and they told me that it will be really cose and hard to tell under normal listening levels.They suggested that going with the underpowered(which they felt differently) RB1050 was the best amp to go with the RSX1065 and use it for surroundback.They(he)went forward to say that since that channel is mono(by2) and there isn't a whole lot of Information coming from there,that this would be the channel to have a inbalance.
As you already know,I was in hot persuit of the rsx1065 for myself.It is an awesome receiver with soundquality as good or better then everything on the market in receiver form.But this amp issue bothered me enough to shy away from Rotel( other reasons as well).My new theater is 7.1(6.1)
If Rotel just built the damn amps internally like every other damn receiver that's7.1 or 6.1 on the market,I would have bought it.Everything else about it I really like and is why I go against my own personal feeling here.It's 99% the perfect receiver for anyone who wants a good sounding receiver first and features second(you would really like this receiver Troy).
One thing on a side note(not really but what the hell)is in this case,your adding amps to a receiver that matches in tone.There's not going to be a tonal shift when things move around the room.Even if you power your mains with the external amp(owning the rsx1055 of course)your going to have tonal matching across the front.So when a car drives across the front,it sounds as it did the entire time.
You know not everyone is as anal picky as me.I'm starting to think Polkatese might be,as he is hesitant to add amps to his rsx1065.He would rather go seperates and put the awesome rsx1065 in his bedroom(I know thats high end and I love it).Others on this forum now own the rsx1055,I'd like to hear from them after they go 7.1 with there's.
One big reason(which I believe you can respect)is that for the money Rotel gives you a hell of a product,there not perfect but man they sound good.They can drive just about every speaker under the sun.The mighty rsx1055 is 4 ohm stable allday long,at 1200.00 for a home theater receiver today,thats unheard of.Hardly no receiver in that price range can even dream of doing that.Outlaw I have no experience with and the only other that comes to mind is NAD.

[polkatese]

You know not everyone is as anal picky as me.I'm starting to think Polkatese might be,as he is hesitant to add amps to his rsx1065.He would rather go seperates and put the awesome rsx1065 in his bedroom(I know thats high end and I love it).Others on this forum now own the rsx1055,I'd like to hear from them after they go 7.1 with there's.

:lol: :lol: :p

moa? anal? Si! but only when it comes to building my audio nirvana! and a few small other things...

Troy, as Dan pointed out, yes, I was struggling on adding an amp that is not exactly matching with the receiver. In the mean time, I bought a pair of 9 (to be used as the surround back, while waiting to make up my mind on what I want to do for amplification) and fell in love immediately for secondary 2 channels listening (in the master bedroom.) The 1065 is a very sweet sounding receiver, and I am not critical on having 7.1 upstair, so, pairing it up with the 9 will give me plenty of listening pleasure, I am sure!

[mantis]

You know polkatese,
a Sweat little Q150E in the bedroom would be really sweet.That little sub hits to 20hz.It so very musical like it's big brother Storm.It won't take long before you go full 5.1 in the bedroom.Your insane...........
I think Troy was just busting my balls,but I would like to hear his opnion of the rsx1065 or the rsx1055.He's real into seperates.I really think these receivers would shock him.

[TroyD]

Once again,

Point (here)............................................ .........................Dan (here)

First, I've got nothing against receivers. I think they are swell. I own one. Do I think they sound better than separates, no. Do I think that they sound excellent? Yes I do. I have great respect for rotel gear, if i were in the market for an a/v receiver, rotel would be a consideration. Although, no secret, I would probably hunt down a Carver C1000a. I could care less about THX, any version of Prologic, multi room or anything more than 5.1

The point that Dan seems to miss is that in one scenario he calls people 'wannabes' and pooh-poohs using a receiver as a preamp. Yet in another, if the manufacturer recommends it (mind you the fact that a receiver has preouts is essentially an endorsement of using it as a preamp) than, by gosh it's acceptable and the thing to do. It's the fact that Dan has two different stories here based on his own judgement criteria.

BDT

[mantis]

TroyD,
what does this mean?
Point (here)............................................ .........................Dan (here)
That I just missed the boat?DUDE I explained the best I could what and how I felt about adding amps to receivers with my own experience.To refresh I added a B&K st140 to a Yamaha rxv992,this was my first power amp and I was excited to give it a run.Come to find out it sounded way to different in home theater mode.Music sounded better on my rt1000p's but home theater suffered.Then I got a new receiver in the Pioneer Elite vsx26TX,same results,I liked the B&K for music as it sounded much better then the internal amps but goofed up home theater enjoyment,tonally and dynamic's didn't match up.
New receiver once again in the Denon avr3801,tried again for shits and giggles.Same results.The B&K st140 went back into multiroom duty to drive a pair of rt35i's I had in my masterbed for 2 channel.I also had control in there for full control over 2nd zone and sources VIA a Ir repeater system by Niles.
All rt speakers and receiver's went out and Rotel and LSI came in.Used them for awhile as I was in search of the RIGHT sound for me.Found it in the B&K avr307.
Thats the super short version.Rotel was on my journey as I told you above,I don't understand why you don't understand where I stand on this issue or topic.I don't care to add amps to a receiver,but if your going to do it,then why not try to match as close as possible.Someone else suggested if your going to do this and I support this Idea,replace ALL channels with external amps of the same.This way you'll have the same tone and dynamic range ready at your finger tips.
Dude not to drag this out butwhat don't you understand???I told you and everyone else on the forum how I felt.Rotel doesn't install the nessary amps inside there receivers for there reasons.I don't know why they won't.I persoanlly think it sucks that they choose not 2.They can keep there price down due to it but then you have to buy the amp and a pair of interconnects anyway.I don't see the saving's.........Well I wish you would read my posts alittle deeper and maybe you'll inderstand where I'm coming from instead of trying to do whatever your trying to do.....I don't get you sometimes man.
The point that Dan seems to miss is that in one scenario he calls people 'wannabes' and pooh-poohs using a receiver as a preamp. Yet in another, if the manufacturer recommends it (mind you the fact that a receiver has preouts is essentially an endorsement of using it as a preamp) than, by gosh it's acceptable and the thing to do. It's the fact that Dan has two different stories here based on his own judgement criteria. I hear what your saying here man,but it's not replacing amps with external amps,it's adding the nessary channel to reply the given format.What don't you understand???Do you understand what DTS es 6.1 is?What about Surround EX???Do you know what they are?It sounds like you don't.
Your point about me having 2 different stories,no I don't.Last note on this comment,Wanna be and all that kind of thinking or name calling as your making it out here,my only question as you know exactly before I type it,why not go seperates if receviers aren't good enough?I don't see many people in here adding amps to stereo receivers,do you do thid Troy?for 2 channel? or do you own a preamp?I already know the answer but you want to reintroduce this old debate,we can go round for round if you choose.Using a receiver for a preamp is a waste to me of the internal amps,why buy the receiver if you don't like the amps inside,thats what seperates are for,aren't they?
You can add amps to receivers all you want,It's something I have personally have had poor results with.

[pjdami]

I'm going to back Dan on this one. I did a similar thing recently. I purchased a Yamaha RX-V1300 receiver. Wanted a warmer sound so I bought a NAD C270 for two channel music and used the 1300 for the preamp stage. Guess what??? The Yammer preamp section was the parasite in my system. The dynamic range and overall sound sounded better with the seperate power amp but it still had the characteristic signature from the Yamaha preamp section of the receiver. I had to purchase a B&K PT5 preamp just to convince myself it was the Yammer doing this to me. Two sets of speakers later and a power amp and a preamp....I learned the costly way....it was the Yammer doing it (a little bright for my tastes especially on center channel for home theater and the reverberations of ceramic tile floor in my living room).

Now with the Rotel, and a variable gain on the NAD C270, I can match the gain and guess what...2 channel music sounds very different from the Yamaha that I own. I hooked up the NAD power amp a little while ago to the Rotel preouts to see if I could notice a difference. Rotel preamp section sounds much warmer. Of course we are also comparing a $630 receiver (Yamaha) to a ($1250) receiver. There is no comparison. What I have learned through all of this is that the preamp has a significant "signature" that is placed on the sound regardless of what speakers, power amps, etc. is used. Some receivers do the preamp thing better than others. Rotel is one of them. The preamp stage in the receiver is relatively the same as the 1066 seperate preamp.

This is just my opinion. Take it for what its worth. I'm not trying to add any fuel to the fire here. But after reading this post so many times with all the back and forth and stuff I just had to say something.

It all depends on what sound you are after, convenience, and money that you have to spend. If I'm happy with my system and so are the rest of you, then that's what matters the most. PERIOD.

P.

[pjdami]

And a couple more things.

I'm relatively new to this forum; so perhaps maybe I shouldn't say what I'm going to say but what the heck.

There are plenty of people on here who have a wealth of knowlege and experience. Dudes that is so wicked cool. In my opinion, the goal of this board is to provide opinions and fresh ideas based on experience so that others may have a viable path forward on upgrades, tweeks, etc. I have so much respect for that.....and even the poor guy who posts his first post about the difference between a JVC receiver and a Realistic receiver (do they still make those???). Hey, someone is looking for help and we all can provide it (and most of the time it works that way). Polk is fortunate to have a forum. Not all speaker manufacturers have this. I think this forum is so way cool. I've learned so much in two months that it would have taken me twice the money I have spent to find something decent to listen to.

All of this stuff about who is right and who is wrong, etc...It's a frieking virus. We have people leaving the forum because they are getting dogged out for voicing their opinion. Man, that's so so wrong.

Of course we all have different personalities and egos also....but we share a common thing....love of audio. That's what this board is all about......

[danger boy]

nicely said pj,
but if you hang out in here long enough you'll find that yes there are disagreements OFTEN. it's usually the same 3, 4 or 5 people. they all make valid points.. but since I don't get involved in those agruments.. i try and look at what everyone is saying objectivley as I can.

True the people in here truely love the hobby of audio in all forms.. some more than others. but we are all here to learn. What I don't like this the some people in here are so closed minded to new and different things. That plus we don't all have the same equipment. If I bought the same B&K receiver that some of the guys have in here and rave about.. it may not sound the same to me as it does to someone else.

My point is.. suggestions and reviews are nice and helpful.. but you really need to take it with a grain of salt.

but the point is.. the arguments will continue, that won't change. but just distance yourself or take a break and log off for a couple days till things mellow out a bit. that's what I do.

anyway, pj, have fun, learn a lot.. and keep pumping more wattage into your cottage. :p

laterz, Al

[gidrah]

They don't include the necessary number of amps, but give you the ability to reassign the main amps to the rear. To me this indicates that they forsee the need to hook additional and presumably better amps to the front. If not, they would sell a mono amp that is basically identical to the receiver. Both electrically and physically. Probably even offer it as a package deal @ 10% off.

I guess I'm still just "wannabe" having a pre/pro and a stack of matching tube amps, but I'll get over it.

[danger boy]

hey gidrah.. tube amps went out with the dinasaurs you know guy.. get with the modern day stuff will ya? :lol:

[mantis]

pjdami,
let me say first of all that you have just as much right to voice your opnion as anyone else in here.It doesn't matter if your the new kid on the block or the old dog.Sometimes fresh new Ideas iss exactly what places like this needs.You replies I respect.Your experience with what I was talking about is similar to what I experienced.Other might not have or they would agree.Same token it's all in what ones looking for or expect out of ones given system.

danger boy,
well said.

gidrah,
They don't include the necessary number of amps, but give you the ability to reassign the main amps to the rear. To me this indicates that they forsee the need to hook additional and presumably better amps to the front. If not, they would sell a mono amp that is basically identical to the receiver. Both electrically and physically. Probably even offer it as a package deal @ 10% off.
Funny thing is I think your right here.Rotel is a 2 channel musical company in a Home Theater world.They stress music more then Home Theater.They even decided not to make or use THX processing,they moved forward and made there own style of Re -eq.I also want to add toyour statement that Rotel buyers are most likely more into music then Home theater in general.I think Rotel realized this when making the rsx1055.They didn't however do it with the rsx1065,which came out first.They didn't even offer a upgrade to make the rsx1065 this way.I asked time and time again for this very upgrade and Rotel feels they will just offer it in there next line of reciever(flagship).Also another point Rotel makes on this reassigning is that most people use full range speakers for fronts and small speakers for center and rears.They feel that giving the ability to add a more powerfull Rotel amp to the mains will yield better musical enjoyment.There points not mine.

danger boy,
you are right with the tube amps.Most tubes are now found in Germany,we as a State don't really use them anymore.Sad as tubes I feel have the best overall sound quality.That experience comes for being a musican.I always perferred tube amps over solid state for guitar or any instrument.

[danger boy]

i was just giving gidrah some sh*t. I know tube amps are wamer and smoother than most/some of todays amps. I wish I could audition a couple different tube amps myself. but that isn't going to happen.

[gidrah]

danger boy: I knew that! I have amps from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s & '00s. I love 'em all. Each one is different, but I still love each and every one. I can't wait for the '10s.

Mantis: Well said. Finally! Now if you'll just retract the statement about receiver preouts & wannabes we can all make nice again. I'm surprised at never seeing a tube model from Rotel.