OK I know this has been discussed and dicussed, but since I've now had both the 950 AND the 1066 in my home, and since my conclusions surprised even me - I thought it was worth reporting on.

I've had the 950 in my setup the longest, and anyone who follows this forum much will know that I've been a big fan of the 950 in digital (DD, DTS, etc) but found the 2 channel performance to be lacking to my taste. Basically I find it thin, unenvolving and just a bit shrill.

So, being a long time Rotel fan, enjoying a warmer presentation, reading good things, etc., I decided to pick up the silver faceplat 1066 for $1300 and a 30 day money back guarantee.

First up, I put it through the paces with 2 channel music. The sound was somewhat warmer than the 950 but quite veiled and lacked the richness I was hoping for. Bottom line if I had to live with 950 or the Rotel for 2 channel, I would easily choose the Rotel - but the improvement wasn't as dramatic as I'd expected or maybe hoped for.

Second up was "listening" to movies. This is where I found the warmth, slight veiling and lost details of the Rotel to hurt its performance vis a vis the 950. This really surprised me, since even the most fanatical of Outlaw fans have reported that there was little to no difference between them for HT. I disagree and found the 950 to close to high end in performance with the Rotel solidly mid-fi (getting on flame suit).

Bottom line, I found the Rotel to be an acceptable performer in both music and HT, although neither offered thrilling performance. And I found the 950 excellent at HT and unaceptable (for my taste) in 2 channel.

And one thing about usability - personally I hate using OSD, and found the fact that you don't need it when using the 950 to be a big plus for me.

Soooo - despite all my expectations (and public musings) I will be returning the Rotel. I figured that if I could find a used 2 channel pre with HT passthrough for around $600, I would have a system that significantly bested the Rotel in both Home Theater and music for another couple hundred bucks. Plus if I wanted to have seperate rooms later for HT and music, the sytem could be more easily split up.

In some ways I hate to write this since I've always been a big fan of the way Rotel does business, value delivered, etc and been suspicious of what I see as possible manipulation of online bulletin boards by Outlaw fans or maybe the Outlaws themselves. But the proof is in the keeping, and the Rotel's goin back. OK everyone, you may now load your flamethrowers.

I think you gave a very honest review of what you heard. And you will get no flames from me. I also believe the 950 to have a high end performance for home theater. But lacking in 2 channel music. You hit it on the head when you said, I find it thin and just a bit shrill. Still it is a very good offering at 899...who has one for a better price. And a keeper for my theater also..

HT crazed:

As a new Rotel owner you won't see any flames from me. Well, except for the fact that you had the chance to actually audition them both, grrrr.

Thanks for the review and I believe you were being objective. Once again, 950 wait-listers, hang in there!

On Rotel's side and since I can't compare the two, all I can say is this. I'm using my brother-in-law's hand me down Klipsch Synergy speakers and Rotel amp with the 1066. He upgraded to Paradigm Ref speakers, SVS Ultra sub and a Lexicon MC-1. Besides the depth in base of his SVS and my Klipsch 15, I can hear no difference (no we haven't done a side by side comparison, I'm sure his would win). He said himself after listening to my system that he wondered if it was was worth it to upgrade. Then again, our room sizes are drastically different.

Room size, difference in ear between people, equipment, everyone will have different opinions. I still wish I could have heard the 950 before I made my choice but I'm quite happy.

Rob

HT Crazed,

Would you mind giving us a list of the associated gear you used for your comparison? Nice review, it certainly has helped in my decision to wait for the 950 or buy the Rotel.

-bill

I've also experienced some of the thinness in two-channel on the 950 (and this includes vinyl in which I proudly use a Rotel MM/MC phono stage.)

However, I recently experimented with an AC power filter (nothing fancy. Just a Tripp Lite Isobar) and discovered that I could tame that edginess without compromising the detail or the wide/deep soundstage.

In principal, I haven't believed in AC power filtering; but my ears tell me a MUCH different story.

For those who are less than thrilled with the 950's music performance, I'd recomend experimenting with power filtering. And don't just plug it in and forget it. Try combinations of the 950 and your amp in isolated outlets and filtered outlets (the options available to me on my Tripp Lite) and directly into the wall. I heard a definite difference in each combination.

HT crazed,

Care to comment on any comparison of the Outlaw (or Rotel) with your brothers Lexicon MC1? Specifically, HT performance would be appreciated as I am looking only for a HT pre/pro.

Brian

Oh my gawd! Who would have thought that Larry and I, in the end, would agree almost totally. I still prefer the 950 to the Rotel for music(I prefer dry/detailed versus warm/veiled)but like you I want more. This weekend I am checking out the Musical Fidelity A3cr and an Audible Illusions refurbed 3A preamp. I have also tried an ASL tubed unit(no much like) and an Adcom 750(passive mode very nice). From reviews that I've read, my guess is that you'd like the Musical Fidelity very much. However, even used units cost more than $600. One other idea for you is to buy a Sony P9K preamp for use with your 2 channel sources. As long as you only have 2 sources, it would work very nicely. Tonally, it is slightly warmer than the 950, but still extremely neutral.
IMO, I'd put the performance of the 950/P9K/ICBM trio,(950 for movies, P9K for music)up against the Anthem AVM-20 any day. Cost wise it is no comparison as the trio only costs $1500 or so.

Good Luck with your search and let us know what you end up getting.
------------------
Take Care,
merc

[This message has been edited by merc (edited July 16, 2002).]

If you are hearing shrillness in stereo but not in movies, it is most likely in the source. It is not fair or reasonable to judge the "sound" of a component on the reproducing end without knowing all the details of the recording session. All microphones have different colorations and the producer will color the original according to individual taste. So use your head and use your tone controls!

And why would anyone with a 950 listen in 2-channel? If you really want to be retro, you might as well listen in mono! The huge improvement in going from mono to stereo is dwarfed by the vast improvement in going to surround sound, even if you're just extracting ambiance with DPL2.

Many people including me, sometimes like to listen to CD's, which are recorded in stereo, in stereo, without extracting ambiance.

While I do enjoy the 950's DPL2 (and even more, NEO6), I and others as well, often like to listen in old fashioned stereo.

Just call me old fashioned.

I mostly prefer to listen in as many channels as are on the recording; that means 5.1 for DD and DTS (I don't have a rear speaker) and 2 for CDs. Although for some I find that DPL-II adds to the enjoyment. I don't think anyone would want to downmix a 2 channel CD into mono.

For TV watching, my theory is that a lot of stuff is really four-channel or five-channel stuff downmixed into stereo for broadcast. DPL-II does a pretty good job of retrieving the original, though of course I'd prefer a 5.1 feed if I could get it. Some stuff, like newscasts, probably would sound better with it off, but I'm lazy and generally don't.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

HT Crazed,

Thanks for the review, I was hoping you got a 1066 into your system so you could compare. It seems we have found many of the same things with the 950. Excelent DD/DTS, average stereo. While I am disappointed that the 1066 is not the solution for both worlds, my wallet is glad. I will just have to contiue to look for a good integrated with HT passthrough for Stereo.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

why would anyone with a 950 listen in 2-channel? If you really want to be retro, you might as well listen in mono! The huge improvement in going from mono to stereo is dwarfed by the vast improvement in going to surround sound, even if you're just extracting ambiance with DPL2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I much prefer the image and soundstage Stereo offers over multicahnnel. In my not so humble opinion, multichannel, while good for movies and tv, is terrible for music. I have heard DPL-II as implemented in the 950. It is a definate improvement over prologic, but doesn't touch stereo in imaging.

Regards,

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike__P (edited July 16, 2002).]

This board is soo civilized.. Must be the lack of heavy handed moderation that gives us such a sense of goodwill.

Rob - I still believe once again Rotel offered a good value for price in the 1066. If it were the same price as the 950, I probably would have kept it instead since I can live with the 2 channel, and losing some resolution in HT isn't that big a deal for me. Being able to use the savings towards a 2 channel pre tipped the scales for me since I have to be more frugal these days than usual.

Bill - whoops, good catch. My equipment is:

- B&W 804 Matrix for mains with other B&W's for center and surrounds (only using 5.1 config)
- Rotel 985 MKII 5 channel 125 WPC
- Sony DVD/CD/SACD 9000ES (excellent for both music and DVD)
- Interconnects comination of Straight-Wire and Outlaw.
- Speaker cable (can't remember, but it was custom and pricey)
- Sony Wega 36" (also need to save up for projector).

Brian - I think it was Roberts brother with the Lexicon. But IMO for HT without 2 channel music the 950 is just a phenominal deal.


Oh the irony!! Just thinking about all the hard disk space our arguments must be taking up over at HTF.

I've thought about the Sony p9k also, but figured I'd rather put the $500 it would cost into a better 2 channel pre since I don't need all the switching capability (as long as the HT passthrough works as advertised).

I've been considering at the McCormick SPL-2, Aragon stage 1, the Nohr etc. I'll be interested in your verdict on the Musical Fidelity and AI. Since the unit would be on alot even for HT and TV, I'm tending towards solid state though I'm sure I'd prefer the smoother sound of a nice tube rig.

If we could figure out a lower cost high value 2 channel rig, it looks like it could benefit lots of 950 owners. Again the Sony looks like it might be the ticket, but I'm afraid it wouldn't go far enough for 2 channel.

Townhouse - Actually my sources for DVD and CD are the same. And being a well regarded $1500 player, I doubt I have a problem at the source.

I've tried listening to music through DLPII and NEO but for most kinds of music found it very lacking. I like the idea of music utilizing all my speakers - and if I had a Meridian or Lexicon might prefer it. But multichannel music leaves alot to be desired with DLPII or NEO (even after quite a bit of tweaking).

Sorry HT crazed.

Rob, same question. Would you like to comment on your brothers Lexicon vs 950 for strictly HT use?

Brian

The "source" is not some overpriced piece of consumer electronics, it is the original recording! Virtually all equipment reviewers consistently miss the point -- a component in the reproducing chain cannot be evaluated with any credibility unless the test instrument is calibrated against a known standard. The "signal generator" here is the original recording, and unless you know all the production details of the recording and mastering sessions, your test results are not reliable. The microphones alone will add far more coloration than any 950 ever will.

In my experience, well-recorded-and-mastered discs (in all formats) sound very realistic through the 950. Most discs, however, are not produced with quality as the prime directive; the mass market wants them to sound good over your car radio. A master recording that is overly bright (or picked up some harshness in the A-to-D conversion) will sound just that way through the 950. It simply requires judicious use of the tone controls. You don't need to buy a new house just because the tap water is too cold!

There is absolutely no difference in the requirements of a high-quality home "music" vs. "theatre" sound reproduction system. All of my recordings (in all formats) sound more "involving" in 5.1 than in stereo, and even moreso with rear center and height channels. I hope that some day the industry will standardize on an 8.1-channel system (with the primary speakers on the corners of an imaginary cube) so that a virtual sound source can be located anywhere in the 3-dimensional space that surrounds the listener.

By the way, the only reason I waste my time posting here is to try to help the neophytes recognize hype, myth, and nonsense. Those who wish to keep their vacuum tubes and Victrolas are, of course, entitled to do so.

Sorry dude, but trying to pass yourself off as an audio expert to tell us that PLII or NEO6 offers superior music reproduction isn't going to win you many disciples. If you happen to like it, fine, but there's no need to embarass yourself by assaulting people here that are actually very knowledgable about hi-fi.

[This message has been edited by HT crazed (edited July 17, 2002).]

Is there anyone who is actually "very knowledgable about hi-fi"? It's such an inexact science...

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

I'm sorry to say that mutichannel reproduction of stereo music may be OK for you, but there are many experienced ears here with more years of experience that will simply say you're inexperienced when you say

[This message has been edited by bstan (edited July 17, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by bstan (edited July 17, 2002).]

Thank you so much, what would we do without your superior knowledge and expertise pointing out all the hype, myth and nonsense. I'm selling all my two channel gear.

Can I buy it?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Alright,
I didn't like his attitude or most of his information either.
He (Townhouse) did say something with which I compleately agree:
"There is absolutely no difference in the requirements of a high-quality home "music" vs. "theatre" sound reproduction system."
Let me qualify my agreement before I get jumped. The way I interpret this is that a high quality speaker, or sub, or amp is just that. Aside from the processor, good gear is good gear. One equipment design does not favor HT or Musical listening. I said ASIDE FROM THE PROCESSOR!.
I've read some threads stating that 'this sub' or 'that speaker' favors HT or Music. For all of you neophytes out there, that's bull. (Sorry, just liked typing the word). Buy good stuff and it will reproduce each format equally as well. Please don't respond with "But processors are different!" No kidding, I'm referring to every type of gear excepting processors. I know it sounds redundent, but I've been hosed by folks who like to read the first line of a thread and whip off a response.
Until next time,
Mix

Brian,

Sorry for the delay in response, first time I've been able to log on in the last few days. As far as a true comparison review of the Rotel 1066 vs. the Lexicon MC-1, I am unable to give you one. My bro-in-law is using an SVS Ultra sub, Paradigm Ref speakers, a huge new Parasound amp (forget which one) and the Lex. My system, unit by unit does not really compare to his.

Then there's the issue of room accoustics. He upgraded from my current Klipsch 15" to the SVS because he thought the Klipsch was lacking a bit. We were both blown away the first time hearing the Klipsch in my 2-story room. I never heard that much base at his house until he got the SVS, then I heard it BIG time. Apparently it was the fix he needed. Anyway, I use this as an example of how room accoustics can make a difference.

As for as a totally unbalanced review from what I 'remember' his setup sounds like vs. mine with the 1066, I'll give you this. We were both astounded at the clarity and separation with things like the The Eagles DVD as well as the base in Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and many others. I can say that I am totally 100% happy with my current system, the Rotel surpassed my expectations.

Now, would I have been just as happy with the 950? Probably, but I can't get one to try out. Brian, if you haven't already, check out the reviews on different forums done by people alot more qualified than I.

Rob

Merc, my only sources for 2 channel would be CD and possibly even TV. Are you saying that the TAP would be a very high quality 2 channel pre in its own right?

After reading reviews of the Anthem 2L and Rogue 66 I have to admit I'm starting to look forward to the tube sound. But with the TAP, the price is definitely right.. Obviously though since you have the TAP, you're still not satisfied with it for 2 channel either. Any further insights on the Sony as its own pre?

HTC: The TAP is a very nice preamp, especially for its' cost but it is not as clean as the Adcom GFP-750. Of course, the Sony costs one third the Adcom, so you would expect that. The other problem with the Sony, for me, is that I have 3 two channel sources, as well as, two 5.1 channel music sources. So, my plan is to use the Adcom(or Music Fidelity)preamp for my 3 two channel sources and the Sony to switch between MC SACD and DVD-A, and my 950 for movie playback on DVD, HDTV, DVHS, cable, and my PVRs(HD&SD). I will have to place my ICBM after the Sony, so I will have to manually switch the ICBM to bypass mode every time I use the 950. My other option would be to buy another ICBM.

Regardless, my system uses a boatload of interconnects...



------------------
Take Care,
merc

Thank you Townhouse, couldn't agree more. The only time I listen to two channel is with my Discman, and that's because that's the only way they make them.
I have listened to NOTHING but surround sound in one form or the other since the 1970's. 2Ch stero is like listening remotely through a window, so UNinvolving! Where surround sound (matrix or discrete) puts you in the place where it was recorded; soooooo much more involving!
For me I want my live recordings and classical music with ambient rears. But pop music, I want to be surrounded.
The most "lfelike" and involving recording in my collection of over 2000+ CDs, records,DVD -Audio, SACD, R-to-R and DAT tapes, are the 1970s Quadraphonic recordings of the Doobie Brothers albums (one of which is now available on DVD-A, although remixed).
Anyway, my point is, 2 channel was originally a compromise due to the records being limited to two channels in the 1960s (the original desire was for three channels, still a hole in the wall effect).
BSTAN, sorry to differ, but 2 CH just doesn't cut it for realizm!

Hmmm, guess I was halucinating last night at the Sheryl Crow concert... it was in stereo, with absolutely NO speakers on the side or behind my seat? It seemed pretty real to me at the time...

------------------
Take Care,
merc

It was in stereo? A live concert?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Well, there were two big banks of speakers, one directly to the left of the stage and another on the right of the stage. That sounds like stereo to me. As I said, there were no other speakers either to the side of me or behind me.
Here is a diagram to help you better understand.

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Surroundophile (AKA Townhouse) - having to listen to quadrophonic Doobie Brothers for 30 years is an ungodly price to pay for your multichannel music obsession. And that might just be the most profound understatement I've ever made.

You are a true hero. I think it only took 3 weeks to break Manuel Norriega from a wealthy, supreme dictator into to a simpering incoherent suicidal. And for him they just used 2 channel.

Merc, since my system is so simple, I'll probably pass up the TAP and put the money into a tube amp. I hear the Anthem 2L, Rogue 66, and the MF and AI you'll be looking at all have a smooth sound that goes beyond the tubby tube sounds of old. I'll be interested to hear how your auditions go.

Wow. A diagram and everything. But don't the instruments produce noise, not just the speakers?

I guess from anywhere beyond those uncovered seats, the effect would be pretty monaurial anyway.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Surroundophile (AKA Townhouse) - having to listen to quadrophonic Doobie Brothers for 30 years is an ungodly price to pay for your multichannel music obsession. And that might just be the most profound understatement I've ever made.

HTCrazed:
I am NOT Townhouse, and I did NOT only listen to the Doobies. I listened to everything available in Quad as well as 2CH material ran through a 4CH decoder. I have now added DVD-Audio and SACD (SACD Multichannel ONLY).
I'm waiting now for the 950 to see if DP2 &/or DTS NEO does a better job of turning my 2CH collection into surround better than my Fosgate Tate unit, which I will keep for it's SQ decoding.

Merc:
The concert may have had 2 speakers in the front for amplification/reinforcement , but the sound from those 2 speakers bouncing off the side and rear walls provided the "rear surround channels" ambience. There's no way you could have heard the concert in 2CH, unless you had sound absorbing material 2/3's surrounding your head! Even then, it really would have been 3CH (LCR).

Sorry, but there are no rear or side walls at all. The roof is some sort of suspended tarpaulin material.
Here is an actual image of the Pavilion:
If we assume that the instruments can be also heard directly and that sonic reflections also bounce from those instruments off the back stage wall, then I'll allow for a type of bi-polar speaker type reflections or possibly 3 front channels??? Nah. It sounds like plain jane stereo to me.
Hope this picture clears up your confusion.

Now, if the concert was in the Compaq Center, then I'd say that with wall reflections making every note a distorted mess, it IS more like a bad surround mix. IMO, there is nothing more artificial sounding than a multichannel mix where instruments start to play behind you.

Matthew: in fact each one of the poles halfway up the lawn have speakers on them and they broadcast a mono signal. However, they are pointing up the hill, not back into the seating area.

------------------
Take Care,
merc

[This message has been edited by merc (edited July 18, 2002).]

Merc, live in the Woodlands? I used to live there until '98. Now in Wyoming.

And we all appreciate your willingness to
to serve as a prime example. thanks.

John: Yup. We've been here for almost 8 years after moving from Sugarland. You wouldn't recognize The Woodlands now. In just the last 5 years the population has doubled.
We are Partners at the Pavilion so we get to go to all the concerts for free. Last night, Gwyneth Paltrow gave my 7 year old son a can of coke from the green room buffet table... while I was in the potty. I didn't believe him till later when she appeared on stage as a backup vocal for Sheryl Crow. Dang... timing is everything.

I bet I wouldnt recognize it! Cheyenne,WY, where I live now, is the capitol city of WY. It has around 50000 people. Of course, the entire state of WY only has 493,000 peeps.
I like it, plus only 2hrs from Denver if I crave a big city. And I sure dont miss the humidity! Humid here is 17%.

Just posting here to say sorry Outlaws I just couldn't wait any longer. While on vacation in Denver Co. I picked up a black Rotel 1066 (1300.00). I don't know what the 950 sounds like but this processor sounds and looks great. The dealer had plenty of them in both black and silver.

Sorry to see ya go. I think there are other Outlaws out there that may go down your path.
DmC

The 1066 was hard to get, especially at a discount, but not anymore.

Rotel probably ramped up production.

Hope you enjoy it. Any chance of posting your impressions here?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

surroundphile,

My guess is you never did get correct speaker/room integration to optimize the soundfield from a 2-channel source.

Sorry, but most surround music is artificialy created and sounds artificial in it's playback venue.

If you like it fine, that's your opinion, but for most of us, neophytes pay attention here, it's just a bunch of hype.

[This message has been edited by bstan (edited August 28, 2002).]

What does that mean,"most of us"? I think that is an incorrect assumption. Sorry, but a lot of experienced enthusiasts like multi-channel music. Including myself. I like hearing opinions from all sides but statements like that make me wonder. I am sure you have good reasons for not liking it but I have to wonder why make it sound like only "neophytes" like multi-channel music?

[This message has been edited by karlengle (edited August 28, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by karlengle (edited August 28, 2002).]

a stereo soundstage isn't artificial??!!

the exciting thing about 5.1 isn't as much the soundstage as it is the available headroom.

stereo provides only 2 channels into which to mixdown 24, 32, and more tracks of music.
saturation of the 2 channels is the most frustrating limitation of the stereo format.

5.1 allows for the low frequencies (the largest cause of saturation) to be mixed into it's own discrete channel, allowing the remaining tracks to be mixed into the remaining 5 discrete channels.

this is the most exciting advance in recorded music's history, to me, and i am sure there will be many new discs that will be taking advantage of this format.

unless, of course, your music collection will forever consist of only live recordings of acoustic sets, in which case....sheeesh.

what the hell is a neophyte?

So on the Rotel does the on screen display come on everytime you do something on the remote? But on the 950 it doesn't?

I think I saw one under a microscope once....

"headroom" and "saturation of the 2 channels is the most frustrating limitation of the stereo format".

??

You're gonna have to explain that to me. I've heard a lot of things about 2 channel stereo sound, but that's a new one!

How about that writer.. ah.. J. Gordon Holt. Is he a neophyte? I believe he's a big proponent of mult-channel music.
This neophyte eeenjoys both 2 channel and multi-channel music. And I really like my movies in multi-channel format. Now if only we could get the studios to provide the background (movie) music in 2 channel to satisfy those who don't care for the artificial sound.D)

cd:
2 channels 16 bit 44.1khz
dynamic range (headroom) 96db

dvd-audio:
6 channels (5.1) 24 bit 96khz
dynamic range 144db

dvd sampling rate = 4.3 times higher than cd
dvd quantization resolution = 256 times finer
than cd

sorry, i used the term "saturation" loosely, from my experience as a session bassist.
32 tracks (2" analog tape) has to be mixed down to 2 channels for stereo, then converted to digital at the above rates for the cd format.
saturation occurs when the available headroom is exceeded. with analog tape there is some forgiveness in the sound if you reach saturation for short bursts. in the digital domain there is no such forgiveness. exceeding headroom limits is a no-no.

all i am saying is, having 5 discrete channels (instead of 2) with 144db of headroom PLUS a discrete .1 channel for lfe changes everything....artificial or not.

most current dvd-a/sacd software is re-mixed from analog masters and live recordings of symphonies, etc., but that will change soon.

i'm looking forward to being able to play back 5.1 recordings done completely in the digital domain that take advantage of the endless possibilities that stereo does not offer.

BoB- You're missing something.

The difference in "headroom" between CD and DVD-A/SACD has absolutely nothing to do with 2 channel stereo vs multi-channel. Simply due to the FORMAT. You can have 2 channel SACD. You can have 2 channel DVD-A.

Me? If a recording was originally mixed in 2 channel stereo, then that's what I want. Whether it's an lp, CD, SACD, DVD-A, Elcassette, or 8-track tape. Don't mind if there's a mutli-channel version along with it, but I want the original number-of-channels format.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin C Brown:
[B]BoB- You're missing something
_____________________________________________

ahhhhhhhhh...i see said the blind man.
you are saying you object to dplII, neo 6, circle surround, logic 7, etc.?

i completely agree with you there, KCB.

BoB- DPL II, L7, etc. No objection for movie soundtracks...

I like pure clean analog bypass along with my really clean digital converted movie and music soundtracks...