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.