That's very possible, especially since I didn't get to hear the Nautiluses with the previous electronics (older Spectral gear) to know if there were similarities. I haven't noticed the same sort of harshness from other B&W's (older B&W's used temporarily in my den), but even that doesn't rule out the B&W's as a significant contributor.

If it's of any use to you, I don't think this was mentioned but the 990 has balanced outputs as well as unbalanced rca's. For me that's a big perk because I can use pro amplifiers plus avoid ground loop/hum issues. While I've not heard the Rotel or the Adcom, the 990 seems neutral here. Also the 990 has more optical inputs and DVI Switching, something else the Rotel lacked.

Gonk, I'm very familiar with the B&W Nautilus sound and think it's likely the Rotel amp / Nautilis combo that you were hearing. When I upgraded amplification to my N804 speakers going from a Rotel power amp to the Pass Labs Aleph 30 it made a world of difference. The sound became very musical and lost all sense of "harshness". I also use a tube pre-amp for two channel but have the 990 on the way and can do some critical evaluations of it with the N804's when it comes in.

Ed:

Please quantify "forward" and "laid back" sounding speakers. You lost me. I'm glad you like the Rotel, but I can't imagine in what universe someone would think it "sounded better" than the 990. But hey, I guess one man's "there's a veil over the music" is another man's "I like the speakers more laid back." Go figure.

Cheers,

I always thought of all the "audiospeak"terminology forward or laid back were the clearest but...My interpretation is Forward=more upfront,presence,in your face,revealing.Laid back=less upfront,less presence,not in your face,less revealing.Anything more than that use your imagination.

I'm glad I like the Rotel also,I'd be even happier if I liked the 990 better since its got some features I like and its cheaper.

I'm not sure of the name of my universe but you listen in yours and I'll listen in mine,ok.

Almost last but not least,I just gave my input to the original post,I did not tell anyone if they don't hear like me they're from another unuverse.

Last but not least explain to me why if someone does not hear what you think they should thats bad?We all see this alot on forums and it never ceases to amaze me that some are so arrogant they presume their ears should be held in more regard.
Now would it not sound dumb if I say,ok,forget my ears I trust somebody else's ears more than mine.Everyone do your own audition and draw your own conclusions is the best advise I have.

Not a Fan Boy,just a fan.

EZ

Heh. I don't think I referred to your choice as "bad." I simply don't understand it. Hope you're enjoying your universe as much as I'm enjoying mine.

Cheers,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Zeppelin:

I'm not sure of the name of my universe but you listen in yours and I'll listen in mine,ok.

I'm just gonna stick to listening in my galaxy for now. I don't have time for other galaxies, let alone the whole universe.

Gonk, I'd be interested to hear how the 950 stacks up against the 990 strictly from a performance, and not features, standpoint.

How it compares with analog by pass for SACD and with digital inputs for DD, DTS, etc.

You can find my comments on the 990's audio performance here , but the short answer is that the 990 is a very enjoyable step up from the 950. The better DACs have left me using the analog inputs very rarely, performance on DVD's is improved, and performance on CD's benefits even more. Multichannel analog input probably saw the least change, but even with the 990 applying digital bass management (with an A/D/A process added) the performance is still transparent. My Yamaha universal player's SACD performance is still sub-optimal, I believe, but the 990 isn't detracting from the experience any.