Received my Rotel RA-02 from Agon yesterday. I'm using it as a pre-amp in my 2-channel rig in the basement (to replace the old Kenwood beast).
Picked it up for $250, shipping included. It looks brand new! It also looks very, very good with my RB-1070.
The rig sounded good before using the Kenwood as a pre, but now with the RA-02, all I can honestly say it was worth every penny.
Gave it a bit of a workout with different types of music last night, and there were more than a few times certain passages or nuances brought a smile to my face.
As Nick said, Rotel absolutely rocks for listening to metal. Nice aggressive edge with lots of punch, without grating on the nerves after awhile.
Preamplifiers are the most underrated component in the industry. Most people just view a preamp as a source switch with a volume knob. In essence this should be true, but in practice there are far too many amplifiers that have been cobbled with preamps that screw up the signal.
loc, source first still is a rule for me, BUT...make sure the rest isn't sleeping on the bar beforehand. Yes? No?
A complete system from one builder has made so many differences for me, even forgiving the current shortcomings. You really have to go complete kit to see what a builder has in mind. This is not to shortcut anyones new cdp or anything, but complete kits are an eye-opener.
To me, changing the speaker and amp/preamp make hugh different than changing source. To me, source is the 3rd choice in my system. My wife thinks the same too.
I'm with Nuck on the cohesive system. Matching a Rotel pre with a Rotel amp really opened my eyes.
However, I think in my case, using a really good CDP with my less than stellar receiver-as-preamp would have produced far less positive results than using a good pre-amp with a so-so CDP.
im with david on this one. source first should apply only when your system has reached a level where you can only tweak it up in bits. esp for a newbie buying a system with a low budget the speakers and amp are way more imp.
Really and truly it depends on how weak the weakest component in the chain is by comparison to the rest of the chain. If a particular component in the chain is much weaker than the rest, then improving one of the others will not give as much bang for your buck as changing the weakest component.
Unfortunately many people find it difficult to identify the weakest point in the chain. This is probably because they don't have the in-depth experience with the products that the manufacturers and retailers have (at least the better retailers should have). Typically, an owner is used to maybe a couple of systems they've put together in their home and maybe a couple of systems they've heard at friends. A manufacturer should have in-depth experience on how his products fit together and where the strengths and weaknesses exist. The dealer has a bit more varied experience by combining said products with 3rd party products and so can find alternative combinations that work well and possibly (but not necessarily) give greater bang for the buck.
That said, whereas it was commonplace in the 70s and 80s to combine different brand products for the absolute best sonic solution, there has been a distinct swing toward homogenous systems in the 90s and noughties so the mix'n'match approach is less commonplace nowadays.
i understand the importance of source, but dont get the 'source first' concept. if the source is the weakest link, then yes, it should be the first to be upgraded. but all links being pretty similarly matched and you want to upgrade one piece at a time, the speakers and amplifier are more imp. and this is a situation a newbie often finds himself in. he has an old avg amp and speakers, and a no name cdp and wants to upgrade one at a time since he;s on a budget and someone tells him source first. he would be better off investing in other parts of the system
Frank, I disagreed with "source first". I remember when I had the NAD C370, with the Dynaudio A42, when I added the Apollo, I didn't see a big improvement in my system until I changed the speakers. Remember my post about "Oppo with Apollo"? To me, the Oppo was very closed to the Apollo although it's much cheaper. Anyway, this is just my opinion.
perhaps the speakers arent imaging what the cdp is throwing out. i dont really see much difference between cdps. im not saying that there isnt - the presentation gets more forward and the pace is definitely better. and also with the complexity of the music increasing source makes a lot of difference (i was listening to meatloaf playing with the melbourne symphony orchestra and it just doesnt sound right and i know that my player is letting it down. but in my experience i upgraded first from kenwood speakers to jbl's. the difference in sound was amazing. i then upgraded the amp from the kenwood to the nad. there was a lot of difference but not as much as before. and when i upgraded the cdp, the difference wasnt so much
I agree with Frank, changing the weakest link will make the most difference. I started out with a Yamaha AV receiver, Yamaha floor standing speakers and a Yamaha cdp. This was hooked up with cheap IC's and Monster speaker cable. I upgraded the receiver and speakers first. For fun I hooked up the HK AVR 445 receiver first with the old speakers and it was quite an improvement. I then added the Totem speakers and it was an amazing difference. Next I added an Apollo cdp. A nice improvement but not as much as the other two. Just recently I changed the IC's from XLOHTPRO to BJC LC-1. It was a incredible increase in sound quality. Then speaker cables were changed from the Monster to BJC 10 AWG cable, that was an improvement as well, but not as much as the IC's were. Now I just replaced the HK AVR 445 with a Rega Mira 3. This was another very nice increase in sound quality. So, if your not able upgrade all at once, changing the weakest links along the way will prvide the most out of each upgrade.
)