Rotel 1072 vs. Arcam CD73

Does anyone have any further thoughts on this subject? I've read the posts of the previous months and have previewed both players but am still having trouble arriving at a decision.

Unfortunately I had to hear each player at two different dealers, through two different amplifiers and two different sets of speakers. The Rotel had a commanding sound which is very detailed, whereas I didn't find much noteworthy about the Arcam. Later, after reading various reviews, I found that there is some agreement on this: people say the Arcam has a more "natural" and relaxed sound that you grow accustomed to and grow into while Rotel has a brighter, more enthusiastic sound. However, they also seem to say that the Arcam is better built, with the Wolfssen DAC, 24 bit, while Rotel uses older Burr Browns (how many bits?).

Reviewers seem to disagree about which has the wider and deeper soundstage. Does anyone have any opinions?

My intuition says to go with the Rotel, but I know my ears and tastes well enough to know that what I like on first listen is often not what I really like long term.

Furthermore, my receiver is an HK AVR-110, and the speakers are old Boston Acoustics A150s. With these speakers, I feel also that the brightness of the Rotel is a better companion than the Arcam.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
it's not uncommon for the 'brighter' more aggressive player to be more impressive at first glance;but disappoint over the long term. you seem to be aware of that so you're already ahead of the curve! i don't have any experience with either player; however, i do own a rega jupiter2000 which utilizes the Wolssen DACs. it has a smooth, very natural presentation, good detail but not on par with the mega$$$ players (i'm talking in the $3k and up range). i've lived with mine for a couple years and am very pleased with it. a used one would place at the price point of a new rotel. something to consider...good luck!
Jlamb, thanks for the input.
You wont know until you try both of them in your system. Really. Regardless of their reputations. These are first impressions and not even sourced from your own system. You would do well to try them out. It is true, in fact, that some would say that the Arcam would prove the brighter sounding of the two, while the Rotel would sound more dynamic. You cant really guess what your ears will decide. However, the fact that the Arcam is upgradable is very convenient. Both are good buys.
CD players like analog are very system dependent on the other components one has in their system such as amp,preamp,speakers,interconnects,power cord,etc. I evaluated both of these players in my system. The Arcam CD 73 was considerably better in my system than the Rotel 1072.

For me there was nothing special about the Rotel 1072, just another good CD player in that price range.

However the Arcam CD 73 is an overachiever and has sonics of a player in the $1,000.00 plus range. Plus the ability to further upgrade this model with factory supplied parts is further statement of Arcams committment to this product.

With the ability to upgrade at a cost less than a new player and 2 year warranty I added the Arcam CD 73 to my system. This is one player that won't become obsolete in a couple of years. In my opinion the overall build quality and sonics put the Arcam ahead of the Rotel.
I have tried both side by side & the cd73 is smother & has a more natural presentation & ho that top end "SWEET". It is just a better cd player. I got the Arcam CD82. And just sold it to a friend that had Theta dac&trans. I orderd a CD192.It would be hard to find a better player for the $$$$.
Before purchasing the Arcam cd73 I had auditioned the Rotel 1072 and the Azur 640C as well. I had listened to the Arcam and the Azur in the same system. My first impression of the Rotel was that is was dynamic and slightly bright but not obnoxiously so, this was through 600 series B&Ws. The Azur seemed less bright but also seemed to have more resolution, enough that it drew attention to itself. It was initially fun to track the instruments and sounds that I hadn't heard before in some very familiar tracks as they jumped out at me. My last audition was the Arcam which seemed slightly less resolute but more of a natural presentation. It was more enjoyable over all because all I wanted to do when I was listening to the Arcam was to sit back and listen to the music rather then analyze, I was drawn in. I listened to both back and forth over time because I wanted to determine if I was missing something in the Arcam over the Azur. I listened to these through some Spendor S9e speakers which I enjoyed. The Arcam was just more relaxed and everything was still there, just not jumping out at me saying "hey check this out!!!" The auditioned reminded me of a past audition of some older Thiel speakers I wanted to buy some c5 or c6s I think. Thiel speakers can be very bright and at the time, very hi res bringing out all kinds of detail, but you can spend the rest of your life with them trying different cables trying to mellow them out rather then just relax and enjoy the music. Probably some tube equipment would have helped. Anyway I digress, over the long term I think that this would get old. I chose the Arcam and never regretted it. The Arcam did seem less dynamic in the low end bass but the bass was there and was not muddy. For fun I did compare the Arcam cd192 as well which was on hand of course(it was out of my price range)and the difference was it was more dynamic in the bass region and actually probably more dynamic overall but the same relaxed natural sound was the same. I felt that $650 for the Arcam CD73 was a steal. I thought the Azur and the Arcam sounded better then the Rotel. All three were certainly better then what I had.

Thanks for letting me chime in.

Interesting review of these players. I had a similar experience with these three players and selected the Cambridge 640C because of a personal preference for detailed presentation. Have since traded in the 640C v1 for the version 2. My retailer in Seattle (hawthorne stereo) was kind enough to exchange after a few months for only the difference in list price of the two units.

Don't know if you compared the Arcam cd73 to the version 1 or 2 of the 640C, but the version 2 is considerably better in terms of bass weight and resolution, overall imaging and sound stage compared with the original player. I reviewed these three players and some others here,

I am still enjoying the 640C v2. Glad you are happy with the Arcam. Different strokes.
The Rotel RCD-1072 employs an 18 bit DAC but don't let that fool you just because it's not a 24 bit. I love mine and as I've said in a number of other threads, I believe it excels at playing smooth jazz (i.e. Boney James, Lee Ritenour, Larry Carlton, Norman Brown, etc) and that's what I use it primarily for. I have a 2nd Marantz CD player I use more for classic rock where I need a bit more slam and punch. Van Morrison CD's sound fantastic on the Rotel.
Knownothing, I enjoyed your response. I did go back and forth auditioning the 640C and the CD73. It was my impression that the 640Cv2 did have more detail as you also concluded. Certainly both these players share the same level of quality as they directly compete with each other. These British units do share a similarity, best bang for the buck at these price points. I think , just as with speakers, it comes down to personal preference and presentation. I do believe the Arcam CD192 was superior to CD73 as well and would have walked away with that one if I could. I just wanted to tell my story in response to the original thread. I have since added another unit, an Arcam DV137 which basically continues on the same sonic signature to the 5.1 realm. This is still a work in progress and something that I have been wanting to do for a time while without sacrificing that level of playback quality that has spoiled me so much in the 2 ch world.

I am enjoying the subject of these posts to see what everyone has come away with in their sonic preferences for CD players.