2. digital
  3. 1100669978

Rotel 1072 & Arcam 73 comparison

I compared these two CDPs at a dealership for myself.

Electronics: Audio Research Pre SP 16, McCormack DNA125
Speaker : Quad 21L
(So amplification is quite nice.
Speaker is impressive one for its price)

In general these are good CD player. However, interestingly enough, they are quite different in number of ways.

In short, Rotel can be described as 'A concert Grand Piano played by a rising star pianist.' Arcam is like 'Upright piano played by a maestro pianist.' The strong points of Rotel are rich in information and more air around the sound generators. Arcam's good at balance. Switing from Arcam to Rotel make me say, 'impressive, a deeper sound stage, full body sound'. Switiching from Rotel to Arcam makes everything smaller, but as you hear more you see/hear things are still there and you are adjusting yourself to
the music from Arcam in a nice way.

Well, I like Rotel better. Rotel 1072 is also well balanced for presending many kinds of music. It is just a bit difficult to prefectly balance everything since it chooses to present full of information and musicallity as well. Rotel is closer to analog sound than Arcam. Rotel is more puchier when it chooses to do that. In my opinion, Arcam uses a very good DAC, but not all the parts in its electronics do good jobs. I think that is where the shortcomings are.

Will I buy Rotel ? Not now, I'll search more. As of today,
NAD5xx, Musical Fidelity X-Rayv3, Arcam 73, Cambridge Azur 540/640, are no longer on my list. I am not going to buy Sony this time, because I own one. My short list includes: Music Hall CD25, Rotel 1072, Rega, Ah!, and, well, Sony etc.
Any recommendation ?

Thanks for reading.
augustine
vertewax
18 posts
 
So I received the Arcam today and have played about 5 cd's on it. Right now listening to the Kings of Convenience, "Quiet is the New Loud". Had U2's new on one today... some jazz, electronica and indie rock (Wilco, Elefant)... so you could say I'm spreading it around a bit. I'm sure the player might need quite a few hours to break in, but I heard it break in across the first few albums: from cold box to sitting above the warm Rogue gear.

I am VERY impressed with the sound. It's spacious, airy, very even across the frequencies, good bass extension, good definition, good delineation of space. Most notable characteristic is that it is very quiet... very quiet between notes. It's a calm player. The pace is good... not rip-roarin, but not sluggish either. Good texture. What else? I like it. I'm happy.

It's very attractive too. It's more subtle than the photos make it seem in black. It's a small unit... not tall, not too deep. The lettering is subtle, the buttons are nice. I'm not a huge fan of the display... the green color, but you can dim it and it's better. The remote is plastic but logical. You can view remaining time on track, on cd... that feature wasn't avail on wither the Sim or Classe, and I appreciate it here.

I saw the Rotel in a store and it was no better built than the Arcam.

So in a nutshell, it's a really good player for the $ on first impression... no buyers remorse AT ALL!
vaystrem
80 posts
 
Vertewax if you get a chance to read my review of the Arcam 73t let me know. I, personally, am all about PRAT. And where I found the Arcam 73T to fall flat on its face was in this regards in the 'upper frequencies' We had a track we used from Tortoise's T.N.T. Something 'hillside' in which there is a predominant use of chimes. On the Creek & Cary players it was obvious in which pattern/direction and what kind of rhythm was being emphasized, it was obvious. On the Arcam this completely disappeared and even some basic details within this fell apart as well.

I'd be curious if you encounter the same thing. That new Kings of Convenience disc is rather good though isn't it :) Either way I suspect you'll find that the Arcam doesn't hold up 'PRAT' wise throughout the full frequency range.

For PRAT Creek, Bluenote (Stibbert/Koala), or Rega would be preferable based upon my listening. NAIM of course by reputation.
hifinutc4c9
1 posts
 
I have (had) the CD72 and just upgraded to the CD82.

Can't speak for the CD73, but the 72 -> 82 upgrade helped significantly in PRAT, especially the "R".

Will have to experiment and see how it does with the upper end. My initial response is to say it's improved too but I need further listening to confirm.
mphnkns
68 posts
 
This is an old thread, but I thought I'd make mention of one small thing.
I don't know much about the lower line of Arcams, but the FMJ cetainly had no problem that I could see with the higher frequencies. If not waaaaaaaaaaaay extended, they were clearly present and allowed a sense of the venue that would not be present if they were rolled.
As for the PRAT, it's possible I'm wrong, but since I listen to jazz, big band and older (NOT NEWER, ugh!) R&B from the 60s, I think I'd have noticed any pacing issues. Just play Motown stuff to tell if the PRAT is there. Motown's rhythm section was famous for its 'swing.'
Back to the Arcam: thanks for the insight on the lower line of players. I find it surprising that people are saying the soundstage is 'smaller.' I never found that to be the case at all. What is equally likely is that, since the Arcam moves the soundstage back a bit, it appears "smaller," just as it will sound smaller from the balcony at Carnegie Hall than it does from 6th row center.
coffeey's avatar
coffeey
363 posts
 
Forget em both,go with used Arcam cd92,unbeatable.
More to discover