Rotel RB-1091's and RTi12's - No 2Ch Imaging!

mstang1988

I have owned a pair of RTi12's for almost a year now and shortly after adding the speakers to my system I added Rotel RB-1091's for that extra power the RTi12's need. For the Pre I'm using a Yamaha 5760. So far I have been unable to get the soundstage perfected and get the imaging I want to hear. The B&W 805s's a friend of mine owns provided a much more detailed soundstage and awesome imaging compared to my RTi12's in his setup (rotel 105? receiver). I have the speakers minimum 18 inches from the wall and toe'd in so they meet right behind my head. Has anybody else had such an issue trying to get the RTi12's to give some imaging or am I expecting too much from them? If I'm expecting too much perhaps it's time for an upgrade in speakers... On another note I definately find them a bit bright for most music and are very revealing for low quality recordings but they do make an excellent HT speaker!

treitz3

Hello mstang1988 and welcome to Club Polk. I would suspect the Yammie as a possible issue with the sound stage imaging. As for the brightness, just for your knowledge, these speakers were designed for an HT application and for what they were designed for they do well. Yes, for two channel, they do tend to be a bit bright IMO.

What is the format you are running in 2-channel and what is your source?

mstang1988

Thanks!

Currently I have a ps3/xbox 360 providing a digital (over optical) link and am letting the HTR do the DAC. Previously I had a original xbox using digital and analog and pioneer CD player using analog ins.

treitz3

That's your issue right there. Consider getting a dedicated player such as a Jolida JD100 tubed CDP.

mstang1988

Although I think a better source would most certainly help there was no difference when utilizing my friends Rotel 105? and analog outs from his higher end CD player (I don't know the brand). It worked excellent with his 805s's but my RTi's were meh.

Sherardp

Definitely the source, consider a different CDp, Marantz makes some nice ones in the < 500 price range if you dont want to spend much. My listening experience has been the opposite, I run a D-sonic Magnum 1000S paired with Sony 7100ES as my pre/pro. My source is the Marantz CC4001 using Signal Cable Analog II and upgraded power cord. The 12s are a bit bright, but to me this setup in my room sounds very sweet. Keep working them, you'll get there.

ben62670

First welcome to Club Polk. As stated above the source is probably the problem. Also cheap IC's can flatten your sound stage as well as cheap speaker cables.
Ben

treitz3

I completely agree with the connections being part of the issue. That slipped my mind as part of the equation. Thanks Ben.

Here's a CDP that I suggested for sale right now. http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/81640-jolida_jd100_cd_player/

MADGSF

Well I am going to point at the speakers as being at least part of the imaging problem. I have been on the demo list for the RTi A5 and the VM30 and had an extended time with both. I used them on the system in my signature and nothing was changed other than the speakers.

In both cases the imaging was noticeably better with either demo speaker than with my RTi-10s. This was on the same system with the same artist and source. As for the brightness yes the previous RTi series is very unforgiving and will bring out the brightness in pretty much any music.

mstang1988

I little better -

After realizing I moved my couch I readjusted the toe angle and also the distance of the speaker from the wall for the left speaker (I measured it to make it exactly equal). This was a huge help! As far as the source goes a ps3 is as good as an xbox 360 is as good as any cdp assuming it's using an optical out and sending a 1 to 1 bit stream and letting another component do the DAC (At least this is my understanding). The 5760 is supposed to have decent DAC's as well, they are 192 kHz/24-Bit DAC for all 7 channels. Now the implementation could be bad but in pure stereo mode it sounds pretty good to me! That said the B&W's still do a significantly better job with imaging on identical components (My friends Rotel + rotel source using analog). The RTi's just can't make the soundstage that the 800 series can.

I also use my digital cable box as a source for sound pretty often. I like the soundscapes channel as well as Reggae! Do have any decent sound at all I have to rely on the receiver doing the DAC without spending a great on a standalone DAC.

Hawkeye

Welcome to the club!

I don't think it is fair to compare a pair of $1700 floorstanders and $2500 bookshelves. I have never been able to get box floorstanders to image as well as monitors until I started using Martin Logan ESL's. In my opinion, the 805s is made for music and the RTi12 as many have noted, for HT. Many people have the opinion that if it sounds good for music it should be fine for HT. I don't think that is always a true statement. And certainly not the other way around. Perhaps it is time for you to look into a musical speaker if that is the majority of your use?

While I have no experience using a game box to play music, I think you may be pleasantly surprised of how much better a dedicated player recommended by several guys here would sound over a game box. Using a game box as an all in one source reminds of early audio pieces that had AM/FM, 8-track, and turntable all built into one box. It made music and that was about it.

Gordon

Fatwalnut

Speaker distance settings on you av receiver makes a big difference with imaging. Depending on you seating position, the sound can seem heavy to one side. Adjust the speaker distance setting to balance out the imaging. Mine is set at left 8.5 ft, right 7.5 ft.

mstang1988

I did notice the speaker distance setting on my receiver to make a big difference upon initial setup but I have dialed is as good as it gets.

I know many of you said the source is so important but what is it about the source that improves the quality so much? Is a seperate DAC or CDP with builtin DAC that much better then my receiver 192 kHz/24-Bit DAC's?

My technical knowledge of digital media tells me this:

Bits on CD are read by DVD/CD drive (ps3/360 etc) using a laser and it converts bits from optical to electronic bits 1 to 1 transfer, no loss. Electronic bits are converted to light pulses. 1 to 1 transfer, no loss. Light is transfered from source to receiver with no loss (a bit is still a 0 or 1 using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCM). Remodulated into electrical bits are we are still 1 to 1. DAC samples "bits" and converts them to analog out. The sampling and conversion is the only part that can be different, at least in my mind. If this isn't how the process works please please let me know. To me this means a $100000000000 CDP will perform the same as my $300 xbox 360 as long as the DAC is in the receiver and we are basically operating in transport mode. Sure, I'm certain I could get a better DAC in a CD player then my receiver has but why wouldn't I just buy an even better pre/pro with super nice DAC's with good sampling algorithms.

Face

Get ready to spend some big money if you want a pre/pro or receiver with a good set of DACs. You're better off getting a CDP with a good set of DACs.

Airplay355

Get yourself some new speakers. They aren't the reference theater series for nothing.

nikolas812

mstang1988 wrote: »

I did notice the speaker distance setting on my receiver to make a big difference upon initial setup but I have dialed is as good as it gets.

I know many of you said the source is so important but what is it about the source that improves the quality so much? Is a seperate DAC or CDP with builtin DAC that much better then my receiver 192 kHz/24-Bit DAC's?

My technical knowledge of digital media tells me this:

Bits on CD are read by DVD/CD drive (ps3/360 etc) using a laser and it converts bits from optical to electronic bits 1 to 1 transfer, no loss. Electronic bits are converted to light pulses. 1 to 1 transfer, no loss. Light is transfered from source to receiver with no loss (a bit is still a 0 or 1 using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCM). Remodulated into electrical bits are we are still 1 to 1. DAC samples "bits" and converts them to analog out. The sampling and conversion is the only part that can be different, at least in my mind. If this isn't how the process works please please let me know. To me this means a $100000000000 CDP will perform the same as my $300 xbox 360 as long as the DAC is in the receiver and we are basically operating in transport mode. Sure, I'm certain I could get a better DAC in a CD player then my receiver has but why wouldn't I just buy an even better pre/pro with super nice DAC's with good sampling algorithms.

Your a funny guy....



Welcome to Club Polk!!



Nick

mstang1988

nikolas812 wrote: »

Your a funny guy....



Welcome to Club Polk!!



Nick

Well thanks! I really was interested in that answer though... I'm interested in knowing how good the DAC's are in something like a parasound C1/C2 or when they come out with the rumored C3 (contains HDMI 1.3a, woot!) vs something like CDP's mentioned in the forumn. Also, what makes the DAC's so much better in the CDP for the cost? Really a processor is 7 DAC's and something to control them right? I assume most of the cost of a pre/pro is spent on the DAC's...

On another note I wished I had know the RTi12's were Theatre reference before I bought them but that was when I was a novice audiophile. I still wouldn't trade them for B&W 805s' when it comes to movies! I think next on the list right now is B&W 802D's unless you (anybody with suggestions) can come up something comparable in looks and sound vs cost used (around 8K + 3-4K for center). When this happens I'll be going to JC1 mono's for L/C/R which adds another 6K, eek! That's why I am planning on adding a parasound pre/pro to the mix when I find the right used unit!

Hawkeye

Please clarify something please. Your planning on spending 18k on on speaks and amps and plan on using a x-box as a source?

nikolas812

I told ya he's a funny guy.:rolleyes:



Nick

F1nut

DAC's are not the only part of the equation. Power supply, the transport, SS or tube output stages, the power cord and cable choices are a few more.

That said, I'd suggest you look at replacing both your speakers and source.

mstang1988

It could be worse right, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=600778. Now if system really does sound that good then that's awesome!

My source is up in the air, I'm trying to figure out the best route to take. I obviously need to upgrade my pre/pro and really to something that will handle HDMI 1.3a would be nice so perhaps I'll have to wait for the parasound unit debuting pretty soon. That said the last I checked the ps3 will play DVD-A, SACD, DVD, ..., and CD and pass it via PCM using HDMI 1.3. It' seems to get good reviews doing it this way and I'm fairly certain the DAC's in the new parasound unit should do it justice.

What are the issues with letting the Pre/Pro do the DAC conversion? The rumored "Parasound C3" should have good DAC's as it should for the price. I'm assuming it will be in the 6K range and hopefully I'll be able to find a used unit shortly after they come out.

The reason why I wish the Pre/Pro to do the DAC is because my PS3/360 are just the “transport” from my PC via the network. It’s a great way to get the media in the living room in a small package that is already there anyway.

nikolas812

So yeah, I may be a funny guy but I'm asking the question about DAC's and the digital to analog conversion process but so far I haven't heard any thing from you that seems to be worth reading. If the PCM signal is being transported from the CD-ROM in the 360/PS3 containing the disc in a 1-to-1 format (no loss) to the DAC residing wherever I don't see why that's a bad choice and if you can tell me why it is I'm all ears. I love learning and if you can really give me good reasons as to why this is a bad choice other then “it’s a bad choice” then I would be stoked. Sure, I’m not dumb enough to trust the analog outs on the PS3 as they are crap, that’s a no brainer.

I'm really trying to figure out if the DAC's in the parasound Pre/Pro's (C1/C2/C3) will be as good as a CDP similar to those listed above or at what price point the DAC’s are about equal.

The biggest issue for me is my library primarily resides in digital format on a PC so spending a ton on a nice CDP is much much less useful then spending some money to get some good DAC's in the Pre/Pro or maybe even a little on separate DAC’s and figuring out the best method to get my PC media through that DAC without kill the multi-channel digtal on the 360/PS3.

I have also been looking at the benchmark DAC1 and DAC1 PRE just in-case I really need a separate DAC to get the quality I want (mostly from my computer stored digital media). It’s an option but doesn’t seem to be the best right now, I’m thinking more Pre/Pro.

Face

Now you have me curious, when I have time later this week I'll try my x-box as a transport vs. my two CDP's and PC music server.

mstang1988

Face

Thanks, you'll have to let me know how that goes! What type of DAC will be doing the decoding? What type of CDP's do you have? How will the CDP's be hooked up vs the xbox and the pc? Will you be using an orginal xbox or an xbox 360? I know original xbox's can be used via a xbox media center hack and they work great! I think they can even play Monkey Audio ripped files which are lossless and if you get the S-Video or Component High def outs you also get Optical Digital outs. On my Xbox 360 I also turned it to "stereo" so I'm not getting the 5.1 channel out of the music. The PS3 is smarter and auto does 2ch. What Pre/Pro + Amp's + Speakers do you have? Thanks again and I'm glad you have some interest in answering the question :-)

nikolas812

Sorry for being so rude. I don't know why I responded the way I did.

But I am having trouble understanding why you want to use the DAC's in a Pre/pro so bad.

As for the information you have been giving about how information is sent via a transport to a DAC or whatever. I don't really understand it.

I just know what I have heard in difference between sources when using the DAC's that are in the sources. I have used anything from a PS3, a cheap Sony DVD player, an Oppo, a Denon 2900, a Jolida JD100 and a Raysonic cD128 just to name a few. And the higher up I went the better the sound got. The Raysonic has been the best out of all of them and the Jolida was not too far behind it.

Are you just trying to save money by not buying a decent source in hopes that a dac in a pre/pro will suffice? Either way it doesn't make sense to me. IF your going to spend 18k on speakers or whatever. Why not get a good source to compliment it all?

Just curious and I am trying to better understand the situation.

Cheers


Nick

mstang1988

Realistically I love being able to switch music instantly and not have to spend the time swapping out CD's and being able to sort music by artist/album/genre etc. I have around 30,000 songs on my PC in MP3 format which is my primary source (going the route via xbox 360/ps3) and around 600 CD's that I've collected over the years. Most CD's have 1 or 2 songs I enjoy so it's a pain to play one, swap etc. It would also be nice to have the DAC be great for all sources and all future sources. It kinda confuses me as to why I would spend a bunch on a nice CDP then swap to a new technology and have to reinvest the money again in the source when I could initially get good DAC's in the Pre/Pro which allows for good sound from DVD, CD, DVD-A, SACD, MP3/PC, Xbox 360, PS3, Digital cable audio, etc.

Now that I know you have tried all the sources I appreciate your feedback. How did you have them hooked up and what was your DAC's that were used? What was your processor or preamp you were using?

As far as the tech I was describing imagine sending an email that is composed only of 1's and 0's being sent through the internet. It may hit dozens of other computers along the way but at it's destination it is exactly the same as when you sent it. That's basically the way PCM (Pulse code modulation) audio works when reading a CD, it's all 1's and 0's that are read via a laser and then transported to wherever to be decoded to an analog signal. PCM is an approximation of the sound using bit's instead of an analog feed(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/cdplay3.html). If you really want to know more about how the technology works read up in binary numbers and PCM. This is also a good read: http://www.mediatechnics.com/cdaudio.htm

I luckily have a very good understanding of binary numbers and how they are used in electronic equipment which really leaves me baffled on how anything other then the DAC's (I'm saying the DAC's include any interference they receive, the power for the DAC's, etc) could affect the sound. I guess it's possible to have read errors on a CD but I thought the format took this into account.

Thanks for trying to help this time, I do appreciate it! It's my engineering (Computer Science and Electrical Engineering background) that is getting the best of me. I work with bit's all day long and know a 0 is ALWAYS a 0 and a 1 is ALWAYS a 1 no matter where you send it to unless the hardware malfunctions along the way. If this wasn't true the the internet would be a big fail.

Face

Click on the "SYSTEM SHOWCASE" up top and take a look.

Hawkeye

Maybe I'm getting suckered in here but I thought this was an imaging problem? While I'm not an engineer, I work with Electrical and Mechnical engineers everyday. There is a difference between what they see in the lab and real world applications In some cases the lab results just won't work when put into practical , hands on application. Sometimes, science just does not work. In audio, I think there is a litttle bit of magic in each piece designed. You're much better versed in the science of 1's and 0's than I will ever be. I just know that when I sprinkle a little bit of Hi Karate on my speaker wires, the soundsatge opens up tremendously. (poor attempt at audio humor)

Anyway is this what you have in mind?

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/mcintosh-ms750-music-server.asp

mstang1988

It was a imaging problem that quickly turned into a source problem...

There is a difference between lab and the real world, that is absolutely true when it comes to some things. I wish I could sprinkle a little "Hi Karate" on my RTi's and make them better!

That mac looks interesting, I'll have to look into it!

Ok, back from looking. Great idea but sounds so painfull to load! When I ripped my collection I used 4 computers at a time ripping to networked drives :-) http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/108mac/index1.html

I also found it interesting that the reviewer loaded it using his Sony CDP-CX400 using toslink optical. It's a < $500 400 disc player.

I also found this interesting and it is probably the answer to the source question:

However, my experiences with the Bel Canto e.One DAC3 make me question the "mission critical" aspect of the McIntosh's D/A conversion—which is, presumably, the part of the MS750 that McIntosh enthusiasts expect to be built "Mac tough."

There are still logical reasons why a consumer might buy a McIntosh MS750, especially if cost is no constraint. In that case, go ahead and get the Mac and the digital processor of your choice. But a little bit of computer savvy, a $300 Slim Devices Squeezebox, and that same processor will get you to the same sonic place for significantly less.

RutgersFTW

Even a basic, inexpensive dedicated CD player could provide better CD sound and imaging than the game consoles. He doesn't have to go all in to get 95% of what he wants.

Hawkeye

RutgersFTW wrote: »

Even a basic, inexpensive dedicated CD player could provide better CD sound and imaging than the game consoles. He doesn't have to go all in to get 95% of what he wants.

True, however he seems to want all his music on computer and does not want to spin cds. I can understand why with a large library already there. Me, I'm not sure yet this is the way to go. I get a bit of enjoyment of loading the cd, probably the same as those into vinyl and that ritual.

CDs will probably become obsolete in several years for various reasons. Much the way everything else has.

Gordon

mstang1988

Hawkeye wrote: »

True, however he seems to want all his music on computer and does not want to spin cds. I can understand why with a large library already there. Me, I'm not sure yet this is the way to go. I get a bit of enjoyment of loading the cd, probably the same as those into vinyl and that ritual.

CDs will probably become obsolete in several years for various reasons. Much the way everything else has.

Gordon

Yup, my digital library makes it way to easy for me to think about CD's. I have actually tried an older basic Pioneer CD player I had laying around using analog vs the digital outs on my game console + DAC's in the 5760. The game console digital out + 5760 DAC wins hands down! Imaging, clarity, it's significantly better using this method.

The review about the mac piece leads me to believe that perhaps using any old source plus a good DAC will do what I want. In the review he did exactly what I did, move a bit for bit copy from the "media" to a DAC. The mac DAC did much worse the the Bel Canto unit and ultimately his real "source" was a cheap 200-300 dollar CDP using optical out. Because it was a bit for bit copy into the MAC the source was never degraded, thus the Bel Canto was able to produce good sound.