nad vs rotel sound for difficult speaker load

[dsx123]

considering these preamps:
nad 1600/ 1150 ( i hear this series sounds better then the monitor series)
rotel rc 972

and these amps, for a set of magnepans:
nad 2700
rotel rb-990bx
rotel rb-1070


Im wondering if anyone has experience with any of these amps/preamps, and how they compare. Im also wondering if anyone has experience with the sound signature of 80s nad vs 90s rotel.

Im starting to think i may go with a 1150 pre/ rotel power amp combo

I love the sound of the older nad stuff, (Im stocking up on de-oxit and solder in the meantime haha)
but rotel is the one brand i havent tried, Although i had a 1980s rotel receiver, im wondering if the sound signature of that would be similar to their 90s gear? Im also wondering if anyone has a description of the difference in sound between 80s nad and 90s rotel. Im thinking the nad is warmer but still accurate, and the rotel is less warm, but more accurate. thanks in advance, and good karma to you all for the advice so far.

 

[goodolpg]

I have an NAD 1700 and like it.
I also have a Rotel RB-990BX and think it's a nice powerful amp. If my Crown XLS2000 were to go down I'd use the Rotel/NAD combo here.

I have not tried them together but I think it would be a decent combination.

JMO, YMMV.

 

[xero-D-hero]

I dont recall there being a NAD 1150 preamp,there is the 1155 preamp though,and personally I dont care for that one,as it has that screwy record/listen selector knob set-up that was popular among a few stereo co.s back in the day (NAD,Adcom,et-al).

And the 1600 is technically a pre/tuner.

IIRC that 1600 uses the preamp section of the Monitor series 1000 preamp & the 4100 tuner section.
And that 1700 uses the preamp section of the Monitor series 1300 preamp & the 4300 tuner section.

I do infact own the 1300 and 106 (updated 1000s) NAD preamps,and both those are Monitor series preamps.
I feel both are excellent sounding preamps myself,so I have no qualms recommending that 1600 pre/tuner @ all.

I also have the NAD 2600 power amp too (non-THX version of the 2700),so yeah I feel that's a fairly safe bet for an amp as well.

I like Rotel gear as well,I just have'nt had any personal experience with any of those specific units mentioned,so I cant advise on those one way or the other.

Of the two Rotel amps I'd tend to favor the RB-990bx based on a cursory glance @ the specs for both those amps,I really like the RB-990bx amp's 1000 damping factor.

FWIW

Bret P.

 

[Olecranon]

I have a Rotel RC-972 and an RB-980BX driving a pair of Vandersteen 2CE Signatures. The Vandersteen 2's aren't quite as tough of a load as a pair of maggies, but they can drop down to 4 ohm range. The Vandersteen 2's are 86dB efficiency rated, so they like a fair bit of power. I've been very happy with this combination for over a decade. The RB-980BX is 120 watts/channel and I've never felt that the Vandys sounded like they need more power. I also have a Rotel RB-1080 which is a newer 200 watt/channel Rotel Amplifier that I like a lot.

The RC-972 is a simple preamp, but I think it sounds fantastic. It's well built and a nice compliment to Rotel amplifiers. The RC-972 is also remote control capable if you should desire. It doesn't seem like a remote would be a big deal, but it's nice not to have to get up and adjust the volume when your zoning to some tunes. The RC-972 also has two sets of pre-outs. I've used them for biamping in the past and it worked great.

Unfortunately I can't help you with a direct comparison between NAD and Rotel. I've had my RC-972 and RB-980BX since the mid 90's with zero issues ever. I also have a Rotel RCD-950 CD player from the same era that still works perfectly. Previous to the Vandersteen 2CE's I used the gear with a pair of DCM Timewindow 1a's and thought that was a very nice combination. IMO the Rotel sound is smooth and non fatiguing with nice controlled bass without sounding thin.

As you can tell, I like Rotel gear.

 

[jheu02]

For slightly newer gear, I have a Rotel RC-1070 feeding a NAD C270 driving AR-3a's, which are a somewhat taxing load to drive. No problems whatsoever.