ROTEL RA-971 Integrated Amplifiers
ROTEL RA-971 Integrated Amplifiers
[Jan 07, 2002]
Henrique Amaral
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
Very clear, natural and agile trebles, imaging and mid-range are very very satisfying, good, well-defined and controlled basses
Weakness:
None. Mid-Range and Bass might disappoint for some tastes, but I sugest a change in speakers then It's for a 971 MkII: Similar Products Used: Rotel, NAD, Audionote, AKAI |
[Oct 15, 2001]
Gad Schafer
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
articulation, ambience, price, built, power
Weakness:
thin metallic condensed treble, overall dryness, too open:as if a reverbe module is involved this review is for the mk2 version. Similar Products Used: cyrus III, nad c-320, creek 4330, kenwood kaf 3030r |
[Dec 17, 1998]
Rpp
an Audio Enthusiast
Good clean 70 Wpc. Maybe not the best, but certainly well worth the money. |
[Jan 21, 1999]
Anthony
an Audio Enthusiast
Anyone out there own this? |
[Mar 14, 1999]
matthias au
an Audio Enthusiast
if you want a system that is fast and detail and doesn't burn a hole in a pocketthis is a amp for you.What more can you ask for a amp that can deliver 70 watts |
[Jun 21, 1999]
Carl
an Audio Enthusiast
This is a quality integrated amp. It has a beautiful, neutral sound. Everything works extremely well, especially when you take into account the extremely low price. I listened to Creek and Rega integrated amps, and both seemed about equal to the 971. But please go listen. Your ears are the only ones that matter. This is a extraordinary product given price, sound and overal quality. You simply cannot go wrong with this amp at this price. |
[Jun 22, 1999]
George
an Audio Enthusiast
I certainly agree with the previous poster....the RA971 is a wonderful amp for the price. Clean, lively, detailed...brings find sound to my speakers. Highly recommended in this price range. |
[Jul 06, 1999]
dennym
an Audio Enthusiast
I've listened to this amp for about two months with a Rotel RC951 cd player, a pair of B&W DM601's, and an M&K VX7-II sub. My point of comparison is a Creek 4330 that I sent back to the retailer. The Rotel has more audible volume and a brighter sound than did the Creek. I like it much better. The Rotel also has tone controls which the Creek did not have. I frequently adjust the tone controls to customize the sound relative to the music being reproduced and my personal taste. While the Rotel's tone controls alter the sound only modestly, it is sufficient for appropriate adjustment. Some very high priced integrated amps similarly lack tone controls. I don't know why. Listening room acoustics, the production disparities of original recordings, and personal preferences seem to suggest the inclusion of tone controls. For $500.00 the Rotel costs, I don't see (hear) any reason to consider another amp. The Rotel is clear, reveals great detailed highs, and easily fills a 13X16 room with rich sound. |
[Jan 01, 2000]
Ket Lim
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
Fast, transparent, refined, Good build quality.
Weakness:
Lacks bottom end drive but not bad. In summary, I was extremely shocked at how refined this amp sounded right out of the box. Detailed and transparent is how I would describe this amp. I had NAD's c340 integrated for about a week before taking it back. I thought the NAD had too much HF rolloff which didn't work too well with the rest of my system. The NAD sounded a little congested in my system. I felt the Rotel sounded closer to my DIA100 and Bryston 3BST/BP20 combo in terms of mid/HF articulation. The Rotel is a little weak on the bottom end compared to the NAD but it's not bad by any means. I also liked the Creek 4330 very much but felt the Rotel was a better value. I highly recommend auditioning this amp before forking out $$$ on more expensive gear!!! Similar Products Used: NAD,Creek,Arcam,Marantz |
[May 12, 1999]
Dido
an Audio Enthusiast
No deep bass, dry mid-bass, forward mid-range, harsh treble, good dynamic, plenty of power, poor finish, filmsy knobs, over-priced.If you like Rotel's sound (it's you choice!) buy a Yamaha, its value for money is far, far, far, far better. |