[mfsoa]

Hi everyone,
While my D200s were out getting the XLRs changed to RCAs, I borrowed a brand-new Rotel RB-1072 (100wpc, ICEpower, $899 list) for a week or two. Since the Rotel is stereo and my monoblocks sit behind my speakers, I had to use some different cables so I don't mean this to be a review of the Rotel. But I can say I was often actually spooked at the imaging and speaker-disappear-iness of the Rotel, even with at least decade-old crummy Monster Cable speaker cables (I use bare-end Anti-cable for the D200s). Images definitely more up front with the Rotel v. the D200s.

Anyway, upon reinserting the D200s and letting them play for a few days, I get the sense that the sound is kinda "stuck" in the speakers- That it doesn't leap out the way I'd like it to. I sometimes had this feeling prior to the XLR swap as well. And that the eerie sense of imaging that I got w/ the Rotel just isn't quite there. Perhaps the D200s are actually more accurate and I'm picking up on some quirk or distortion w/ the Rotel that I just perceive to favorable, I don't know. D200s were more refined (a nice word for dull and lifeless?), but maybe that's not what my ears want.

My room is now very well damped and this may be infuencing my perception, and remember that this is not apples v. apples due to cabling difference (and I think the Rotel was plugged into a Rotel RLC-1040 power conditioner and the D200s go right into the wall (not dedicated circuite BTW)).

But has anyone familiar with the D200s experienced this? Fabulous bass but a midrange (or is it the highs that would be doing this?) that seems somewhat recessed and lifeless? I am using TARA RSC Reference Gen II CD to pre and pre to amps - Is this a laid-back cable?

Is what I'm hearing characteristic of ICE vs. UcD (if such generalizations are possible/valid?)

I need to play around with cables, I know. Maybe it'd be fun to give the big (500 wpc ICE) Rotel a try!

I don't mean to criticise the D200s, this may be purely a system-room synergy observation. But does anyone concur with what I'm hearing? That I'd like more Rice Crispies (snap crackle and pop) than the D200s give?

Anyone moved on from the D200s for this reason?

Thanks for making it through the rambling!

-Mike

[ralflar]

Hi Mike,

Not sure what to say since I think that midrange is just as much a strength of the D-200s as are the highs and bass. And they do pull off the disappearing act very well in my room and system, even when my eyes are open.

The panels on Logans are not easy to drive. The impedance vs frequency plot looks like a roller coaster ride. The nominal impedance is 4 Ohm. Yeah right. There are peaks over 30 Ohm and troughs below 2 Ohm.

In my opinion and experience the D-200 UCDs do a much better job of driving this kind of load than a pair of Rotel 1091 ICEpower based monos which I had bought and auditioned at the same time as the D-200s. At $3k w/out tax these Rotels are significantly more expensive than the D-200s, and their build quality is poor. Their sound staging was OK, on par with the D-200s. Compared to the CIAs they sounded liveless and uninvolving. So I returned them.

[gme109]

Hi everyone,
While my D200s were out getting the XLRs changed to RCAs, I borrowed a brand-new Rotel RB-1072 (100wpc, ICEpower, $899 list) for a week or two. Since the Rotel is stereo and my monoblocks sit behind my speakers, I had to use some different cables so I don't mean this to be a review of the Rotel. But I can say I was often actually spooked at the imaging and speaker-disappear-iness of the Rotel, even with at least decade-old crummy Monster Cable speaker cables (I use bare-end Anti-cable for the D200s). Images definitely more up front with the Rotel v. the D200s.

Anyway, upon reinserting the D200s and letting them play for a few days, I get the sense that the sound is kinda "stuck" in the speakers- That it doesn't leap out the way I'd like it to. I sometimes had this feeling prior to the XLR swap as well. And that the eerie sense of imaging that I got w/ the Rotel just isn't quite there. Perhaps the D200s are actually more accurate and I'm picking up on some quirk or distortion w/ the Rotel that I just perceive to favorable, I don't know. D200s were more refined (a nice word for dull and lifeless?), but maybe that's not what my ears want.

My room is now very well damped and this may be infuencing my perception, and remember that this is not apples v. apples due to cabling difference (and I think the Rotel was plugged into a Rotel RLC-1040 power conditioner and the D200s go right into the wall (not dedicated circuite BTW)).

But has anyone familiar with the D200s experienced this? Fabulous bass but a midrange (or is it the highs that would be doing this?) that seems somewhat recessed and lifeless? I am using TARA RSC Reference Gen II CD to pre and pre to amps - Is this a laid-back cable?

Is what I'm hearing characteristic of ICE vs. UcD (if such generalizations are possible/valid?)

I need to play around with cables, I know. Maybe it'd be fun to give the big (500 wpc ICE) Rotel a try!

I don't mean to criticise the D200s, this may be purely a system-room synergy observation. But does anyone concur with what I'm hearing? That I'd like more Rice Crispies (snap crackle and pop) than the D200s give?

Anyone moved on from the D200s for this reason?

Thanks for making it through the rambling!

-Mike

My experience with the D200's does not reflect your criticism of the midrange or imaging one bit. The mids are focused and very present, with plenty of life and sparkle. Imaging is also exceptional, giving no clue as to the speaker's location. So I'd say it's something else in your system or room that's sucking the life out of the midrange and keeping the music from breaking free from your speakers. Before moving on to other amps, I'd try, as you say, playing around with other speaker cables. I'd also try to make your comparisons as close to apples vs. apples as possible. Use the same speaker cables, and try plugging the D200' into your line conditioner. I've had a lot of amps come through my system, and I have to say, the D200's are one of the most balanced sounding amps I've heard. As simple as it is to hook up all this equipment, it's never as easy as plug and play, when it comes to achieving optimal sound. And maybe in the end, your personal preferences will favor the sound of the Rotel amp over the D200's.

[mfsoa]

Thank you both for your replies,
Rafler - I certainly agree that the CIA build quality - or look and feel if you will, appears superior to the Rotel.

I'll play with my ICs before the speaker cables, since the move to the Anti speaker cable gave me more of the immediacy I was looking for when I put them in a few months back. (relative to the Bluejeans Belden)

The issue could be with the ICs. I may be caught in the "well, they're my most expensive cables (the TARAs) so let me use them first cause I don't want to think that my homemade ICs (either DIYCable Canare kit or other home-mades based on the same Canare cable) are actually much better than what I paid for commercial cable" trap. But hey if that's the case so be it - It wouldn't be the first time I'm sure!

Again, thanks for your valuable input.

[Robert57]

I wonder if using long IC's to your separated CIA monos, instead of short IC's and long speaker cables, are responsible for much of the difference you are hearing. FWIW, Dusty recommended to me to use short IC's and long speaker cables. So I agree with the others, I think you should use the same cable set-up in comparing your amps before reaching any conclusions. Please report back your findings.

Rob

[mfsoa]

Robert,
Certainly it may be best to reverse my long/short situation, but currently my ICs to the amps are only 2M so that's not too bad. And I love the idea of biwiring (see "AHA moment" below) with the Anticables at about $7 per speaker!

And also I know it'd be best to use the same cabling for comparison but the loan of the Rotel was more to just have music while my D200s were out than as a serious audition. But I thought I may have learned something from the experience which is what prompted me to post. I'm far from ready to say I liked the Rotel better, overall, than the D200s - Sorry if that's what it sounded like. I'm sure the smoother mids of the D200s would work better for much source material.

AHA moment - I just realized that with the Rotel I ran the 15' of old (I mean old, dirty, corroded etc) Monster Cable to the woofer module and then ran Anticable up from there to the tweeter-mid module. With the D200s I run biwire Antis. I have read some say that a single run to the VR4s, and then connect the two modules with another cable (not the jumper/datalink config) was better than true biwire. Haven't tried that. So that's another possible variable.

[kenk]

I think this is the “presence” is the sound signature of the current ICE power amp.    I just got the bel canto ref1000 (basically a stock ICE module amp) and I was very surprise by the “presence” of the amp.  Again this might not be the accurate sound but nevertheless is the sound that I personally like.......for now 

See review on six moons the said the same thing

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/eone2/1000.html