$300 for older Rotel/Outlaw or do something else?


I'm interested in easing into the Home Theater world and I'm thinking about using an older sound processor couple with three identical dual channel (120w/ch.) amplifiers to get something 5.1 up and running.

I'm leaning toward something enry level but well rated, like a Rotel RSP-1066 or Outlaw 950, both are in the $300 or less delivered range.

Is this a reasonable move or is there a better way to spend $300 these days for the same result.

I realize I won't get HDMI audio or switching, but I can output Blu-Ray video directly to the HDTV and optical out for excellent, but not lossless, audio.

Is this a reasonable plan? Thank you!
alpha220
I picked up a used, but mint, Rotel RSP-1066 (for under $300 delivered) from a forum member here. I swapped out my old preamp for the Rotel and so far, so good.

Since I didn't have a Blu-Ray player, I started a little research, but it seems the only real choice in the entry level price range is the Oppo BDP-80 for $289.

The BDP-80 has the on-board decoding and multi-channel outputs, and thankfully, the Rotel has the multi-channel inputs! I'll be able to make the same connetion as Johnnyb53 suggests.

I don't have a subwoofer at this point, but I suppose I can add one later. To someone used to listening to two speakers, five speakers seems like a good start.

Thanks to the forum members for the tips.
"Outlaw over Rotel by a margin." That won't help me much at this point, but it may help others. Why so? The features of the two are certainly similar. Is the sound or video quality much better with the Outlaw? Two channel mode better, too?
02-22-10: Alpha220
"Outlaw over Rotel by a margin." That won't help me much at this point, but it may help others.
Don't even give it a second thought. You made a good purchase decision, maybe the better one. I have an Outlaw 950 and had their "Retro Receiver" for almost a month before I sent it back. I don't think Outlaw is all that. As I said the 950 has a good line stage and so-so digital surround processing. I've also heard the Rotels from that era and they stood out at their price points, especially for a very natural, un-electronic sound quality. Your Rotel has a more usable set of I/Os and all the ones you need to connect a Blu-ray player's analog outputs. If you plug other SP/DIF digital cables into the Rotel for Dolby Digital, DTS, and the like, you'll get excellent surround sound. The Rotel's even nicer looking.
Yes, no HD codec processing via 1.3 - true.
Another strong point is you're very likely (depending on room, setup, and acoustical factors) going to have to live with peaky lower fidelity sound, that will likely have you diving for the volume control durring loud/peaks in passages, and then going up on the volume during quiet dialog and average sounds, if you lack better EQ technology in the chain. The benefit of the technologies that do room EQ is that they can help flatten your sound, to greatly avoid these issues! My 20 years experience suggests this point is a huge benefit toward building audiophile grade accurate sound reproduction.
In fact, I once did a system for a guy with higher end monitors and amplification, who had a Rotel 5.1 pre in his system, untill I showed him his measurements at key frequencies with his setup. When I substituted a modest processor with a Parametric EQ built in, he unanmously was in favor of the overall sound with the otherwise cheaper pre for his remaining budget allocation. He sold the THX Rotel.
When you take into consideration that the average, even larger sized rooms will leave you with 20db+ peaks and holes in critical frequency response ranges often, having a well EQ'd system (Audyssey?!) is priceless. In fact, I wouldn't go without a better EQ anymore, almost without exception (exception: highly acoustically engineered, meticulously setup systems/rooms). And I say this having used the likes of Krell HTS 5.1, upgraded Acurus ACT 3 (stage one status), Mac MX130, Aragon Soundstage 5.1, and similar in my processor collection over the years. So, I like great fidelity myself.
Considering all that, I'd much rather see you with something like a mid level more current AV receiver, using them as a pre-pro, via the pre-out's - before considering the otherwise good sounding Outlaws, Parasounds, Rotels, even older Krells (much better fundamental fidelity).
You should consider all factors before chosing. Fundamentallly, good pre-pro's offer some better core sonics than a receiver's preamp section. Still, technology keeps upping the ante, with better DAC's, construction, video processing, DSP room correction (invaluable), and more! And some of these receivers are pretty clean as pre's, to boot. Not to shabby.
If I had to say some area's that separates pre-pro's have typically outperformed their receiver counterparts in the pre section, it would be dynamics, noise floor(and thus potential perceived detail with quite room), channel separation, and overall refinement of sound, often. Still, some receivers, I've found, do very well as pre's also - all things considered.
I guess I'm saying I recommend against the cheaper, older 5.1 pre's for you. Rather see you in something like used Harmon Kardon AVR-354 or 254 as pre's, Denon Entry's, or similar, with all the latest - with the price range you're looking. But, nice thing is you can simply buy something and either return it or sell it if you're not happy. Makes comparing products easy in todays market. Then you'll know