Big difference in amps - tag/rotel has me confused

[weskoki]

This is strange, back in 1993 or 1994 it was one of the top amps to buy at the price range of 350 pounds and below. It recieved 5 star status in publications like What Hifi. It was later dethroned by the Marantz ki signature amps. I have three and I love them, a little tweaking makes them even better, sorry but the Self style amps do sound a little bland in comparison and needs lots of messing about to get nice sound out of them.
The best appraisel I found of this amp was when pitted against the older AKSA amp on a internet page, here the author just plainly said at the end that the aksa was nice but completly outclassed by the 970BX and it was more expensive. Makes one think..... and proves different strokes for different folks.

Rotel 970BX better than Aksa I don't think so.
The 970BX was the worst amp i had in my set up.Honestly worst sound
i have heard.No sound stage,you hear the speakers separately,weak dynamics,real lo-fi.

 

[inteificio]

I have not heard the Aksa but had the 960,970,971 and a mix of norm ax and bx. I was using a stack of them to mono bloc and bi amp my surround set up in uni. Think I had ten of them at 1 point.

The 991 was so much better it was in a different league in every way.

 

[davidsrsb]

Mono and bi-amping would eliminate the Rotel supply rejection weaknesses

 

[Nico Ras]

How many Rotel 970BX were sold and from there one may conclude that the sales were due to the Rotel 970BX being an excellent sounding amp or an extremely cheap amp.

I concur with sgrossklass everything on the internet is true, also if it cannot be found on the internet it does not exist.

 

[inteificio]

If the 970 wasn't good I would not have bought so many.