Rotel DT-6000 Review & Measurements (CD Player / DAC)

[Doodski]

So why help a "competitor" to come to the audiophile market? Connected?

That's a good question. Perhaps they share technology or Rotel is being well compensated when supplying components for the Oppo gear. It's not the first time I've seen this sort of thing occurring. Does Rotel offer anything similar to the Oppo gear? If so they might be sharing other components than the transformer and or models that are rebranded as Oppo and Rotel. The electronics manufacturing is sometimes done by totally unrelated companies and then the branding is applied to differentiate the brands even if they come out of the same factory.

 

[restorer-john]

Rotel are simply supplying, or did supply the toroidals. Sansui was a transformer manufacturer back in the day, as are several others including Bando, who manufacture audio transformers for just about everyone. Yamaha had their own (I think they owned it) transformer plant in Japan, but in the 80s switched to Kaga Components and Bando for Japanese production.

Bando Electronics Group -Official-

Bando Electronics Group provides the highest quality power transformers for audio as a leading manufacturer

bando-elec.co.jp

They then used to use KGComp (Malaysia) transformers as did Sony and many other brands.

Kaga Components Malaysia: OEM, Switching Power Supply, EMS, Transformer, Surface Mount Technology SMT

aga Components Malaysia is a Japanese Base manufacturing company which was established in the Year 2000. It is a subsidiary to Kaga Components Co. Ltd, Tokyo Japan. We are the OEM and EMS company which provide products and services to local and oversea major clients

www.kgcompo.com.my

People need to realize the sticker on the top is just that, a sticker. They don't make the transformer and mostly never did.

 

[pseudoid]

...People need to realize the sticker on the top is just that, a sticker. They don't make the transformer and mostly never did.

Making transformers is nothing magical anymore, is it?
Like the factories that build electronics around them, they are all-robotics.

No! The building is not for sale but you can rent that signage and replace it with Rotel.

 

[restorer-john]

Some of Bando's customers:

 

[solderdude]

Right, but how would these affect actual measurements?

John most likely, just like me, has seen many eye-patterns while adjusting the focus, tracking, laser power of CDP's
The true test discs (I still have some Technics test discs that were lightly scratched) have excellent (exemplary even) eyepatterns.
These test discs can have deliberate 'optical errors' that can be used to check tracking/focussing.
Such discs must have an excellent eye pattern which is important when adjusting/repairing a transport.
They will not have test signals an analyzer uses but usually only some basic frequencies, sweeps, test music excerpts and some other test signals.

Once you've seen what eye-pattern comes out of a CDR(W) disc it is amazing some older CDP's could actually get something meaningful out of those discs.
It also explains why older CDP's will not play CDR let alone CDRW.
One would not believe how poor some pressed CD's are (eye-pattern) as well, even when pristine looking.
This is a decent one, test CD's usually look less 'fuzzy'. Any CDP should have no troubles reading such a disc.

That said, laser pickups, electronics and mechanics have improved over the years and so most transports these days have no problems reading CDR's.

So... when such a transport is used with a home burnt sweep or test signals the results will, very likely, be just as good.
For a repair guy such discs are unusable as CDR are no reference for the optical part. Some CDPs are very lenient to 'disc quality' others less so.
The very lenient ones will play test signals just fine as long as the readout part is in decent shape.

So from an engineer/service p.o.v. CDR's are worthless (unless it is to check if a repaired player can actually play such optical horrors) and real test CD are essential.
In your case the test signals are, given your test results, more than good enough and original discs, if they even had the needed test signals, would not give better results.

 

[Robbo99999]

This just seems like an expensive antiquated product! There's not really a good argument for using CD's for everyday playback, if you do buy CD's (which I do sometimes) you can just rip them to your PC using a $10 USB CD player, then you can check if they're bit-perfect rips by using PerfectTunes AccurateRip (https://www.dbpoweramp.com/perfecttunes.htm ). Then all you need is a good seperate DAC attached to your PC, like a $100 Topping DAC that measures better than this antiquated CD Player, plus you're guaranteed that the playback will be perfect each time because they're bit-perfect rips. That's all vs this expensive EUR 2299 product. It's mostly just audio jewellery.

 

[restorer-john]

There's not really a good argument for using CD's for everyday playback

Actually sunshine, there's a really good reason and argument to use CDs for everyday playback. I do it. My best audiophile friends do it, my partner does it (in her car) and my 90 year old father does.

By all means, delude yourself. It's funny to watch, especially when you call this product 'antiquated'. Absolutely no idea.

 

[Rottmannash]

Perhaps we should create a poll and see how many of us use a CD player regularly. I can't remember the last time I put one in and played it.

 

[Robbo99999]

Actually sunshine, there's a really good reason and argument to use CDs for everyday playback. I do it. My best audiophile friends do it, my partner does it (in her car) and my 90 year old father does.

By all means, delude yourself. It's funny to watch, especially when you call this product 'antiquated'. Absolutely no idea.

It's obviously not the easiest & most convenient/efficient way to playback good quality audio. I already outlined in my previous post how ridiculous it is to spend EUR 2299 on something that plays CD's and has a DAC included - it's just audio jewellery and it's antiquated audio jewellery at that.

 

[restorer-john]

It's obviously not the easiest & most convenient/efficient way to playback good quality audio. I already outlined in my previous post how ridiculous it is to spend EUR 2299 on something that plays CD's and has a DAC included - it's just audio jewellery and it's antiquated audio jewellery at that.

Not at all. For someone who has many thousands of CDs and enjoys perfect CDDA playback on demand, how is that "antiquated audio jewelry"?

 

[Robbo99999]

Not at all. For someone who has many thousands of CDs and enjoys perfect CDDA playback on demand, how is that "antiquated audio jewelry"?

"Jewellery" because unnecessarily expensive for what it does but it's pretty, and "antiquated" because it's a CD player. If someone really has to have the act of getting up to put a new CD each time and choosing which track to play then that's their own "quirk", and then in that case then of course you'd have to have a CD player, but it doesn't make sense for people without that quirk. As I said before it makes sense to rip all your CD's losslessly to a laptop or something that will play them back losslessly - the upside being you can also check that they're ripped bit-perfectly (no errors), and you can also ensure that they'll be played back bit-perfectly with a lot more reliability than a CD that can scratched or damaged. Plus you have the ability to create playlists, they're more portable, etc. Antiquated Audio Jewellery.

 

[VintageFlanker]

It's obviously not the easiest & most convenient/efficient way to playback good quality audio.

How exactly extracting CDs, checking that the tracks extracted are bitperfect and then play these files through a PC to an external DAC is more convenient/efficient... than direct CD playback? I mean, yes, streaming is more convenient, but this...

 

[Short38]

With the streaming functionality built into the Rotel, it is not antiquated. To me what is odd is the lack of s/pdif out. In the same general price range with greater functionality is the Marantz 30n and the Technics G 700. With those you get s/pdif and SACD as well as steaming hub. As noted in an earlier post I ended up with an smsl dac and a Rotel cd player to spin cds. So if my hearing improves with age and playback technology goes beyond the state of the art, I’ll be ready to upgrade. Meanwhile it takes all kind of critters to make audiophile fritters.

 

[Owl]

What I'm hearing is that it's to much work to stand up and change a CD. Does everybody just sit in front of a computer now days, cellphone in one hand and the other, God knows where. Really, have people become that lazy?

 

[Galliardist]

How exactly extracting CDs, checking that the tracks extracted are bitperfect and then play these files through a PC to an external DAC is more convenient/efficient... than direct CD playback? I mean, yes, streaming is more convenient, but this...

It becomes streaming of both your streaming service, and of your own music, from the same place. At my computer (though at the moment I'm streaming from the Qobuz app) I can search for tracks both from streaming and my own collection through the same interface - given that I have a lot of private issue classical CDs, I can find pieces in both places for playback and comparison, and sometimes do.

On my main system, I'm currently playing discs (no dedicated streamer or PC there at the moment). My partner prefers discs as she isn't always happy with touchscreens and phone apps. The sound, at least, is not antiquated.

Where this player falls down is when you want DSP or EQ, because you really need digital out for that: but all you need then is a transport, not a full player, anyway!

 

[Galliardist]

That's a good question. Perhaps they share technology or Rotel is being well compensated when supplying components for the Oppo gear. It's not the first time I've seen this sort of thing occurring. Does Rotel offer anything similar to the Oppo gear? If so they might be sharing other components than the transformer and or models that are rebranded as Oppo and Rotel. The electronics manufacturing is sometimes done by totally unrelated companies and then the branding is applied to differentiate the brands even if they come out of the same factory.

Oppo gear doesn't come out of any factory these days, and hasn't for several years now, at least for audio or video equipment. It's purely a phone brand now (different company).

 

[DanielT]

I don't understand the fuss about whether you should listen to one or the other solution (physical media vs streaming). You can do that however you want. In addition, you can mix and use different sources. One source does not exclude the other.
A lot of people here at ASR listen to vinyl, for example, but I think that those who enjoy vinyl don't imagine better sound quality than lossless streaming then. Vinyl listening for reasons other than streaming music listening. Maybe a bit the same as listening to CDs (even if the sound quality is better than vinyl)?
In addition to that, I guess that vinyl listeners (even many who listen to CDs) also listen to streamed music. At least those who are active here at ASR.

If you were to keep a diary of what systems and solutions you listen to for a week, it might turn out to be more than you initially thought? FM radio in the car stereo, the kitchen radio, some Bluetooth listening (headphones when I'm cleaning and out walking in the woods for example), Tablet, TV, some old crappy (or good old) stereo in the basement and so on.

 

[Mart68]

It's obviously not the easiest & most convenient/efficient way to playback good quality audio. I already outlined in my previous post how ridiculous it is to spend EUR 2299 on something that plays CD's and has a DAC included - it's just audio jewellery and it's antiquated audio jewellery at that.

I spent that on something that plays CDs and doesn't have a DAC included...

It's not jewellery as it does have a practical use i.e it play CDs - and I will enjoy using it and looking at it. Not so with a computer (or with my current transport).

There's no way I am going through the long and tedious process of copying all my CDs onto a hard drive. Then have to select and play music via plasticky clicky-mouse thing instead of browsing a physical library and then inserting disc into a player with well-machined buttons and switches in a fancy anodised case with a pretty display.

I rarely have it in my head what I want to listen to so I like to browse the shelves.

Plus the SQ is not antiquated and you can choose which mastering you want.

These are all non-ridiculous reasons for using CD.

Given the discs are so cheap now it amazes me that more people aren't using CD.

 

[Robbo99999]

How exactly extracting CDs, checking that the tracks extracted are bitperfect and then play these files through a PC to an external DAC is more convenient/efficient... than direct CD playback? I mean, yes, streaming is more convenient, but this...

Once you've done it then it's more convenient everytime, plus it's portable if you put them on a phone or something. The act of playing CD's "everyday" is antiquated, sure some people can do it if they want (of course!), but I'll stick by the word I'm using, antiquated!

EDIT: and when you're ripping the CD's you don't have to just sit there watching it, you can do something else with your PC at the same time, like surfing the internet or listening to music (whatever), so it's not like ripping CD's is like watching a kettle boil.

 

[Robbo99999]

I spent that on something that plays CDs and doesn't have a DAC included...

It's not jewellery as it does have a practical use i.e it play CDs - and I will enjoy using it and looking at it. Not so with a computer (or with my current transport).

There's no way I am going through the long and tedious process of copying all my CDs onto a hard drive. Then have to select and play music via plasticky clicky-mouse thing instead of browsing a physical library and then inserting disc into a player with well-machined buttons and switches in a fancy anodised case with a pretty display.

I rarely have it in my head what I want to listen to so I like to browse the shelves.

Plus the SQ is not antiquated and you can choose which mastering you want.

These are all non-ridiculous reasons for using CD.

Given the discs are so cheap now it amazes me that more people aren't using CD.

Yes, if you really want to do it that way, then you should be happy. It's still a crazy price for what it does, and we can still call it antiquated, and we can still call it audio jewellery because it's overpriced "prettiness" that helps fit into the psychological experience you have as part of the ritual of using it. If you want to spend your money (a tidy sum) on something like that then that's your choice, it's not that rational though really.

EDIT: I still buy music on CD's sometimes, but I rip them with a $10 USB CD Player (ha, see) - I buy them used, and as you say they can be bought for cheap (CD's that is).