audiopile wrote:It's also worth mentioning that as the years went on - Rotel went from essentially a nice but not much special electronics line to good value for the money to better n average built and sounding to more expensive and sounding like it. I am particularly impressed with a number of their CD players over the last 20 years or so. But this particular receiver isn't anything particularly special - I'd stop now - hook a ART DJ Pre II up to it for phono and figure at some later date you might just upgrade to something better. Rotel is sorta the reverse of some other lines - they definitely improved as they went along - we can probably all point out a fair number of lines that went the other direction - older classic well made stuff - eventually replaced by newer junk with a once great name on it.
A friend of mine owns a Rotel RSX-1067, a top line (very expensive) HT unit.
Has had it serviced multiple times so far for various problems.
One problem was the use of adhesive to anchor electrolytics and other parts in place - which eventually turned conductive, causing chain reaction failures among components.
It's been nothing but a major headache for the owner.
This unit was built around 2008, in a time far past the knowledge of certain adhesives becoming conductive.
Why didn't Rotel investigate, have knowledge, or research the chemical composition of said glue problems?
I'm sure by then the word was out, and to build a so-called quality piece of equipment using trouble prone glue is not very smart engineering.
So no, I don't agree that Rotel "got better" in comparison to their vintage products, when engineering flaws like that cost the consumer more money.
As I recall, the costs SO FAR to repair the Rotel RSX-1067 are around $500, with a potential to climb.
That lowly RX-202 surely doesn't have that nasty glue, and won't be as expensive to repair, yet will still produce enjoyment long after my friend tosses his unit in a dumpster out of frustration.