Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: biswa%galileo.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: A Weakness in the System?
Message-ID: <7613@uwm.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 90 13:52:16 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 19
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <7537@uwm.edu> mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) writes:
>I have to put in my two cents' worth now. It scares me to see the names
>Adcom and Rotel in the same sentence. It's kind of like Mercedes and Ford.
>
I would be interested in why. To me, it's more like comparing a Dodge
Colt and a Mitsubishi Mirage. Consider that Adcom is designed in teh
U.S. and assembled in Taiwan. Rotel is designed in the U.K., and
assembled in Taiwan. Parts quality is about the same on their lower
models (i.e., Adcom has better parts in their 565 preamp, but the
other models use the same kinds of parts as the Rotels).

The Rotel preamps and amps are very solidly built with good parts 
quality, and to my ears, good neutral sound. Ditto for the Adcom.

The Rotel preamp/tuner, on the other hand, seemed really chintzy.

One consumer's opinion...
-Biswa Ghosh