The B&K is a better receiver overall. Everything the Rotel does, the B&K does better IMO. They sound different though. Rotel will be more forward and bright, whereas B&K will be more laid-back warm. This is relatively speaking of course.
I think they'd both pair up equally as well to Rotel speakers. Which one pairs up better with B&Ws would be more of a preference than anything else.
Personally, I like B&K far more, in terms of both build and sound quality.
Really? I remember hearing B&K a year or so ago, and it didn't really wow me. Dark, gloomy sound I thought. Build quality was decent. I don't have a lot of experience with B&K other than that one listening session though.
It depends on the room and speakers. I've heard them a few times powering Sonus Fabers, and they sounded great. Its all about synergy.
My opinion of B&K is a more affordable Mac. They're built in Buffalo, NY, have very good customer service and support, and have a similar (though not as good) house sound. They produce as much as they can in house, and generally only source parts they can't adequately nor affordable produce themselves. They've been around for a while, but don't have the production capacity to be able to keep up with higher volume companies.
I like it better for the money. But overall, I'd rank them as B&K, Arcam, then Rotel. But again, these are just my opinions; you shouldn't base what to buy on them.
loc ho, The Arcam AVR200 is nothing like the later Arcams. basically the AVR200 was a unit based on a common platform with NAD's at the time. Arcam simply worked some magic on it to raise the performance a little. I would not expect to pay close to any other 2nd hand Arcam receiver for an AVR200.
Stu, in your opinion is the B&K better than the Arcam for music? I can certainly accept that it may be better for surround, but was wondering about the music aspect since the OP is talking music first (60/40 I believe).
Now that I think of it, I haven't evaluated B&K from a movie standpoint. I've only heard them playing music.
They're kind of opposite ends of the spectrum. B&K is generally a warm, smooth, laid back sound. Arcam is more forward and bright. Its kind of like comparing NAD and Rotel. Some will prefer Arcam over B&K, but I think most will argee the B&K is better built and is more refined.
But the OP needs to keep the rest of the system in mind. B&K won't synergize with the things Arcam will, and vice versa. If the OP is running a cheap source and/or speakers, this is all trivial. If he's running demanding speakers, then the more powerful one will almost always sound better due to being driven properly.
I haven't heard the specific B&Ws the OP has, but I'd be willing to bet that the B&K will synergize better than the Arcam.
Also keep in mind that brand new, B&K sells for more money than Arcam. I like B&K better, but I'd most likely buy an Arcam due to value for money.
That says a lot for B&K in my view. To be honest, the Arcam is as smooth and laid back as I'd cope with so it's interesting to note that you think the B&K is smoother or even more relaxed, yet you prefer it. It must be doing something else, especially since you like the Naim presentation.
Value for money is a concept fraut with difficulty since it is so subjective. Example: I recently had an epiphany. For the first time in many years I tried a different tonearm on my record deck and was blown away by its performance. Thus far, my treasured rewired Mission Mechanic has been king of the hill, seeing off various luminaries because all of them had some weakness by comparison. 10 days ago, I placed a Naim ARO on my deck and from the very first note, we knew it was going to destroy my beloved Mechanic. My wife, who always claims not to be able to tell differences, especially when separated by some time (it took six hours what with having to go Christmas shopping) told me I was buying one of these things before the end of the first track...
To me, therefore, a Naim ARO tonearm is fantastic value for money. It comes in, sweeps away the opposition which has a history of some 15 years, and sets itself up as the new bad boy in town within 3 - 5 minutes. Stunning! However, a Naim ARO tonearm costs £1600 ($3000) so how a little bit of tubing and some fancy engineering on the pillar bearing can be construed as value for money is beyond many people.
lol Its always an accomplishment when the Wife can hear what you hear Frank.
I agree, the Arcam to my ears, is very laid back and warm, and very smooth. But again, everything sounds different to each individual. To me, the Arcam sounds familiar to NAD, when it comes to presentation. It just probably does it a bit better, but not much. A lot of guys on here prefer the Rotel presentation, from what I have heard, I don't like it at all. Maybe I need to listen to more of it. B&K I read is a very dark, and powerful sound. And is well regarded, but I have not heard it enough to judge it.
Describing sounds has never been my strongest suit. Occasionally I get it right, and sometimes I'm way off. Re-reading last night's post, it's somewhat misleading.
I don't think the B&K is more laid back than the Arcam. It may be a touch warmer. B&K's presentation is very similar to McIntosh's. Its smooth, laid back, and warm. Its also very cohesive and organic. I don't think it's dark, but maybe if it's paired up with the wrong speakers and/or source it can be.
I've heard it with a few different Sonus Fabers, B&Ws, Viennas, and Martin Logans. Can't remember sources off the top of my head, but they were dedicated CD players. I also haven't heard B&K and Arcam side by side with the same ancillaries connected. Most of my experience with them was when I thought I wanted a surround system.
IMO its a definite step up from the Arcam AVRs in terms of sound quality and build quality. Not that Arcam AVRs are a slouch in any sense. I think they're number 2 on my list of AVRs that I've heard. If I had to live with an AVR, B&K would be my choice if money wasn't a factor. In reality, I'd have probably gone with an Arcam. But, my Arcam dealer showed my why I wanted 2 channel instead of surround sound. But that's another story.