• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Rotel RA-1412 ... best amp I've owned thus far!

P

pabs911

Well-Known Member
I bought this monster amp off ebay for a bit more than they usually go for (or so I've heard), but I'm glad I did. No scratchies anywhere, great controlled bass, plenty of mid 1970's power (110watts/channel@8ohms), great looks, 48 pounds heavy, great rhythm and tone, nice big soundstage, lovely pair of VU meters, etc. etc. but... the noise floor on both phonostages is not as low as I'd expected. I plan to get the unit checked out anyway, so that might improve. If it doesn't, I'll just get an external phonostage. All in all, I'm very pleased. I'll add a couple photos later tonight. :music:

My system...
rotel01.jpg


rotel02.jpg


rotel03.jpg


rotel04.jpg


rotel05.jpg
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
No need to preach to the converted. In fact, I am getting one completely overhauled and restored right now. I have everything on it esthetically MINT. Hard to do. I have owned one for a couple of years and know what they are capable of. Keepers for sure.
 
The RA-1412 and RT-1024 are favorites. I also have the RA-1312 which looks even nicer sitting under the RT-1024.

The RA-1412 is rated at only 110 wpc, which is 10 less than the RX-1203 receiver. Intersetingly, the RA-1412 runs a pair of 22,000 uf caps per channel while the RX-1203 has only a single identical cap per channel. The dual tranny 1412 is definitely under-rated for power.
 
I had a RA-1412. Wonderful amp. I only sold it in order to buy my Yamaha L6 acoustic guitar. That guitar is even rarer than the RA-1412!
 
SoCal Sam said:
The RA-1412 and RT-1024 are favorites. I also have the RA-1312 which looks even nicer sitting under the RT-1024.

The RA-1412 is rated at only 110 wpc, which is 10 less than the RX-1203 receiver. Intersetingly, the RA-1412 runs a pair of 22,000 uf caps per channel while the RX-1203 has only a single identical cap per channel. The dual tranny 1412 is definitely under-rated for power.
Click to expand...

The 110 wpc rating is not accurate. I have a Parasound HCA 2200II that is 250wpc but has 100000 uf of storage to the 1412's 88000. The 1412 is far better sounding, especially in the low end. The 1412 has more capacitance PER WATT, and in looking at an amp simply divide the total output (rated) by the capacitance. IE: 88000/220=400 uf per watt. 100000/500=200uf per watt for the 2200II.

It is common for older gear to be underspec'd, but in the case of the 1412 I would put it up against most anything today and expect it to win. The fact it is dual mono with so much capacitance tells me the designers had much more in store. In fact, I have had my unit at 50 wpc with peaks that buried the meter and the unit did not go into overload. Sound was still clear, pure and strong. The low end from the 1412 is authentic: you will feel the bottom end in addition to hearing it.

Esthetically it is EXACTLY what makes it all worth it for me. I LOVE the authentic 70's look. Take a closer look: those knobs and levers. They are machined. Have any idea what they would be worth today to manufacture? You only find that quality on high end expensive gear. I cannot understand how people want "new" gear yet the stuff from the 70's (from Yamaha, Pioneer, Rotel, Sansui....) is soooooooo much better.

Better for people like me, I suppose.
 
blackfly said:
The 110 wpc rating is not accurate. I have a Parasound HCA 2200II that is 250wpc but has 100000 uf of storage to the 1412's 88000. The 1412 is far better sounding, especially in the low end. The 1412 has more capacitance PER WATT, and in looking at an amp simply divide the total output (rated) by the capacitance. IE: 88000/220=400 uf per watt. 100000/500=200uf per watt for the 2200II.

It is common for older gear to be underspec'd, but in the case of the 1412 I would put it up against most anything today and expect it to win. The fact it is dual mono with so much capacitance tells me the designers had much more in store. In fact, I have had my unit at 50 wpc with peaks that buried the meter and the unit did not go into overload. Sound was still clear, pure and strong. The low end from the 1412 is authentic: you will feel the bottom end in addition to hearing it.

Esthetically it is EXACTLY what makes it all worth it for me. I LOVE the authentic 70's look. Take a closer look: those knobs and levers. They are machined. Have any idea what they would be worth today to manufacture? You only find that quality on high end expensive gear. I cannot understand how people want "new" gear yet the stuff from the 70's (from Yamaha, Pioneer, Rotel, Sansui....) is soooooooo much better.

Better for people like me, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the wonderful cosmetics.

The 110 wpc rating is from Rotel. It is IMO conservative.
 
Brushed metal, sculpted knobs, rack handles and meters. And we have yet to get to that Rotel sound...

Can't beat that with a stick.

My first girlfriend's father had a Rotel system. No wonder I love that sound :smoke:
 
legal eagle said:
Brushed metal, sculpted knobs, rack handles and meters. And we have yet to get to that Rotel sound...

Can't beat that with a stick.

My first girlfriend's father had a Rotel system. No wonder I love that sound :smoke:
Click to expand...

The more I listen to this amp the more I like it. Built like a tank and sounds like a dream. Those were the good old days... I remember them well...

Oh, and it certainly mates well with my ACI Sapphires (see photos). Love the synergy! :banana:

EDIT---BTW, do any of you have any suggestions for cleaning the faceplate without damaging the black printing? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
pabs911 said:
EDIT---BTW, do any of you have any suggestions for cleaning the faceplate without damaging the black printing? Thanks!
Click to expand...



I am currently restoring one and have the faceplate cleaning down pat.

Remove the top and side panels. CAREFULLY remove the handles. Next remove all the knobs and sliders. The square buttons are only pressfit and will remove. Once the plates are off you can then remove the bottom plate and have access to the faceplate screws that hold it in place. There are a total of 8 (I think). They are small silver philips screws.

You must remove the volume knob too, and the balance knob is only a slide on fit. Stand the unit on the heatsinks (on carpet of course) and CAREFULLY remove the face. With no knobs on the face is easy to clean. I use WD-40. If you use metal polish there will be a white residue that is hard to remove. On my mint face, I used WD-40 and then a buff with a soft cloth, and the face looks new. Another benefit is the glass can be cleaned front and back. With the face removed as well, remove the plastic covers on the meters and give them a clean too. It makes a difference, trust me.

Reassemble and enjoy.
 
You are welcome.

I watched this ebay auction and you are VERY lucky. The cable rack clips on the back are WORTH THE UNIT VALUE ALONE. They are VERY rare and I bought a unit recently JUST for the clips. I would suggest a tuneup at a trusted electronics shop but before you do go onto the internet and look for a tech manual for download. Take it with you to save some time and to ensure all is well.

These units are worth restoring and keeping. It EASILY beat my Parasound HCA 2200II power amp that has more than double the rated wattage. In fact, I would rather part with my Bryston 14B SST than the 1412. You are reading that right.
 
Interesting way to evaluate an amp, but really need to take into account rail voltage... can't make power with capacitance, output wattage starts with how much voltage swing it provides whereas capacitance speaks more to stiffness and current delivery :thmbsp:

John

blackfly said:
The 110 wpc rating is not accurate. I have a Parasound HCA 2200II that is 250wpc but has 100000 uf of storage to the 1412's 88000. The 1412 is far better sounding, especially in the low end. The 1412 has more capacitance PER WATT, and in looking at an amp simply divide the total output (rated) by the capacitance. IE: 88000/220=400 uf per watt. 100000/500=200uf per watt for the 2200II.

It is common for older gear to be underspec'd, but in the case of the 1412 I would put it up against most anything today and expect it to win. The fact it is dual mono with so much capacitance tells me the designers had much more in store. In fact, I have had my unit at 50 wpc with peaks that buried the meter and the unit did not go into overload. Sound was still clear, pure and strong. The low end from the 1412 is authentic: you will feel the bottom end in addition to hearing it.

Esthetically it is EXACTLY what makes it all worth it for me. I LOVE the authentic 70's look. Take a closer look: those knobs and levers. They are machined. Have any idea what they would be worth today to manufacture? You only find that quality on high end expensive gear. I cannot understand how people want "new" gear yet the stuff from the 70's (from Yamaha, Pioneer, Rotel, Sansui....) is soooooooo much better.

Better for people like me, I suppose.
Click to expand...
 
jdurbin1 said:
Interesting way to evaluate an amp, but really need to take into account rail voltage... can't make power with capacitance, output wattage starts with how much voltage swing it provides whereas capacitance speaks more to stiffness and current delivery :thmbsp:

John
Click to expand...

Cap value is 22,000 uF 63v x2 per channel.
 
and by rail voltage, I meant what voltage the power supply runs at vs. the cap rating which is higher but not necessarily by the same amount from one design to another. :D

In other words, reading the caps may give you a rough idea of power but you could park two amps side by side, both with say 20,000uF of capacitance and 63V parts used. One is running rail voltage of +/- 50V and the other one was designed a bit more conservatively and runs +/- 45V. Both were built with 63V caps because the designer didn't want to use 50V filter caps on the 45V design and ave power supply spikes in transients get that close to the caps' rated voltage.

The 50V design could produce a theoretical maximum of about 156 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms (after converting volts p-p to RMS), but won't because you can only produce power up to within a volt or so of the rails due to output transistor internal junction resistances. So, call it 145 watts.

The 40V design will only produce 93 watts per channel (100 theoretical max). If you put 40,000uF/100V caps in it, it'll still only produce 93 WPC.

Purely hypothetical but you get my point about using solely cap ratings to benchmark two different designs.

John
 
Last edited:
jdurbin1 said:
and by rail voltage, I meant what voltage the power supply runs at vs. the cap rating which is higher but not necessarily by the same amount from one design to another. :D

In other words, reading the caps may give you a rough idea of power but you could park two amps side by side, both with say 20,000uF of capacitance and 63V parts used. One is running rail voltage of +/- 50V and the other one was designed a bit more conservatively and runs +/- 45V. Both were built with 63V caps because the designer didn't want to use 50V filter caps on the 45V design and ave power supply spikes in transients get that close to the caps' rated voltage.

The 50V design could produce a theoretical maximum of about 156 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms (after converting volts p-p to RMS), but won't because you can only produce power up to within a volt or so of the rails due to output transistor internal junction resistances. So, call it 145 watts.

The 40V design will only produce 93 watts per channel (100 theoretical max). If you put 40,000uF/100V caps in it, it'll still only produce 93 WPC.

Purely hypothetical but you get my point about using solely cap ratings to benchmark two different designs.

John
Click to expand...

All very good points but since I don't know the bias settings for this amp or most other amps for that matter, the only way I can roughly approximate potential power is through the cap value. Granted, this method is about as much use as guessing the power from the max wattage consumption, it is better than nothing.

True, substituting a higher voltage cap does not allow for great energy storage and discharge. However, there is a strong correlation between higher voltage cap values and higher watt output. My Yamaha PC2002M's have a pair of 22,000 uF 100v caps good for 240 wpc while the RX-1203 receiver also has a pair of 22,000 uF but rated at 63v and good for only 120 wpc.

Anyways, based on the OP's observations and my own experience with the RA-1412 I still think the manufacturer's 110 wpc rating is extremely conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom