Brought this baby straight home after listening to it in the studio (and after having auditioned a number of other players in weeks past). The thing that struck me right away was the clarity it produced. I don't know nearly as much as some other folks in here terminology wise, but what I do know is my music sounded better than I had ever heard it when played by the 975. It brought all the subtleties in the recording out in a way other players in the same price range (Sony, Denon, Marantz) did not. At least not as I heard it.
If you are in the market for a sub-$1000 player, check this one out before you buy something else. I think you'll be glad that you did. I know I am.

My only complaint is that this cd player doesn't have a headphone jack and you can't dim the display. But these are moot points because my AV receiver (NAD 713) has a headphone jack and I don't really NEED to dim the display of the cd player.
Consider that this unit has GREAT sound for the price!

After trying a Marantz 67se for a little while, the Rotel really is much better.

The bass is fine and defined, not too boomy, yet quite present.

Vocals female and male sound rich and creamy.

The highs are clear, yet not too crisp and harsh.

The build quality seems excellent and this unit uses a very sturdy transport (the same trasport found in many very high end cd-players)

If you can spend about $700., I would buy this unit over anything else in the $500-$900 price range!

I bought 975 one month ago, it's OK, but not too impressive,I use EPOS es11 speakers and Aura VA-100 II amp, it's a little
bit deeper than my Sony portable CD player only. I think it's very
hard to make a real difference.

Just purchased a Rotel RCD-975 to replace my old (18 yrs old) Nakamichi OMS-2. The Nak CD tray was frequently jamming and wouldn't open. Anyway, I also auditioned the Marantz 67SE, the Classe and the McIntosh. They all sound a lot better than the Nak (not surprising I guess). The Rotel definitely sounds better than the Marantz. The Classe and McIntosh sound marginally better then the Rotel, but I don't think the audible difference is worth the price differential. Especially since I got the Rotel for slightly more than $500.

The RCD975 replaced my Marantz cc-52 about a year ago and I have been impressed since. During very long auditions at my very patient dealer, I compared a RCD955, my Marantz, and the RCD975.
I determined that the 975 was worth the price jump up from the other units. 955 is a great unit and was far better than the Marantz in every way but I have to disagree with Rick's comment because the 975 I listened to was twice better still than the 955. I found music more relaxed, with no fatigue through the 975, preserving imaging well especially when more complex music is played. No struggles, very revealing, and each vocal, instrument, recording error was heard. Bass was tighter, quicker, extended deeper more controlled with realism. The MF and HF were not too bright or irritating and remained linear.

After weeks of breakin, this units begins to stage better with smoothness and sharpness when expected. Sure, better units exist but not at this price/performance category.

Soundstage, detail, bass

Replaced by an inferior model

The Rotel 975 was a player that was missed by many looking for the holy grail. The Planet got every review in site but in direct comparison the 975 is the better player. I also prefer the 975 to the 971wHDCD, It is more liquid sounding and better built. Best player under $1000 still in my opinion.

Similar Products Used:

Rega Planet, Marant CD17, Nad 522

About a year and a half ago I upgraded to the 975 from a lemon om a CAL DX-1 the darn thing had power problems and my retailer spent more money shipping the sucker back and forth to California then it was worth. So this review comew from a long term comparison of the Rotel with the CAL. The Rotel is generally a very competent CD player, it does everything well, but nothing incredibly well. My best reference is that several years ago I bought a used Saab 900 turbo, my first European car. That car was so good and so tight and so comfortably smooth that you just didnt realize it when you were doing 110mph. In other words the Rotel is really good but not a whole lot of fun. I guess it fits the British stereotype in that regard. The 975 details like crazy but sound stages just OK. Most of what I listen to, probably the most important part of every review that is rarely mentioned, is the laid back side of alternative Rock. Tori Amos, Dave Matthews etc... On this music the 975 is a serious contender for $ for $ bargain. The laid back sounds and well recorded details of this type of music are perfectly presented ny the Rotel. However, when I listen to Hole, Nirvana , Tool and Sublime the music loses its edge. The 975 is too good for this kind of music., Instead of catching Courney Love's groove on songs like Violet, I find myself noticing the roundness of Kristen Pfaff's (since departed) bass line. Maybe the guys at Rotel, who insist that they tune their probucts by instrument and ear equally, need some Grunge in their CD collection.