I emailed Les at 6moons. Here are his comments regarding the TAP, reprinted by permission:
"Hello Ted:
I appreciate hearing from you and will try to address some of the concerns you have raised about the Bent Audio TAP, which is now badged as the Music First TAP. It remains front and center in my system, and joyfully so.
The information I provided in my TAP comments in the December 2006 "Best Of" pages on 6moons
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/bo06/les.htmlcertainly continues to hold true. Regarding the sonics of the unit, there is little more I can say that was not already noted in those observations. However, one bit of additional information which might serve a purpose has to do with recent extended listening sessions here utilizing several original 24bit/96 KHz master recordings I generated in the fall and early winter of 2006. While I could hear the benefits of the 24/96 format through my various headphones [AKG, Sennheiser, Audio Technica, Sony, Etymotics, etc.] when connected directly to my Sound Devices 744T hard disc recorder, it has only been lately that I could audition this playback on my big rig through the TAP and the rest of my Zu-based system. This new
opportunity has resulted from getting the Zuists to fashion a pair of unique interconnects which allow me to connect the 744T to the TAP effectively. I do consider standard 16/44 CD playback through my normal equipment to be at a very decent level, as do visitors and friends who come by to enjoy music in my home. However, hearing the 24/96 master captures of concert performances directly from the recorder outputs, fed into the TAP and the rest of the equipment chain, has been a winning and insightful experience. The naturalness and ease of the playback is a full step above how that same music sounds from the 16/44 CDRs I generate employing fastidious attention to detail during the transfer process. I attribute these sonic improvements to the TAP and think it is a major player in helping me to get the best, most engaging sound reproduction I have yet to witness in my own environment.
Incidentally, when I record these live un-amplified concerts, which are mainly classical music performances, I sit in the audience next to my microphone stand(s) because I want to perceive the music as it occurs in the reality of that space and time. I take up and put down my monitoring headphones often, and really aim to witness 90-95% of the concert in the way one naturally would as an audience member. This allows me to hear, see, smell and feel the event the way live music should be appreciated. When I get home and listen to the recording, my intent is to see how close the capture and playback approximates my memory of the live event. Naturally there is a sonic gap, but I can find much to appreciate and enjoy in that recreation, especially with serious, carefully configured and arranged gear. This approach is, btw, always both a learning experience as well as very motivating in the sense that I typically find ways to improve my recording methodology. I think all this is easier to do now since the TAP is in my system. It offers an even clearer view into the music and the musicians' intent. [By the way, those concerts cover a broad range of musical genres and configurations, including small vocal ensembles, pipe organs, string quartets, large choruses, symphony orchestras and solo instruments.]
One question that may linger in your mind pertains to why I shifted from a tubed line stage to a TVC. Let me note that I was quite happy with my Audio Research Ref 1 for a very long time. It served me well with a previous system configuration that included Nestorovic System 12 speakers and Nestorovic tubed NA-1 monoblock amps. The Ref 1 was, and is, a fine piece of gear, which helped me to understand what good tube designs can do in high end sound reproduction, plus it mated beautifully to the Nestorovic amps.
When I moved away from the Nestorovic products, the Ref 1 remained and fronted a variety of other components over a two year exploration during which I aimed to create a newer sound system. My current gear, which involves both analog and digital elements, is described in several recent reviews on the 6moons site and it is now a stable package. In particular, my August 2006 review of the Opera Audio Ref 1.3 TVC explains some of the ways in which I came to prefer the TVC approach to active, tubed approaches. One
specific parameter which has real importance is that the TAP gets along with my McCormack DNA500 amp especially well, notably in terms of impedance matching. The freedom from tube noise, especially as perceived through a highly efficient speaker like my Zu Definition Pros, is another bonus.
It is very important to note that sensory perception is a difficult, elusive phenomenon to pin down in highly objective terms. My interest in music and sound reproduction goes back over four decades and I believe one of the early dictums related to audio equipment, and the published reviews of such gear, holds as true now as it did years ago. Namely, audio equipment reviews should be seen as guidelines to a very subjective domain of sonic interpretation. The sharpest, most adept wordsmiths and "golden eared" evaluators will never be able to fully represent the direct experience of personal auditioning of gear. I think of this each time I write a review and I believe most of my colleagues do so as well. When it comes to describing
the sound of a piece of equipment one cannot gloss over the context within which that equipment is used. In addition to combining various components with commensurately meaningful products, the nature of the listening room, the mood of the moment, the kind and styles of music, and above all, the biases and taste preferences of the evaluator all are part of the final equation. With regard to the subjectivity of things, think of how long the debate over solid state versus tube components has been on the table. Likewise for analog versus digital. Context and taste may be as important as any single device in the listening experience. I am fortunate to be able to hear a great deal of live, acoustic, competently performed music in good venues. This is a constant sonic reality check for me, as well as being a reminder of what makes sense in a world so often encumbered with lots of distractions. I hope and trust that what I experience and learn from these activities helps me to translate my listening biases and prejudices in my reviews sensibly and with some degree of clarity. Nothing can substitute for direct, personal experience.
It must be also said, that in the happier days of audio when there were good equipment demos available in well-run shops and businesses, a listener could at least narrow the field among certain potential acquisitions and gear choices. Those were only rarely definitive events, but they were informative and frequently allowed customers to establish meaningful relationships with many of those proprietors. I know that happened for me over many years. Sadly, as audio shops are disappearing all too quickly, this is not so
common an occurrence today. It is easy to see why more folks turn to published reviews for information and reviewers' perceptions about products, but, the operative word here is "perceptions".
I hope these sidebar comments make sense and give you a better feel for how I see things in sound reproduction and music enjoyment. My suspicion is that you were looking for more details about the TAP itself, but I think the full 6moons review which Srajan provided, coupled to my own comments, may be
enough subjectivism for the moment. I concede that there are many ways to perceive the world, but right now, in my world of music and audio, the TAP satisfies me for sonic performance, convenience, value and endurance. I hope you can add your observations after you've had your own TAP experience.
John Chapman and his collaborators deserve a hearty round of applause.
Best regards,
Les"