[mr_bill]

Hi,
I've been looking at the Tact preamp, Dac, room correction device and am wondering how good it is to run a transport directly into the TAct (Dac and preamp) and thus not have to have so many separates but still get top notch performance.  I think skipping a step would help.  
Would you get better performance with a Benchmark Dac 1 and a good separate preamp?
I know about the room correction - I'm looking at that as an added bonus.
Thanks,
Bill

[zybar]

Hi,
I've been looking at the Tact preamp, Dac, room correction device and am wondering how good it is to run a transport directly into the TAct (Dac and preamp) and thus not have to have so many separates but still get top notch performance.  I think skipping a step would help.  
Would you get better performance with a Benchmark Dac 1 and a good separate preamp?
I know about the room correction - I'm looking at that as an added bonus.
Thanks,
Bill

Bill,

First off, room correction is not an added bonus, it is an eye opener!!

I currently have a 2.2x preamp and it replaced an excellent sounding combo consisting of a Bent NOH preamp and Audio Logic 24MXL dac.  

I did try the Audio Logic dac into the Tact and myself and my friends unanimously preferred the transport directly into the Tact vs. going into the Audio Logic.  Although I haven't heard the Benchmark dac, I am going to say that it probably isn't the equivalent of the Audio Logic in terms of performance.

There is another person here on AudioCircle who replaced his full blown DCS digital stack and Rowland 302/4 amp with the Tact 2.2x and a pair of S2150 amps!  

In case you haven't guessed it, I am very happy with the Tact and absolutely suggest running the transport directly in for best results.

George

[ekovalsky]

Hi,
I've been looking at the Tact preamp, Dac, room correction device and am wondering how good it is to run a transport directly into the TAct (Dac and preamp) and thus not have to have so many separates but still get top notch performance.  I think skipping a step would help.  
Would you get better performance with a Benchmark Dac 1 and a good separate preamp?
I know about the room correction - I'm looking at that as an added bonus.
Thanks,
Bill

I replaced a dCs Purcell & Elgar Plus combo, linked via IEEE1394, with the TacT RCS 2.2X.  And a JRDG 302/4 amp with two S2150 amps.  I miss neither the dCs nor Rowland at all even in the bypass mode.  The TacT equipment functions superbly as DAC, preamp, and amplifier.  I do not think there are any gains to be had by using an external DAC and preamplifier (and the necessary analog interconnect), no matter how good they are.  Run the transport directly into the RCS 2.2X.  

If you are so inclined, small improvements can reportedly be had by using an Apogee Big Ben and performing some modifications/tweaks of the RCS.  Some of the mods are as simple as using a power conditioner which filters all three AC lines (like the Shunyata Hydra) and installing ERS paper around the chassis.  There are also more complicated mods like replacing capacitors and adding an outboard power supply.  Diminishing returns probably apply here.  I may replace my BPT 3.5 Sig with the Shunyata Hydra and install some ERS paper, but I probably won't mess with the parts of the RCS until it is out of warranty.

As zybar said, the room correction is not an added bonus.  Unless your loudspeakers and room are perfect (none are) the improvements from room/speaker correction far surpass the changes you will hear from swapping components, cables, adding room treatment, etc.  And the further from perfect your speakers and room are, the more you will gain from room correction.

For those whose only music sources are digital, a TacT system is a no brainer.  I don't think better can be had at any price.  If you listen to a lot of vinyl or SACD/DVD-A, however, the losses from ADC must be considered.

[mr_bill]

Eric and George,
Do you perform correction on the midrange and treble also when you use the Tact?
I understand the best benefits are made in correcting the lower midrange down through the bass.  I also understand that if you try to flatten out upper frequencies you end up with a not very nice sound.  Are you better off leaving that part of the spectrum alone?
I don't suppose you can only correct parts of the response (lower mids and below) if you don't want to mess up other parts (upper mids through treble)?
Thanks,
Bill

[zybar]

Eric and George,
Do you perform correction on the midrange and treble also when you use the Tact?
I understand the best benefits are made in correcting the lower midrange down through the bass.  I also understand that if you try to flatten out upper frequencies you end up with a not very nice sound.  Are you better off leaving that part of the spectrum alone?
I don't suppose you can only correct parts of the response (lower mids and below) if you don't want to mess up other parts (upper mids through treble)?
Thanks,
Bill

Bill,

By default, the Tact correction curves do adjust the entire frequency range.  However, you can modify the pre-built curves to whatever your tastes desire (within reaosn of course).  If you didn't want to adjust above a certain frequency, simply change that part of the correction curve to follow the measured response instead of correcting it.

After having the Tact for a few months now, I can say that better measured/corrected sound equals better music to my ears.  Pretty much all Tact users I have contacted do NOT run a totally flat correction curve.  Most people tend to have the lower bass be slightly higher, the midrange flat, and gentle downward slope on the treble.  I have found that I can change the presentation and soundstage by simply adding or subtracting in certain areas.

The really cool thing with the Tact is you can create 9 presets with different flavors depending on moood, music, etc...  M y 2 channel correction is absolutely different from HT correction for example.

Sorry I strayed slightly off topic...

George

[ekovalsky]

Eric and George,
Do you perform correction on the midrange and treble also when you use the Tact?
I understand the best benefits are made in correcting the lower midrange down through the bass.  I also understand that if you try to flatten out upper frequencies you end up with a not very nice sound.  Are you better off leaving that part of the spectrum alone?
I don't suppose you can only correct parts of the response (lower mids and below) if you don't want to mess up other parts (upper mids through treble)?
Thanks,
Bill

Bill,

You can use correction over whatever portion of the frequency range you want.  The "target curves" can be edited, and by making them follow the measured curve over a particular frequency range you basically eliminate correction over that band.  Essentially all of the "stock" curves provided by TacT give a small boost of 1-2dB on the bottom end (below 100hz or so) and a slightly larger progressive cut on the high end (above 10khz or so).  This seems to follow measurements of most good speakers.  While a "flat" response can be achieved by a TacT this will not sound good, as it basically will give a bit of cut to the bass and boost the high treble thus producing too bright a sound.

I believe that correction from 300hz and up is at least as important as 300hz and below.  The way I see it, there are three major benefits of correction...

1.  Bass.  You can easily compensate for the room modes.  At first listen this seems to reduce bass impact, because the powerful +10dB or higher spikes to which you are accustomed are no longer.  Bass nulls are present in real rooms also and are more tricky to correct but with careful placement of speakers and listening position, and proper manipulation of the target curve, they can also be overcome.   At first, overall bass level seems reduced because of the absence of the room nodes.  Upon further listening, however, all the bass notes are just "there".  Without correction many are obscured by the big peaks or lost in nulls.  For me solo piano demonstrates this the best -- on good recordings the instrument sounds like it is in the room.  Having played piano for most of my life this was a most welcome change!

Meridian's correction works only on the bass.  I believe DEQX in its basic mode focuses primarily on the bass also.  The TacT automatically attacks both the bass (of the main speaker and also subwoofers with the 2.2X) and the midrange and treble...

2.  Frequency response.  Although speakers are typically rated +/- 3dB from their specified bass cutoff to 20khz or so, few specify how these measurements are actually obtained.  Unless that information is provided the specification is rather meaningless.   Typically in a real room you will see swings much larger than 3dB throughout the frequency range up to 20khz.  Causes include driver distortion, cancellation effects around the crossover frequencies, cabinet resonances, and poor speaker design.  The TacT RCS can correct these errors but only at the listening position.  DEQX and more recent products from TacT (Millenium mk3 and TDA2200) have more sophisticated ways of correcting these errors which work throughout the room.  There is also add on software for the TacT amps that can do this now.  TacT has promised an upgrade for the 2150 amps which will provide much of the Millenium mk3 & TDA2200 functionality, but don't expect to see it anytime soon.

3.  Imaging.  If your speakers are capable of throwing a convincing soundstage (like the Dali Megaline I heard last week) AND your room is perfectly symmetric AND speakers are positioned exact distances from front and side walls AND there is a single listening position located exactly in the middle between the two speakers -- you are lucky and probably have great imaging without any correction.  More than likely, your setup will fail to meet one or more of these criteria in which case the listening position will be located at a different angle off axis from each speaker or the speakers will be different distances from the side and front walls or listening position.  The result is variation in amplitude and phase of the sound from each speaker reaching the listening positiong that is frequency dependent.  This can be heard as a shifting of the soundstage depending on frequency and location of your head.  The TacT will create perfect channel balance at a given listening position by adding delay to the closer channel (so sound arrives at the same time for both) and normalizing amplitude/volume at ALL frequencies between both speakers.  The net result is a stunning with a rock solid center image and placement of instruments across a wide soundstage that extends well beyond the actual loudspeakers.  Even big speakers like the RM/X totally disappear in the room.  I had thought my speakers imaged quite well until I heard this in action and it is quite striking.  For me this was the "point of no return".

[Rob Babcock]

I think the idea that you should only EQ bass is based people's experiences with analog EQs.  Most of them do cause phase shifts and funkiness if run full range, or at least a loss of clarity & purity.  In theory, at least, we should be able to do anything we want at any frequency in the digital domain without harming the harmonic rightness and musicality of the sound.

[ctviggen]

I think most analog EQs are really just adjustable notch filters (they take out a very select group of frequencies).  This way, they bring down peaks.  Anyone done a DEQX v. TACT comparison?  The DEQX is a lot cheaper than the TACT and seems to offer pretty similar features.  If you use the amps with TACT, are you feeding a digital signal to the amps?

[ctviggen]

One thing I'd like to add is that these devices must be doing a ton of processing.  There's another thread about the DEQX, and it appears that they determine a filter and convolve the filter with real-time frequency data (convolution is a way to perform multiplication in the time domain, but the calculations are performed in the frequency domain).  It's no wonder that this is only recently in the realm of affordability for consumers, as it takes quite a bit of computing power to do this stuff.  And, it's not going to be a huge seller in terms of the number of systems sold (unlike, for instance, voice processing, which is in every digital phone).

[csero]

I think the idea that you should only EQ bass is based people's experiences with analog EQs.  Most of them do cause phase shifts and funkiness if run full range, or at least a loss of clarity & purity.  In theory, at least, we should be able to do anything we want at any frequency in the digital domain without harming the harmonic rightness and musicality of the sound.

Then why on earth audiophiles spent the last 20 years on whining about the sound deterioration of an out of audible band, high slope, linear phase FIR filter - the CD anti-aliasing filter    
Now you can get it right in the middle of the audio band. Dont you feel the controversy?  

[Rob Babcock]

I didn't say it made sense, Frank.   Although, if you're old enough (no offense meant- maybe you're older than me ) you must remember the horrible graphic EQs of the 70's and 80's.  That's all I meant- honest!   So many people view EQ as some evil "buggaboo," based on the crappiness of the old consumer models.

As to why "A-philes" have bitched about all the crap you mentioned:  1) they didn't know better and 2) the Ultimate Tool wasn't availible til recently.

FWIW- I believe digital has and will continue to transform the world.

Viva la Resistance!

[csero]

I didn't say it made sense, Frank.   Although, if you're old enough (no offense meant- maybe you're older than me ) you must remember the horrible graphic EQs of the 70's and 80's.  That's all I meant- honest!   So many people view EQ as some evil "buggaboo," based on the crappiness of the old consumer models.

As to why "A-philes" have bitched about all the crap you mentioned:  1) they didn't know better and 2) the Ultimate Tool wasn't availible til recently.

FWIW- I believe digital has and will continue to transform the world.

Viva la Resistance!

A bad implementation does not invalidate a technology. You possibly listen a lot of records mixed on studio motitors corrected in the analog domain with eq.  

Yes, digital will open a lot of possibilities, but wether we use them in a right way, that's a different matter...

[Rob Babcock]

Take a step back, Frank...I'm not saying analog EQ is bad, but the perception that all EQ is bad is based on decades of $79 graphic EQs that sounded like ass.  That's the type of EQ most people are familiar with- and have you heard a good $79 graphic EQ lately?  Understand that I'm not indicting analog EQ, but rather explaining my theory as to why the average audiophool thinks they're bad.  I'm only saying the cheapo models, and the biases of a few influential writers, poisoned audiophools to the potential of EQ.  I didn't say it was justified- I just pointed it out!

And yeah, I'm sure we'll have tons of crappy $70 digital EQs given time.     And I'll agree with you that bad implementation of digital won't be a rebuttle of the technology any more than cheap & crappy analog EQ refutes analog.

Don't kill the bearing of irrelevant news, Frank.  I'm on your side.

[RichardS]

Mr Bill----
While I support the enthusiastic responses about the Tact's internal DAC (<$500) I am surprised that they prefered it to the Audiologic or DCS digitals. Maybe it's better than I first thought.

When I first got my 2.2x, I compared its DAC to my PT P3A (modwrighted and monolithic'd) and couldn't really decide which I liked better--both had their strengths, the Tact's being clarity and detail.

Then I got the 2150 amp/DAC and this was head and shoulders above the other two in every way (though you can't really separate out the DAC function from the amp function).

And ctviggen---yes, when used with the 2150 amp the signal stays digital all the way through till you get to the speaker interface--no analog interconnects at all, just digital. This offers tremendous benefit IMO. I use the 2.2x's internal DAC now to drive the subs (through analog ICs into a BC Evo).
But if I had it all to do over again, I'd probably not get the internal DAC and sell the Evo and get another 2150 to drive the subs.

I'm also somewhat concerned (at least intellectually) about using the Tact to adjust the frequency response throughout the mids and highs, but in practice, it just sounds a lot better this way. I can only assume that the benefits in correcting time/phase alignment and frequency response far outweighs any minor losses in transaparency.

I'm sure that the magnitude of the gains will depend somewhat on your room & speakers, but the Tact stuff has impressed me in every system I've heard them in (as has the DEQX in a friend's system).

[mr_bill]

Thanks for all the replies - especially from the users, George, Eric and Richard.
I know the VMPS 40 speakers  are a reference class speaker and it seems those users have enthusiastically been pleased with the Tact 2.2x as a DAC and Preamp.
With adjustment through the mids and treble by the TAct 2.2x, do you lose anything in the way of low level resolution or decay or trailing information which is so vital in making the sound more real and for defining the soundstage?

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

As a user of a 'poor man's Tact' - the Panasonic XR50. I can say there is so much to be had in using the digital input directly as much as possible. The main thing I liked about my turntable sound was the transparency. With the digital input into the Panny, I am getting closer. With my Panny and Philips 963SA, the tweaking I have done tells me, a lot can be had in improving the quality of the transport/digital cable. I used Walker Vivid polish on the CD, black markers on the edges and a Herbies Grungebuster mat.