panasonic sa-xr45 vs tact m2150

vpolineni · « **on:** 23 Jan 2004, 09:54 pm »

I'm wondering how the sa-xr45 compares against the tact m2150.. here's a recent review of it:
http://www.stereotimes.com/amp100103.shtm

both seem to be all digital and except for the huge price difference, look pretty similar... any thoughts?

Tyson · « **Reply #1 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 10:04 pm »

Haven't heard the Tact, so cannot comment on it, but in the review, the reviewer states of the sound of the Tact:

Quote

First, there is the unmistakable freedom from artifice. A peculiar clarity overtook the music unlike anything I've encountered-digital or analogue-beforehand.

That is exactly what I heard w/the modded panny last week. So, they seem to be similar in kind, but whether they are similar in degree remains to be seen.

vpolineni · « **Reply #2 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 10:46 pm »

this was taken from the tact audio group on yahoo:
"A friend and I did some comparison listening last night, the Panasonic XR-45 and the Tact 2150 are a lot closer in general sound quality than you would believe based on the price difference ($450 retail vs. $4400 retail). The tact is definitely better than a stock XR-45 in some key areas, but seriously the overall sound is very similar (which kind of figures since
they use the same technology and chipsets from the same company)."
-Hopefully with Wayne's mods, the sa-xr45 will be as good if not better.

Tyson · « **Reply #3 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 10:49 pm »

Maybe, but you would never get a Tact owner to admit it

Marbles · « **Reply #4 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 11:25 pm »

Quote from: Tyson

Maybe, but you would never get a Tact owner to admit it

Doesn't the Tact use some room correction software and have a more flexible XO?

Of course for the $$$$ difference it should be a lot better!

J North · « **Reply #5 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 11:28 pm »

Not to take anything away from the Panny, but I have to think twice anytime I hear a statement like:
"The tact is definitely better than a stock XR-45 in some key areas, but seriously the overall sound is very similar"

I would have to say that when comparing SS amps back to back I find the overall sound "very similar" as well. Heck, I had 6 different amps in my system last year (including the XR45), and they all sounded similar. The better amp (if there is one) is *always better in some key areas*. Does it justify a $3000 price difference? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This is a game of diminishing returns.

For example, if you hear some brightness or edge in the XR45 in your system, and it is absent in the Tact, and *everything else is exactly the same*, only YOU can decide if it is worth $4000 to get closer to "perfection".

The reviewer in Stereotimes found that ulimate musicality was acheived with the Tact's analog inputs using tubed gear. This option in not available with the XR45 (as its analog inputs are clearly inferior). This is another consideration.

BrunoB · « **Reply #6 on:** 23 Jan 2004, 11:36 pm »

Quote from: J North

The reviewer in Stereotimes found that ulimate musicality was acheived with the Tact's analog inputs using tubed gear. This option in not available with the XR45 (as its analog inputs are clearly inferior). This is another consideration.

Interesting. May be in the future we will have a digital amp with a DSP option that makes it sound like tube amps.

Just a crazy idea ...

Bruno

KeithR · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 12:22 am »

I think the new Rowland monos would be a better comparison. They were the hit of the CES

Tyson · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 12:45 am »

True, the fact of the matter is that the Panny is not a maxed out unit, even after mods, I'm sure there are many things in there that prevent it from being a "no comprimise" unit. What is always the question with low priced gear is how well it can stack up against the very expensive stuff. Sometimes the cheap stuff (especially if tweaked), does very well, sometimes not so well. Only way to tell would be to do direct A-B comparisons, which is what people should be doing anyway

ABEX · « **Reply #9 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 12:49 am »

This was a post about the Panny unit I made that moght pertain to this discussion having to do with tradeoffs. There are always tradeoffs and you can pick on the Panny all day for what it does not do,but at the stock price it is hard to really find fault. To have it being compared to pieces and systems going for 5-15X as much is compliment enough to me for it to be considered for purchase. There are clock radios going for more.Ridiculously cheap and what a bargain!
================
I have the Panasonic unit and have a B&K\Passive setup I also like very much. The reason why I like the Panny unit are several.

It is low cost
Has enough power for most real world speakers
It's small footprint
It can also be tweeked for better performance.
Last the sound you get from using it in just the stock version is more than acceptable.

I have had several amps in the past and more than likely than not will have more in the future. I also realise there are many other good alternatives out there. But for myself it fits and sounds nice for a sub $1000 unit. People are replaceing systems costing 5-15X what the thing goes for.So it is just not my own experience.

For those wondering about Power,the unit provides 100w for each channel. Most Maggies do not have an Imp. of 4ohms ,but 5ohms as far as I was aware of which make them an unusual resistive load. I loved my Maggies ,but found they were so Finickey for system matching so I searched for an alternative that gives me what the Maggies use to and more. That is not to say I do not like them because I do in a proper room and appropriate setup. Magnepans greatest strength are their transparency which I love. Innersounds are another speaker I'd like to hear.

There are not many people that have negative experiences with the Panasonic unit and I also was skeptical about using it before I bought one. Other people in Audio that are dealers and have exotics I have spoken to are trying them also with the results being positive. Are they better than what the other things they are using ?In alot of cases NO! But the price to performance ratio is quite large.

Are there better setups? For sure there are! But in the sub $1K level there are few I would consider.B&K,Rotel and Sunfire I would consider. I like a few things using my Passive setup more,but the price and tradeoffs are there also.

I have always maintained that it will not be the golden fix for every system or speakers as nothing will be. But as of right now I think it's the best bang for the buck component in audio.Sharp has a new line of 1-bit units coming out that might replace the Panasonic as being the best sub $1K unit,but shall also cost double it's price.

For low cost amps I also like Rotel. I have heard good things about Carver\Sunfire new offererings also which are said to drive Maggies well. So if I were to say the Panasonic was the last word in use with the Maggies that would be going to far,but it is perhaps the lowest cost solution one could use.

I used a modified B&K when I had my Magnepans and lived happily with that matchup for 5yrs..

I do not tout everything Panasonic BTW. I purchased a Panasonic DVD Changer over the holiday and it soes not perform on Redbook CD's as my 15yr. Old Phillips CDP. I like the convenience of using the Panasonic DVD,but for critical listening I prefer the Phillips.

Maggies love Silver BTW.

Just thinking!

Tyson · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 01:31 am »

My thoughts are that most likely digital amps will NOT replace tube amps, but very likely will replace SS amps. Still to early to tell, but if a cheap consumer receiver like the Panny can do as well as it does for as little as it costs, I imagine an all out audiophile direct-digital systems will be doing away with conventional solid state systems. For sound, cost, space, and ease of use, it will probably be a KO for digital amp tech. And as a man who likes tubes, for me to give up a system that uses tubes in both the amp and preamp says a lot about the sound quality possible from a direct-digital system.

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 01:59 am »

But can a digital amp replace 100 watts of pure class A triode power?

We will soon find out...

GW

JLM · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 02:59 am »

I see in the near future audio PCs (similar to a TIVO/DVD) feeding digital signals to digital receivers or all-in-ones like the Sony DVD/receivers for $1,000.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #13 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 05:45 am »

I'm not sure how relevant but a new Mac music creation program called GarageBand has guitar amp emulators built in. I'm not sure how well the software mimics some of tube guitar amps. Doesn't the Tact do this already to an extent? I think I remember reading about how some reviewer fed the measurements of a Cary 300SEI (single ended tube amp) into a Tact and faithfully reproduced its sound. I find it hard to believe that a digital amp could also reproduce the palpability and bloom of a tube amp. I think that 'sound' is innately linked with the technology.

PeteG · « **Reply #14 on:** 24 Jan 2004, 05:11 pm »

Just thinking out loud, I don't even know if this is feasible

. Could you have a transport/processor with a build in wireless firewall router send a signal to your 2/5/7 digital amplified speakers. No cables, just power cords.

RichardS · « **Reply #15 on:** 25 Jan 2004, 04:32 am »

A friend brought over his Panny last week and we compared it to my 2150. Was I sorry I spent the extra $$ on the Tact? No. Was the Panny great for the $$? Yes. Was it in the same league as the Tact?

Well...that depends on how you define 'league.' I found the biggest difference to be in the sense of ease portrayed in the music through the Tact. I was drawn into the performance as opposed to being a detached listener. Plucked strings were unleashed with greater impact, while at the same time their was less of an edge; smoother without loss of dynamics.

Bass was quicker, tighter and more extended (even when using a Tact 2.2x). Cymbals had more shimmer and decay and sounded more real. Yes, it was subtle, but there nonetheless.

How much these improvements are worth is obviously up to each individual to decide. In a less expensive system, the Panny (esp. w/ upgrades, I'd imagine) is a great option that wasn't available at this price point until now, and the $$ saved would probably be better spent on other components.

In the last few years I've used mono amps from Bel Canto, Pass and Rowland, and Joule Electra and Gamut stereo amps. Right now I'm really enamored with the Tact 2150. It may not soundstage like the Gamut or sweeten things up like the Rowlands, but its combination of inner detail, delicacy and harmonic integrity is quite intoxicating.

vpolineni · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Jan 2004, 05:07 am »

richards, thanks for the comments. have you compared the 2150 to the new rowland digital amps? (201, 501, or 302) Also, I think it would be great if you were able to audition wayne's modded sa-xr45.. you should try and get on his audition list.. that was my intent in starting this thread..

sfdoddsy · « **Reply #17 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 01:33 am »

It's a little hard to take the Stereo Times review seriously. On the one hand he states that the 'truth' is important to him, on the next he recommends replacing the direct digital path with an extra D/A stage AND an extra A/D stage. No matter what your feelings about tubes, adding stages cannot be more accurate.

Steve

IanS · « **Reply #18 on:** 27 Jan 2004, 02:34 am »

Quote from: PeteG

Just thinking out loud, I don't even know if this is feasible . Could you have a transport/processor with a build in wireless firewall router send a signal to your 2/5/7 digital amplified speakers. No cables, just power cords.

I've been touting this to my friends for months now, and they all thought I was crazy, but one room at CES I saw was actually doing this. It appeared to sound pretty good, but I had never heard the speakers before, so I can't make an absolute judgement.

They only had wireless digital amps and a wireless digital sub amp w/crossover. They didn't have any fully active integrated 3-way wireless speakers, which I think would have been really spectacular.

At least it would end the speaker cable battles. Then people would have to argue over who has the best air or something

I think you'll see it first in subwoofers and surround speakers, but I would think it could become an industry standard feature in a few years.

-Ian

J North · « **Reply #19 on:** 27 Jan 2004, 04:51 pm »

"No matter what your feelings about tubes, adding stages cannot be more accurate."

I have to disagree on this one. Obviously I like tubes. Most of the time, anyway. I have heard some really fat and syruppy tube systems that were interesting to listen to, but not for my long term enjoyment.

"Accuracy" and "Fidelity" can be interpreted several ways. One way is accuracy to the 1's and 0's on the CD. Another way is accuracy to the recording venue and artists performance. I lean toward the second one. I know it may be more subjective than the first. But I tend to "enjoy more of the music, more"

I believe every part of the recording and sound reproduction chain (our systems) is "inaccurate". Right from the microphones to the ADC's to the redbook CD to the DAC (I consider the Panny to be one) to the speakers to our ears to our brains. This is why this hobby is so insane and why universal agreement of what is best is so darn difficult.

For most of the music that I like to listen to, tubes give my system, my ears and my brain more of a sense of being at the artist's performance. I have tried various sources, amps (including the XR45 and HCA-2), pre-amps, and speakers in my system. I have listened to many many many other systems. 99% of the time, the ones that sound "best" and by *my* definition "most accurate" have *some* tubes in the chain. Some or most of you may not agree with this. I am totally fine with that.

I think this may be where Clement Perry in the Stereotimes review is coming from. His version of the "musical truth".

All of these advances (including digital amplification) can only serve to give us options to get us *individually* closer to *our* musical truths.