2. digital
  3. 1234012469

TacT, Lyngdorf, Audyssey Pre/Pro, PARC?

I would greatly appreciate thoughts on these various RCS systems. Kal Rubinson has done a great job reviewing several of them. On the basis of his reviews and some research, I know the following:

- the PARC is an analog equalizer, effective but paired down compared to the others. But if you have a dedicated analog source (turntable, SACD) it is the only option without going A-D-A.

- Lyngdorf broke away from TacT. How are these two systems different? Better, worse? There is some concern that DACs in the TacT units are not wonderful, so better to use an external DAC?

- Audyssey. Used to be for Pros. Now it is available in Pre/Pros and receivers. But some very good ones. How does it compare in sound quality and capabilities to the TaCT system?

How does one differentiate among, and decide on which unit to get. The TacT units seem to be most recommended by Audiophiles, and yet there is the concern about the DACs.

The pre/pros certainly offer a lot more for the same price. How does their sound quality compare?

Sorry for the ramble. Your thoughts -- as always -- most appreciated.
whynot

Showing 5 responses by dgaylin

dgaylin
255 posts
 
Thanks all for responses. Kal, I understand your point completely.

The problem is that I am planning on replacing an old pre/pro. I more of a two channel guy, but I still need home theater and multi-channel.

While I cannot get a second system in a different spot in the house, I could -- for example -- get a dedicated 2-channel analog pre-amp, and get a separate pre/pro. It quickly becomes unclear what to do, without auditioning lots of stuff, which seem like a very difficult thing to do per Marty's point.

The only thing I have decided thus far is to purchase the XTZ room analyzer (based on your good opinion of that software/hardware) to see if EQ will likely make a difference.

I guess if your main concern is superb 2 channel sound, and you need EQ, I'm wondering if you are losing something by going with a pre/pro with EQ as opposed something focused on 2 channel like the TacT.

Not sure if the above makes my inquiry any clearer...
dgaylin
255 posts
 
Okay, fair enough. Let's assume no vinyl (I was too busy buying musical instruments as a musician to spend money on records).

So digital sources for music (either redbook CDs, SACDs, or files on a hard drive). I have a high end "universal" disc player, and will probably always go this route. Or possibly transport and DAC, if I decide to give up on SACD -- but I have quite a few.

I have monoblock amps. Like these very much, and will likely stick with monoblocks over time.

On the HT side, BluRay and DirectTV

So what to do about the pre/amp, pre/pro situation. And have the Eq option.

The PARC is at the end of the signal chain (right before the amps), so I guess I could do anything with that....

Do I sound confused?
dgaylin
255 posts
 
Kal, this is very helpful, and most appreciated. Just to make sure I am understanding you:

- you think that the one box solution -- the built in DACs and pre-amps in a pre/pro (that also happens to have EQ as a very important added benefit) is more advisable in my situation with digital sources than doing it with separate components, even if I could go with a separate pre-amp for two channel and a pre/pro (or receiver with pre/outs) for home theater and surround channels.

- I would need a newer UPD I believe to output SACD via coax, no? My Bel Canto PL-1A does not have HDMI, and as far as I know, SACD is an analog only option on it...

- you feel that the EQ available on the high end multi-channel pre/pros (Anthem, Classe, Sim) that also have other features such as tuners, etc. is not a compromise compared with the EQ in the others (e.g., TacT 2.2X, Lyngdorf) that are mostly all about the EQ.

Please correct me on what I have wrong! Thanks again.

--dan
dgaylin
255 posts
 
Okay this is enormously helfupl. Kal and all, thanks for all your time.

--dan
dgaylin
255 posts
 
You guys have convinced me (also some other professional reviews) -- the idea that you go with a computer's auto-correction and then stop seems a bit antithetical to this hobby.

Many/most of us who psot here try lots of things and go to a lot of effort to get sound that sounds good to us. Even those who eschew endless audiophile tweaking have likely spent serious time and money getting to the point where they are ready to leave it all alone and just listen to the music. Since tweaking the settings on an EQ is a lot easier (physically that is) and less expensive than (e.g.) buying, burning in, and swaping back and forht between cables, it seems that we should be willing to do this to optimize sound so that it is what we want to hear.
More to discover