My take:
I've used a Tact 2.2x for 7 years with regular amps (Gamut, Bel Canto, Aloia, etc.) and also with stock and (most recently) modded Tact 2150s, with and without subs.
I'm very happy with them but also recognize some trade-offs. Definitely not for the SET or single driver crowd. A little on the clean and clinical side of things--less so with the mods.
A lot depend on your room and speaker. If you have a good room-speaker interaction, the weaknesses of the Tact may outweigh the strengths. If you don't, you may never want to be without it. My room is 23x16x10, which looks good on paper but still the bass cleanliness and resultant opening of the mids has been a worthwhile improvement.
I haven't found the challenge as intense as some of the other posters, though I've fiddled a lot and use all my own curves, replacing the stock presets. I like tight clean bass. Tact provides this. Some will find it too lean until they adjust to it. I find the greatest advantage of the Tact equipment to be the subwoofer integration. Put two good subs in the front corners and you can have full range sound without the bass muddying everything up. Your speakers still sound like your speakers, but extended all the way down. There's a realism with full range bass that is quite addictive.
I've used subs from VBT/ TBI, Linkwitz, RBH and Lyngdorf and they have all worked well, though the dipoles are harder to get the measurements right. Main speakers have been Talon, Selah, Piega. The Aberdeen mods are worthwhile, both in the amps (since they're really just powerful DACS) and especially the PS upgrade in the 2.2x. And they definitely benefit from power conditioning and cords--at least with my power.
The amps are a steal in today's marketplace, even without room correction. They can replace a DAC, preamp and amp for the price of a good preamp. The preamp function is very clean, as its adjust digitally without losing any bits, by adjusting the voltage. Same thing when you use the amp with the preamp. |
And more. Some have described the TacT RCS as great hi-fi but have questioned its musicality. Once you've finally ironed out all the things about its performance that you don't like (the first and biggest challenge), the next step is to fine tune it still further so it'll let the music through. One might say that stage one is the objective part of the process but then you have to move on to further fine tuning for a satisfying subjective performance.
In my previous piece, I described the methodology I've used for stage one. This is stage two. I still wasn't happy with the high treble but, for a long time, I couldn't work out what needed to be done to fix it. It was either too hot and sibilant or too shut in, lacking air and sparkle. Then it suddenly occurred to me that 20Kz is less than half an octave above 16KHz, so a full octave spread at 20KHz isn't appropriate ~ adjustments at 20KHz were overlapping with whatever settings I was making at 16KHz (always to be avoided). So I narrowed the spread at 20KHz to 0.4 of an octave and things got a lot better, though after some careful listening I broadened it to 0.5 of an octave. Now I've managed to achieve the air and sparkle at the top but without that fatiguing "hotness" and sibilance. Good.
The next area for attention was the bass. Various reports have suggested the need for just a little lift at 64Hz (or thereabouts) to add body and warmth to the midrange. I ended up with lift of 1.1Db. I added as well just 0.5Db lift at 32 and 125Hz, each with a one octave spread. But, overall, the result was that the system still sounded a bit too pushy and hi-fi, whereas by this stage I wanted naturalness.
So out went the lifts at 32 and 125 Hz and instead I widened the spread at 64Hz to 2 octaves, subsequently narrowed to 1.5 octaves. This is noticeably better, more open, less pushy, less "hi-fi" and more natural.
So that's where I'm at after six years of ownership. The TacT RCS continues to amaze me on various fronts, partly by what it's possible to get out of it (and thus your entire system) and partly by what an almost unbelievably slow and painstaking process is involved with getting to do what you want it to. It's hard (for me anyway) to imagine a product that presents a more demanding path to achieving its full potential. Am I there yet? I really don't know, but for now I seem to have reached another plateau higher than the last.
More will follow if, as and when I reach the next plateau. |
And more. Some have described the TacT RCS as great hi-fi but have questioned its musicality. Once you've finally ironed out all the things about its performance that you don't like (the first and biggest challenge), the next step is to fine tune it still further so it'll let the music through. One might say that stage one is the objective part of the process but then you have to move on to further fine tuning for a satisfying subjective performance.
In my previous piece, I described the methodology I've used for stage one. This is stage two. I still wasn't happy with the high treble but, for a long time, I couldn't work out what needed to be done to fix it. It was either too hot and sibilant or too shut in, lacking air and sparkle. Then it suddenly occurred to me that 20Kz is less than half an octave above 16KHz, so a full octave spread at 20KHz isn't appropriate ~ adjustments at 20KHz were overlapping with whatever settings I was making at 16KHz (always to be avoided). So I narrowed the spread at 20KHz to 0.4 of an octave and things got a lot better, though after some careful listening I broadened it to 0.5 of an octave. Now I've managed to achieve the air and sparkle at the top but without that fatiguing "hotness" and sibilance. Good.
The next area for attention was the bass. Various reports have suggested the need for just a little lift at 64Hz (or thereabouts) to add body and warmth to the midrange. I ended up with lift of 1.1Db. I added as well just 0.5Db lift at 32 and 125Hz, each with a one octave spread. But, overall, the result was that the system still sounded a bit too pushy and hi-fi, whereas by this stage I wanted naturalness.
So out went the lifts at 32 and 125 Hz and instead I widened the spread at 64Hz to 2 octaves, subsequently narrowed to 1.5 octaves. This is noticeably better, more open, less pushy, less "hi-fi" and more natural.
So that's where I'm at after six years of ownership. The TacT RCS continues to amaze me on various fronts, partly by what it's possible to get out of it (and thus your entire system) and partly by what an almost unbelievably slow and painstaking process is involved with getting to do what you want it to. It's hard (for me anyway) to imagine a product that presents a more demanding path to achieving its full potential. Am I there yet? I really don't know, but for now I seem to have reached another plateau higher than the last.
More will follow if, as and when I reach the next plateau. |
I have no experience of the Lyngdorf products, though user reports on other forums in respect of the RP-1 room correction unit (for insertion between analogue pre and power amplifiers) are mixed. Some are highly enthusiastic about how well it addresses the problems of muddy and boomy bass which can be so frustrating for audiophiles who, like me, crave bass that's deep and crisp and even, as well as clarifying the midrange. Others have said that it just kills the music, which suggests a home audition to be essential.
My experience is with the TacT 2.2, 2.2X and now the 2.2XP, the latter the best yet. It really is a devil to get just right and has taken me literally years to achieve truly satisfying results, though the Auto Target Curve Adjust facility in the XP has been a major advance. (The Auto Target Curve is the one created by doing a room calibration via the microphone from a sequence of anything up to 250 pulses across the frequency spectrum).
After having created your raw RC file, use the ATC Adjuster, which operates in visually displayed half Db increments at a range of preset, mostly one octave apart, frequencies from 20Hz to 20Kz, to get close to a tonal balance you find acceptable.
Then, and only then, set the frequency points on the parametric equaliser to exactly the same as those on the ATC Adjuster, again with a one octave spread (so that any adjustments you make here don't overlap with one another) and you can fine tune the tonal balance to taste in increments as small as a tenth of a Db. That's how I did it anyway and for me it worked.
You'll need patience, even with this methodology, believe me. It still took me weeks (or has it now been months?) to get the system sounding right with just about anything I may play on it, using a wide range of music at different times of the day and night.
I also found the charts on page 11 of the user manual for the Behringer DEQ1024 immensely helpful. Knowing what adjustments to make at what frequencies provides invaluable assistance. The TacT manual ought to include something similar, but it doesn't. Whilst the TacT manual tells you how to operate the unit's various functions and settings, it offers no guidance at all on how to actually get it sounding right ~ and that's the nub of it. Without such guidance, getting the TacT 2.2 on song is very tricky indeed and even then the result is very finely balanced on a knife edge.
But patience and diligence have their rewards and the TacT can, ultimately, deliver the goods. It really is a remarkable package of features and facilities, all in a single, compact and not hugely expensive, aesthetically pleasing box.
Recognising the challenges that the TacT 2.2 presents to users, Lyngdorf have omitted virtually all of the fine tuneability of the TacT (some might say it has too much adjustability) and instead offer a choice of just six pre-programmed voicings. Most users seem to prefer neutral. That having said, the user manual suggests that if you really must tailor the curve to your precise preferences, you can hook it up to your PC and play around with it onscreen. For those attracted to this option, all I can say is that I hope the PC program in Lyngdorf's RP-1 is very considerably more intuitive and easy to navigate than its TacT counterpart, which I for one couldn't make head nor tail of.
The TacT 2.2XP can sound brilliant, but getting it there is no walk in the park. If you do decide on a home audition, it'll help to have on hand someone who knows how to get the best out of it and even then it's not a job for just one afternoon or evening. Definitely not a product for the faint hearted or those who like their audio components to be straightforward plug and play. |
I decided that my previous response was too pessimistic in tone. My experience has been that I, and one of my audio friends have been very pleased with the results, while two others were not.
The two who were not satisfied did not wish to spend the time and computer effort required to get the best results, so gave up quickly.
The Tact preamp comes with preprogramed curves similar to the Lyngdorf. While they can demonstrate how effective the room correction can be, in my opinion they fail to satisfy. In order to get results that one is happy with in the long term, one must spend time refining the equalization curves. The Tact provides that capability, if one is willing to spend the effort.
All that said, the results can be stunning.
1. imagining is improved dramatically
(Electrostats are notorious for only providing imagining if one sits in the sweet spot. Sitting on the end of the couch got me mono. Now I get stereo from any spot, though it is still the best in the center.)
2. resolution, the same. Tonal masking is easy to hear and correct.
The Tact amplifiers are amazingly quiet. My CJ 2500A was an excellent amplifier, but I had no idea how much noise obscured fine detail until it was gone.
In addition, the Tact has digital inputs, which allow for a CD deck or computer to plug in directly without need of a DA converter.
In summary, I am getting the best sound ever in my less than perfect listing room. Is it the best I have ever heard? No, but its the best I have heard for anything near the price, and the best I have heard in my listing room. |
Chadeffect has just make the argument for the Tact version of room correction.
There is no automatic way (yet) to achieve room perfect (pun intended) results.
I am on my third Tact unit and the learning curve is steep. Obviously I think it is worth the effort, but it is not for the faint of heart. Yes, I do my own slopes. No I do not do crossovers, since I use full range electrostats.
My first system was a Tact preamp (2.0) with a CJ power amp. My current system uses their integrated (2150XDM). Room correction is a hobby within a hobby as one tries to close in on the perfect equalization.
In summary, the Tact approach is serious, but neither perfect or for everybody. |
I had the Lyngdorf amp with built in room correctionfor a while. It did make for some of the best soundstaging and did work well.
I found in my system at the time with Apogee ribbons that it equalized out a little too much bass for my taste overall on all the presets.
I had one speaker closer to a side wall than the other and it completely fixed any imbalance. It was good value for money and did what it said it would. If I were to pick a fault I would say the amp version was slightly soulless. |
