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
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Good Luck.

Distribution is so limited that it's hard to compare any 2 of these devices in one place. You might try Perotta Consulting or Moon Audio, if they're convenient to you. I tried and gave up here in SoCal, ending up with a Velodyne SMS sub-controller which combines a room analyzer, PEq, and x-over. I also added subs. This is a different (less expensive, <$1800 with 2 high quality subs) way to address room issues, albeit only in the bass region (which is pretty much exclusively where most serious room issues -including mine - occur).

Marty

PS - During my research, I did learn one thing that may be of interest.

The TacT system attempts to acheive the targeted respone at the listening position. That is, it corrects for cumulative (speaker and room) anomalies.

The Lyngdorf attempts to correct only room anomalies and preserve the speaker's "native" response characteristics. It corrects the room only.

Source: Lyngdorf, USA>
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
Here's my 2cents. Don't choose a system because of the EQ. All these work well although differently. Choose the system components for their fundamental sound quality and functionality and only then consider which of these is appropriate for that system. There is no single answer.

Kal

P.S.: And you forgot to include Trinnov and AntiMode 8033 and........
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...
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
TacT is focused on 2 channel? Not as I see it.

In any case, let's suppose that you are not considering EQ, give us examples of what and how you might choose and configure your system. Just a hypothetical.

Kal
More to discover