feeling Tactful today

Same as i use on mine, a Tone supplied foofoo box and omiga mains cable.
We did have the full monty going at one point, it was applied to the TacT first, then the BC was put on duty.
We did have to bribe Tone with a sexy waitress and wine mind you;)
 
FooFoo.......is a Patent pending ? hope It has more effect than Trichord 500
did on the B/C
 
The B/C was absolutely stock, 100% standard (it hurt to admit that)
Nor surprised the 500va version didn't work on the B/c, did squash the life by any chance?, you would have required at least 1kva version.
I did manage to find another area that requires attention on the B/c something I'd manage to sideline, but seeing on saturday, I just said, 'You know you want to', I did manage to locate a spare 'fux capacitor' on margelious prime, for not a inordinately extortionate price either, so more blow torch shinanguns tomorrow.
 
Mr P,

I reckon I'd prefer the BC in a lot of ways TBH. But for many we are comparing a £3K amp with a £700 amp. But the presentation is certainly different and if you like the BC, I reckon you'd find your Rotel closer.
 
Andy give it a chance, leave it in one configuration, get out your best choons and let it welly, it sounds like you've moved outa yer comfort zone again, like with your speakers, let yourself get used to it beore casting aspertions, try a little lower level late night listening, then if the amp is better the qaulity will shine through, a good amp will not loose the dynamic contrast at low levels, like a poorer quality one, the sounds are all still at same relative loudness, ie you no need the old style loudness button effect, thats the mark of a good amp IMHO, try it that way and I'm sure you'll be smiling even more.

Another thing to bear in mind, is it might seem a bit lighter in the bass, as it booms less due to better headroom and control of cones.

Of course I may be talking shite again.

BTW you rekindlin an ol' friendship over on t'other place, better left in the dark I thought.
 
Merlin, i would on agree on the bc/rotel idea. But the TacT brings with it a nice amount of control and dynamics. Listened to some vinyl last night, very enjoyable.

AK, I know i have to let it run, it probably is out of the zone i am use to/enjoy, but not a million miles. Also, as Merlin says, we are comparing a 3K amp to a 700 quid amp so not realy fair comparison. I wouldnt say it was lighter in the bass, tighter and goes lower. Letting it welly, does make the hard edges quite prominent, actualy prefer it at lower volume, but that could be down to other factors like room etc.
 
Also, as Merlin says, we are comparing a 3K amp to a 700 quid amp so not realy fair comparison.
Click to expand...

The comparison is much closer than you'd think which is why I had such high hopes for it against the BC. The BC retails in the US (inc dealer margin) for $3,900 which is equivalent to a landed Uk price after taxes of £2,600. Knock out the dealer margin of 40% and you get to £1,850 on a like for like basis. Perform the same maths on an eVo2 which is how you listened to the eVo4 to start with and the like for like price is £1,450.

Given the comments on here and elsewhere about the (lack of) value added in commercially available class T amps, I'd thought that the material and design content in the TacT would be close to the Bel Cantos but that the TacT margins would be more reasonable.

Perhaps you do get what you pay for in this case...


reg

:Quad:
 
Merlin,

You have extensive experience of the TacT range. How would you characterise the similarities and differences between the sound of the SDA2175, S2150 and Millennium Mk3?

Also, does the on board DSP room correction available in the Millennium Mk3 negate the need for an RCS2.0s?

reg

:Quad:
 
Reg

I dont think it's a case of material quality, the TacT is well made, a decent case and good connectors. Also pictures i have seen of the internals look very tidy. I think it is more a difference in presentation between the TacT and Bel Canto.
 
I dont think it's a case of material quality, the TacT is well made, a decent case and good connectors. Also pictures i have seen of the internals look very tidy.
Click to expand...

That's precisely my point. The TacT is as well made as the BC and the general view on Tripath implemented amps is that there isn't much value added in the PSU and output stages by the various implementors. So it would seem that TacT have put as much effort into the SDA amps as the Tripath based competiton have put into their amps but have priced them more reasonably.

reg

:Quad:
 
Reg,

I don't think it's a case of the BC being vastly better - just a different presentation for me. The Tact is very controlled with a matter of fact quality I associate with Bryston and other studio based amps (indeed the same technology as used in the Tact is employed in the Dynaudio Air speakers recently selected by the Beeb.) My mate is delighted with his Tact, even used in a £15K system. But he's more of a studio sound boy.

It's also important to remember the price differential. Even by your calculations, we are still talking of a product that is twice the price even without dealer facilities. IMO Tact should be congratulated for offering such a comprehensive home demo facility. Very few dealers would be so accomodating unfortunately.

A fairer comparison with the BC would be the S2150 full digital amp. Price wise it's still less expensive. It is again very different from the BC (offering IMO unparalelled transparency but less bottom end grunt).
 
ANOpax said:
How would you characterise the similarities and differences between the sound of the SDA2175, S2150 and Millennium Mk3?

Also, does the on board DSP room correction available in the Millennium Mk3 negate the need for an RCS2.0s?

reg

:Quad:
Click to expand...

Reg,

In a nutshell, the SDA2175 is all about bass control, the S2150 about midrange transparency, the Millennium (not heard the Mk 3) combines both, but sits closer to the S2150 (kind of like one on steroids)

The new DSP on the Millenium does not replace the RCS, as it only offers digital crossovers and basic Para EQ. There is no facility AFAIK for time alignment nor time based correction. The S2150 and Millennium do not have a sound as such. This can make them an aquired taste.

BTW, there are a LOT of Quad owners running RCS2.0's
 
BTW, there are a LOT of Quad owners running RCS2.0's
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I wonder why this could be? Given that the Quad ESLs are already phase coherent, crossoverless and excite fewer room nodes, a large part of the paper benefits of RCS become redundant. Or is it a case of giving the RCS something less flawed to work with in the first place which allows it to produce better results because there are fewer fundamental deficiencies to correct for?.

Theories anyone?

reg

:Quad:
 
ANOpax said:
Given that the Quad ESLs are already phase coherent, crossoverless and excite fewer room nodes, a large part of the paper benefits of RCS become redundant. Or is it a case of giving the RCS something less flawed to work with in the first place which allows it to produce better results because there are fewer fundamental deficiencies to correct for?.
Click to expand...

Maybe more a case of those who are likely to warm to the Quads - with the features you cite - are also likely to go for the TacT system.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top