2. digital
  3. 984698289

TACT RCS 2.0 Users Group

I've recently purchased the TACT RCS 2.0 unit. As I've been wrestling with getting the optimum performance out of it, I keep thinking there must be other owners out there that have ideas to share, as well as those who could benefit from what I've learned.

I was hoping this thread would provide a forum to introduce us to each other.

Anyone interested in sharing what you've learned?

I for one have found the unit difficult to get a true grasp of how to optimise, but once learned, it has produced the best sound of any component I've ever added to my system. My system currently consists of a Sony SCD1 to the TACT 2.0 RCS with internal DAC and D/A converter. Signal is then fed from the TACT in analog format to my Art Audio Jota and then to the Avantgarde Duo Hornspeakers.
I'll start by stating I've found the suggestions in the TACT documentation for speaker placement to be contra to good sound. I've gotten the best results by using George Cardas's Near Field logic and using the TACT Nearfield target curve as the beginning point to custom build my personal target curves.

This resulted in a sound stage this is awesome and the clarity of the frequencies is without compare in my experience.

However, it took over 100 hours of experimentation to reach this result - a lot of lessons learned. At this point, I feel I know just enough to be dangerous!
tao
mikenificent114cb
11 posts
 
Hey Pearl,
I would not be stunned about negative comments, you'll see that about any great produc. You have to take the good with the bad I guess. Both are superb products that will only get better: the RCS will hopefully be upgraded to the 6 DSP version soon, and the Millennium will be mkIII this summer. But anyway, I also have the 2.0 (1 year) and the Millennium mkII (over 2 years) and was curious if you did extensive transport comparisons and if so what did you end up with? Also what digital cables and speakers are you using?
1439bhr
85 posts
 
Does anyone have any info concerning future product upgrades to the Tact 2.0? Wonder how Tact is doing as a company, between their, um, modest website and low-key advertising, I'm wondering if they're going to lose the high ground to other companies (such as Perpetural Technologies) that do a much better job at promoting, yet don't (yet) have the goods to deliver.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,275 posts
 
Now that I've had the RCS 2.0 in my system for two days, I want to chime in and echo everyone else's enthusiasm. At this early point, it seems to me that the TacT truly dwarfs a lot of other "significant" upgrades I have made. Cables, power cords, PLCs, isolation products, they're all minor league by comparison. I think it is an even bigger upgrade than SACD, though of course SACD is moot in an RCS system. The world needs a great, affordable A-D converter now!

Something I find curious is that many previously bad-sounding recordings are now rendered quite respectable, if not downright excellent. For example, Beth Orton's Central Reservation, one of my favorites of the last few years, always sounded bleached and hazy. Now it sounds most definitely like music, with plenty of tonal color. The improvements in the "poor" recordings are more dramatic than the improvements in the audiophile stuff. Why would that be so? -Dan
pls1
432 posts
 
Short answer,many "poor" recordings aren't that bad. They just have significant musical info in frequency bands that are distorted by room interactions. It is EXACTLY like removing distortion. As I have said in previous posts, most audiophiles will never really hear the caopabilities of their systems without digital room correction systems.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,275 posts
 
But why is there not also significant musical info in those same frequency bands on "good" recordings?
More to discover