T+A's new R 2500 R integrated amp

I wish I had direct experience for you, but I do have some relevant experience to share.

I used to own their R2000 integrated amp, now upgraded to the PA3100 HV integrated, and currently own their DAC200. So, I have experience with the brand quality and sound.

I was actually quite pleased with the R2000 but experienced a bit of dynamic compression at higher volumes (think Mahler crescendos). It was a modestly powered amp so that’s not a surprise. I compared the sound to SimAudio 700 series integrated and the detail retrieval was about the same, but the T+A a touch warmer, and significantly smoother. The PA3100 HV has a similar sound, but more of everything and no dynamic limitations that I’ll ever reach.

The DAC 200 is good on PCM - competitive with the marketplace of $7k DACs on PCM, but I wouldn’t necessarily say better than other choices. However, on native DSD - it’s exceptional. I almost didn’t purchase the DAC when auditioning it at home because I was feeding it PCM. But, I have an outboard processor (does the same thing as HQ Player) and when I sent it DSD 512, I was shocked at how good it was. So, ended up being an easy purchase.

I don’t know what’s in this new integrated, but you’ll get more power than I had in the R2000 - and that was its only limitation. And, if the DAC is anywhere close to the DAC200, you should be quite pleased with it.

Hope this helps.

Best,

At that price level I’d never buy a combo unit and be locked into a DAC/streamer unless I had F U $$$ and it was for a second system or vacation home where it’s not as big of a concern.  Is having a separate DAC and streamer really that big of a deal?  I confess I don’t get it short of an extreme space limitation sitch, but to each his own and best of luck.

@mgrif104

Thanks for the excellent feedback.  Re: dynamics, what speakers were you using, and in what size room?

My own requirements are modest: low-to-moderate listening levels, an outboard active sub, and a 14x17 room with Harbeth speakers 10' from my listening position.  Despite their 86dB sensitivity, the Harbeths are spec'd at requiring a minimum of 25wpc, but Alan Shaw himself has demonstrated that the speakers reach a whole new level when driven by an amp that has 2-300wpc in reserve for peaks.  The R 2500 R specs at around 200wpc into 6 ohms (higher than the R 2000), and T+A gear usually outperforms its power ratings.  So all that is encouraging.

One reason for the PCM/DSD differences you heard from the DAC200 could be that the T+A DACs have two distinct decoding paths, one for PCM and one for DSD.  The R 2500 R DAC boasts a nearly identical architecture and most of the parts found in the DAC200.  And I'm told that this 2024 update actually incorporates improvements over the older DAC200.  The biggest difference I see on paper is that the R 2500 DAC processes only half the number of DAC streams, limiting it to 512DSD instead of 1024.  Which I don't think either of us see as a dealbreaker.

The few people I’ve spoken to who have heard both  DACs – a handful of dealers and mfr reps -- believe that the DAC200 & R 2500 R DAC have similar sonic signatures -- or that the newer, embedded DAC has a slight edge.

I realize that you have experience with the HV line, which is a step above the R series, the R2000, which is a lower-end, older version of the R2500, and the DAC200, which is both older and higher-end.   Given that I have a good feel for the sound of the R 2500 R relative to other T+A offerings, your comments thus give me an excellent frame of reference.  And that gets me closer than ever to dropping $19K without a demo.

Thank you again!

@soix

I don’t want to give you a hard time -- I think we’ve had meaningful & useful discussions on this forum & I respect your opinion -- but you just triggered a pet peeve mine.

A conclusory opinion that separates always make more sense than integrated modules is what I call a "radio talkshow" argument -- something that sounds logical for 30 seconds, but reveals itself as misleading if you have the time to think about it for 31 (a luxury that a good talkshow entertainer never allows).

Here’s an example. Consider these two scenarios:

i) You buy an integrated that lacks DAC/streaming capability and tack on separate components. When those separates become obsolete, you replace them with new models. By then the separates (we’re talking DAC & streamer, you know) probably have little resale value.

ii) You buy an integrated with embedded DAC & streamer. When they become obsolete, you replace them by either updatingn the embedded modules, or by (ahem!) buying the same separates mentioned in i).

Given that the integrated I’m considering has a DAC & streamer that likely produce sonics in a class with pricey separates sold by the same company, I see no SQ downside to choosing integrated. In either use case, you wind up with similar sound quality for a similar length of time, with similar options for an upgrade to newer separates down the road.

So are the two alternatives equivalent, at least in my case? Well, despite all that, I think not.

A well-designed integrated has advantages:

- The integrated DAC & streamer are precisely synced to the same clock. To achieve the same degree of precision, the separates would need an external clock -- in this class of component, that could mean another four- or five-figure expenditure – or be connected via potentially noisy USB. I’m sure you’d agree that, at this level, high-resolution synchronization is critical.

- The embedded DAC & streamer are hardwired together, through I2S or whatever. The separates must be cabled together, introducing all the issues that cables present, as well as significant expense. Ditto re: the need for extra power cables and AC-conditioner outlets.

- The DAC, streamer, and analog sections of a good-quality integrated are tailored to complement each other. If you mix & match separates, well, things get more complicated, especially if you start looking at third-party products. In system design, “integrated” is a compliment.

- The R 2500 R is firmware upgradable. Being based on a hardware DAC chip, updating the 2500 DAC with firmware can only go so far. But other vendors, like Bricasti, McIntosh, & CH Precision, offer complete integrated-DAC replacements, either via no-fee FPGA reprograming (check out the interesting article about CH Precision’s free firmware-based DAC replacement in this month’s TAS) or a board swap. These can be relatively easy & cost-effective upgrade paths that maintain al the space, cost, and interoperability benefits of the integrated form factor.

- And although you pooh-pooh space issues, many of us certainly do have a problem adding more boxes than necessary. My rack is almost full, my Niagara power-conditioner has few open outlets, and there’s no good spot in my room for another rack. Having to add one relatively small & light integrated instead of two, three, or four boxes (and cables!), or even upgrade my racking, is a BIG selling point for me.

- Last but far from least, having a single source of support can be a godsend. If a complex, envelope-pushing DAC/streamer/clock/analog-amplifier combo is not performing as expected, would you rather deal with a rep intimately familiar with all the modules and with the way they interact, or with multiple manufacturers that each think the problem lies with its competitors? In my complicated home-theater setup, this is even more of an issue.

Now, sure, this calculus may not work as well when some integrated modules are of much lower quality than others. But that’s not the case with the gear I’ve been considering, integrateds from the likes of T+A, Ayre, & Hegel (at least since the H600).

So look, if the R 2500 R includes an outstanding, potentially upgradable DAC/streamer that offers performance comparable to that of the company’s highly praised separates, updated for 2024, and at a fraction of the price, and if the integrated form factor so effectively mitigates inter-module interface issues, interconnect & power-cord requirements, support issues, and space constraints, why would I ever prefer separates?

I realize YMMV, but I ask you to at least consider these points. The question of separates v. integration must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and only after comparing product-specific details. But I don’t think one can make a sweeping, across-the-board statement one way or the other.

My 2c.