Rives PARC or Tact 2.0 AA for room correction?

Onhwy, I don't understand your suggestion that the TACT is inappropriate for this application and assertion that analog equalization is the optimal solution. The reason to add an "extra A/D and D/A" stage in the playback is to remove room effects which have a great negative impact than any intermediate processing steps.

Candidly, the 'digital artifact' argument (not made by you) is a bit specious, for analog equalization also introduces phase and amplitude artifacts to the playback. So it's more an issue of minimizing the negative effects of the improvement activity. And on this score, we fall into the subjective realm of what people are looking for in their system. If time coherency is paramount to the listener, then there is one product which can assist. If frequency flatness is desired, however, then there are two approaches (which have pros and cons).

What Mr. Rives writes is very interesting. I remember reading a recent article about the TacT in Hi-Fi News, I believe, in which the reviewer clearly says that any filtering beyond 4th order is very audible as distortion. Let's remember that one of the supposed advantages of digital correction is the very high-order filtering possible.

Funny, you never see any TacT reps hanging around these forums like Mr.Rives.

Mprime, adding the extra A/D and D/A is too steep a price to pay if vinyl is the pride of your system. If CD playback is your primary source (not SACD or DVD-A), then digital room correction makes sense. IMHO, of course.

I don't disagree with Mprime's comments, but it makes more sense to me to just go digitally from the CD player to the Tact. The different (if any) between the D/A stages is probably less than the ill effect (even if small) of the added A/D/A stages.

Tact maintains a well run user group on Yahoo. Here's the link. Not everyone markets via Audiogon.