TA-100

[michael14]

Slightly different price points, but what do people think as between the TA-100 and Marantz PM6006?  Thanks!

[Axis]

Jan 10, 2017 13:22:24 GMT -5 michael14 said:

Slightly different price points, but what do people think as between the TA-100 and Marantz PM6006?  Thanks!

I will tell you I am biased for Emotiva gear but Emotiva has been making analog two channel gear that sounds better than even some of the more expensive major audio companies gear.

Do yourself a favor and try Emotiva gear and if you do not like it, return it before 30 days. It is not that hard to mail it back.

[michael14]

I'm already a happy owner of an Emotiva XPA-3, so I'm definitely aware of the value-for-dollar! Just thinking the TA-100 may not quite stand up against that Marantz.

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2016 12:05:40 GMT -5 leonski said:

Speaker impdance does matter. I know of NO 'convention' about the definition of 'nominal impedance'. But it is only useful with other measurables.
You are at the mercy of the marketing folks, so trust IS important in this regard.

It is clear that some kind of Real Reactive dummy load is needed for the proper testing of amps. Big 'into a resistor' numbers are cool but don't tell you much.

But of MORE importance is the Phase Angle which the speaker presents TO the amp. And the Amps reaction TO such wacky phase loads.

The reason the 1% number for distorion MAY be important is that it indicates potential HEADROOM issues. Even 1db is less than about 115 watts peak. If you wanted 3db headroom, you'd need double the RMS.

50@8 WOULD be 100@4 with a PERFECT (doesn't actually exist) Voltage Source amp.

But in the real world? Using a speaker APPROPRIATE for the amp, you have little to worry about. Cruising along at 5 watts leaves over 12db headroom to 90 watts. That's LOUD. This is of course assuming a system, speakers and ROOM in proportion. No cavern or volume level to make you nauseous. Though if you DID have some crazy sensitive speaker, you COULD pull it off! It'd have to be at the 100db mark or above, methinks.


I like review shopping, too. Kind of Fantasy Island for stereo heads.

Leonski, you raise some good points about the variables that influence how an amplifier will drive speakers with a particular impedance. There is an impedance curve, because impedance for a loudspeaker changes with frequency, and there is also a phase curve for impedance, with positive impedance phase being inductive, and negative impedance phase being capacitive, and larger positive or negative angles being "more" of one or the other. Amps tend to have the most trouble with capacitive impedance phase angles because the load "acts" like its impedance is actually lower than its measured value at that frequency, and more current is drawn from the amp while it tries to supply the amount of voltage dictated by the input signal. So this leads to more waste heat in the amp and more likelihood of reaching the limits of the amp. Only a single, full-range planar loudspeaker is likely to behave with an almost purely resistive impedance and impedance phase, because its conductor does not form an inductive loop of wire. In multi-way speakers, planar and AMT style tweeters do not behave with purely resistive impedance over their passband because of residual effects of the crossover network; the drivers themselves without any crossover do behave almost perfectly resistively but do not deliver full range performance.

There is a standard for how loudspeaker impedance should be measured, but it is not universally followed (and the worst offenders are normally high-end audio companies that have spent a long time developing very complex passive crossovers that experience dips and peaks in the impedance, and are depending on their customer using a robust power amplifier to compensate). That standard is IEC-268-5, and the standard dictates that the maximum nominal impedance value that may be stated must be the minimum value measured over the stated passband (frequency response) of the speaker, and may not fall below 80% of the nominal value, so a 4-ohm speaker should not dip below 3.2 ohms. This is a fairly stringent standard, as it is nowadays rare to find an amplifier that is not stable at 50% of its nominal minimum impedance, even though its power output before clipping may not "double down" as one would expect for a pure voltage source.

[Axis]

Jan 10, 2017 13:40:01 GMT -5 michael14 said:

I'm already a happy owner of an Emotiva XPA-3, so I'm definitely aware of the value-for-dollar! Just thinking the TA-100 may not quite stand up against that Marantz.

If you ask me, yes it will.

[monkumonku]

Jan 10, 2017 15:32:33 GMT -5 Axis said:

Jan 10, 2017 13:40:01 GMT -5 michael14 said:

I'm already a happy owner of an Emotiva XPA-3, so I'm definitely aware of the value-for-dollar! Just thinking the TA-100 may not quite stand up against that Marantz.

If you ask me, yes it will.

My opinion, of course, but what makes the Marantz "worth" more or "better" than the TA-100 are seven things: M A R A N T Z. Just putting that name on there makes it more expensive. What price intangibles?

[michael14]

Sigh . . . this is degenerating quickly :-). Any chance someone has actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated? I'd guess not, but can't hurt to ask.

[Axis]

Jan 10, 2017 16:22:47 GMT -5 michael14 said:

Sigh . . . this is degenerating quickly :-). Any chance someone has actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated? I'd guess not, but can't hurt to ask.

You need someone to tell you which one is better ?

It is not hard for many here to tell you what you want to hear.

Do you like the Marantz ?

[beardedalbatross]

Jan 10, 2017 16:22:47 GMT -5 michael14 said:

Sigh . . . this is degenerating quickly :-). Any chance someone has actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated? I'd guess not, but can't hurt to ask.

Grab the TA-100 if you need USB input and a preamp section with subwoofer outs. Grab the Marantz unit if you want a more detailed remote, two sets of speaker outputs, and spend double the money. Besides that, if you run them within their spec it is very likely the only audible sound difference will be in the phono sections.

Edit: if you care about the specs, might as well get a PT-100 and A-300 for less than the Marantz unit and have power that would stomp it.

[Axis]

Jan 10, 2017 17:02:00 GMT -5 beardedalbatross said:

Jan 10, 2017 16:22:47 GMT -5 michael14 said:

Sigh . . . this is degenerating quickly :-). Any chance someone has actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated? I'd guess not, but can't hurt to ask.

Grab the TA-100 if you need USB input and a preamp section with subwoofer outs. Grab the Marantz unit if you want a more detailed remote, two sets out speaker outputs, and spend double the money. Besides that, if you run them within their spec it is very likely the only audible sound difference will be in the phono sections.

Have you "actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated?"

[brutiarti]

Jan 10, 2017 13:40:01 GMT -5 michael14 said:

I'm already a happy owner of an Emotiva XPA-3, so I'm definitely aware of the value-for-dollar! Just thinking the TA-100 may not quite stand up against that Marantz.

I will think that Marantz may not stand up against the Ta-100 to be honest.

[beardedalbatross]

Jan 10, 2017 17:04:09 GMT -5 Axis said:

Jan 10, 2017 17:02:00 GMT -5 beardedalbatross said:

Grab the TA-100 if you need USB input and a preamp section with subwoofer outs. Grab the Marantz unit if you want a more detailed remote, two sets out speaker outputs, and spend double the money. Besides that, if you run them within their spec it is very likely the only audible sound difference will be in the phono sections.

Have you "actually LISTENED TO both the TA-100 and that Marantz integrated?"

Hah, well I have heard the Marantz unit and the closest thing I have heard to the TA-100 is a pairing of the PT-100 and A-100. What he is looking for is someone who has A/B tested the units which there very likely are 0 people. So from memory, they sound the same AKA audibly transparent.

I'm of the opinion people should choose whatever is more convenient for them. Maybe the Marantz is more convenient to operate in his setup, maybe the Emotiva unit is.

[michael14]

Thanks, everyone. Because I won't have the opportunity to A/B compare the TA-100 and Marantz, the next best thing for my decisionmaking would be expert reviews. I can't really find any of those, so I then "resort" to my fellow Emotiva fans.

[jmilton]

Hardly professional, but...

hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/dac/emotiva-ta-100-stereo-preampdactuner-integrated-amplifier-airmotiv-b1-bookshelf-speaker-review/

[leonski]

Jan 10, 2017 14:54:19 GMT -5 @roryb said:

Oct 21, 2016 12:05:40 GMT -5 leonski said:

Speaker impdance does matter. I know of NO 'convention' about the definition of 'nominal impedance'. But it is only useful with other measurables.
You are at the mercy of the marketing folks, so trust IS important in this regard.

It is clear that some kind of Real Reactive dummy load is needed for the proper testing of amps. Big 'into a resistor' numbers are cool but don't tell you much.

But of MORE importance is the Phase Angle which the speaker presents TO the amp. And the Amps reaction TO such wacky phase loads.

The reason the 1% number for distorion MAY be important is that it indicates potential HEADROOM issues. Even 1db is less than about 115 watts peak. If you wanted 3db headroom, you'd need double the RMS.

50@8 WOULD be 100@4 with a PERFECT (doesn't actually exist) Voltage Source amp.

But in the real world? Using a speaker APPROPRIATE for the amp, you have little to worry about. Cruising along at 5 watts leaves over 12db headroom to 90 watts. That's LOUD. This is of course assuming a system, speakers and ROOM in proportion. No cavern or volume level to make you nauseous. Though if you DID have some crazy sensitive speaker, you COULD pull it off! It'd have to be at the 100db mark or above, methinks.


I like review shopping, too. Kind of Fantasy Island for stereo heads.

Leonski, you raise some good points about the variables that influence how an amplifier will drive speakers with a particular impedance. There is an impedance curve, because impedance for a loudspeaker changes with frequency, and there is also a phase curve for impedance, with positive impedance phase being inductive, and negative impedance phase being capacitive, and larger positive or negative angles being "more" of one or the other. Amps tend to have the most trouble with capacitive impedance phase angles because the load "acts" like its impedance is actually lower than its measured value at that frequency, and more current is drawn from the amp while it tries to supply the amount of voltage dictated by the input signal. So this leads to more waste heat in the amp and more likelihood of reaching the limits of the amp. Only a single, full-range planar loudspeaker is likely to behave with an almost purely resistive impedance and impedance phase, because its conductor does not form an inductive loop of wire. In multi-way speakers, planar and AMT style tweeters do not behave with purely resistive impedance over their passband because of residual effects of the crossover network; the drivers themselves without any crossover do behave almost perfectly resistively but do not deliver full range performance.

There is a standard for how loudspeaker impedance should be measured, but it is not universally followed (and the worst offenders are normally high-end audio companies that have spent a long time developing very complex passive crossovers that experience dips and peaks in the impedance, and are depending on their customer using a robust power amplifier to compensate). That standard is IEC-268-5, and the standard dictates that the maximum nominal impedance value that may be stated must be the minimum value measured over the stated passband (frequency response) of the speaker, and may not fall below 80% of the nominal value, so a 4-ohm speaker should not dip below 3.2 ohms. This is a fairly stringent standard, as it is nowadays rare to find an amplifier that is not stable at 50% of its nominal minimum impedance, even though its power output before clipping may not "double down" as one would expect for a pure voltage source.

Rory,
I will PRINT your answer since it helps straighten out something I've always had trouble with:    to wit:   Which was does phase go to be capacitive or inductive?
Even a Smith CHart doesn't help me.     And while I'm at it, what load is is that TUBES DO NOT LIKE?   Capacitive or Inductive?    I know tubes really hate one of 'em.  Not to mention the audible effects of huge impedance swings on response.  

[leonski]

I've seen 4 or 5 DIFFERENT 'Standard Loads' for loudspeakers. All are of know characteristics regarding phase / impedance. I'd say use ANY of 'em.
The BEST however, IMO is the Power Cube system which loads an amp from -60 degrees to +60 degrees from 2 ohms to 8 or 16 ohms.
THIS is a real killer test and many highly regarded amps simply do NOT do well.    Amp is also tested at 0 degrees (resistive) and +-30 degrees.

www.audiograph.se

Also, if you read real test report you will see that even very robust amps DO NOT double down as impedance 'halves'. They may claim 400@4 / 200@8 but it'll really be maybe 225@8 and 405@4. Certainly NO slouch, but not a TRUE DOUBLE, either. That is a theoretical construct which is an 'ideal' but doesn't hold up in the real world.

Does IEC-268 include reactance? And it is unfortunately NOT common knowledge that 'specs' are frequently made up in the marketing department by some guy who has read too much.

I OWN Maggie MG1.6qr and they are NOT purely resistive at all, but the curve IS very regular thru the crossover region, as is the reactance. ANY good amp should drive them well, as long as the low sensitivity is taken into account.

Thanks, Rory, for your help:

[michael14]

Jan 10, 2017 15:40:59 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Jan 10, 2017 15:32:33 GMT -5 Axis said:

If you ask me, yes it will.

My opinion, of course, but what makes the Marantz "worth" more or "better" than the TA-100 are seven things: M A R A N T Z. Just putting that name on there makes it more expensive. What price intangibles?

Just checked and the Marantz doesn't have any form of subwoofer output, so it's out of the running in any case!

[leonski]

Uh? use speaker level inputs to the sub? Most have them. You'd still end up running your mains Full Range.

For a bedroom / 2nd system or a main system in smaller spaces, you may not NEED a sub.

[michael14]

leonski - nah, I don't believe in signal transfer from amp to sub via speaker level. That said, does everyone here who has a 2.1 music system run their mains full range? I'm having a hard time finding a cost-effective audiophile-quality preamp/amp/receiver solution that includes a high pass to the mains.

[Axis]

Jan 11, 2017 14:57:04 GMT -5 michael14 said:

leonski - nah, I don't believe in signal transfer from amp to sub via speaker level. That said, does everyone here who has a 2.1 music system run their mains full range? I'm having a hard time finding a cost-effective audiophile-quality preamp/amp/receiver solution that includes a high pass to the mains.

I run my mains full through my USP-1. It depends on the speakers and sub and there is no certain way to run speakers and subs. It is what is best for that room and system.