timster wrote:Linn hasn't abandoned Tune Dem at all. It's still very central to their SO ethos.
Yup, my Linn dealer still used it when he set up my system 2 years ago.
Moderator: Staff
timster wrote:Linn hasn't abandoned Tune Dem at all. It's still very central to their SO ethos.
Sorry, I cant follow you, please explain.Spannko wrote:Except that you used “freedom of speech” and “it’s mandatory to use tune dem” in the same paragraph.
That's good, but I was talking about Linn not their dealers.ARMCOSMO wrote:timster wrote:Linn hasn't abandoned Tune Dem at all. It's still very central to their SO ethos.
Yup, my Linn dealer still used it when he set up my system 2 years ago.
What he's saying is that if you take freedom of speech to extremes, such as is often done in my country, you can say anything you want - even if it is harmful. So if you stipulate that all discussion about perfromance has to be based on the tune dem you are necessarily limiting the freedom of speech.Music Lover wrote:Sorry, I cant follow you, please explain.Spannko wrote:Except that you used “freedom of speech” and “it’s mandatory to use tune dem” in the same paragraph.
You have many rules, everywhere. In different forums and in society. These have nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's separate items.
That pretty well sums up the whole debate in a nutshell.ThomasOK wrote:It is the limitation of the freedom of speech, and the general cordiality of the founders and members, that keeps this forum freer of the pointless types of arguments often seen on the web. Personally I find this refreshing.
IMO, the mark of a good forum is that it finds a sensible balance between openness and discipline. We wouldn't want a forum where there was only orthodoxy and nobody could express any kind of controversial view. At the same time, we should treat our forum host and fellow members with respect, and that will on occasion mean holding back on things we might want to say and the way in which we want to say them.ThomasOK wrote:Music Lover wrote:It is the limitation of the freedom of speech, and the general cordiality of the founders and members, that keeps this forum freer of the pointless types of arguments often seen on the web. Personally I find this refreshing.
Good question.Andrew L wrote:One thing has always puzzled me. Tune Dem is used as the only permitted means of evaluation here. So, who is to say whether you used this method or not?
Linn updated their Tune Dem "how to" page, and the current version is here. I'll leave it to others to work out whether there is any significant difference between this and Fredrik's description.Charlie1 wrote:You will also find some minor differences between Fredrik's Tune Method description here and Ivor's 'How to Judge a System' page that used to be on the Linn website, and can still be found on Internet archival services.
Thanks David. Good to know Linn has put this back, albeit tweaked somewhat. It seems broadly the same as before though. Can't help thinking this was instigated by David Williamson.DavidHB wrote:Linn updated their Tune Dem "how to" page, and the current version is here. I'll leave it to others to work out whether there is any significant difference between this and Fredrik's description.
After using Tune Dem for the last 30 years when evaluating everything from car stereos to digital pianos, I’m not aware of any limitations of the approach.DavidHB wrote:
While, like any other method of evaluations, Tune Dem has its limitations.
David
Firstly, I said "limitations", not "failings" or "disadvantages". I know of no better method for making quick comparisons between setups and components and repeatedly and reliably establishing a difference between A and B. In that sense, I count myself as much a proponent of Tune Dem as you clearly are.Spannko wrote:After using Tune Dem for the last 30 years when evaluating everything from car stereos to digital pianos, I’m not aware of any limitations of the approach ... How would you describe the limitations as you see them?
As I said in an earlier reply, it’s clear that your approach works for you, but as you admit, it’s not Tune Dem.DavidHB wrote:
The question then arises as to whether a Tune Dem result is nevertheless a good predictor of normal listening enjoyment. Actually, I think that it is. If, on first hearing some unfamiliar component or system, I immediately think "Yes, that's good" (I know that's not Tune Dem as such, but it has the same immediacy and system focus), my opinion tends not to change when I engage with it in extended listening to different types of music. Perhaps I'm too cautious, or I'm not good enough at Tune Dem, but I always like to complement my Tune Dem and "short burst" listening with longer periods of more relaxed and less system-aware listening before reaching a fully considered view.
David
I'm a bit more cautious of this approach than I used to me. Fredrik often said something like 'more often than not we'll agree when using tune method.' and I prefer that way of approaching it. If you think about the video clips then there are some folks that 99% of the time agree, like Fredrik and Tom, but some folks are a way off that level of agreement. If you're a way off 100% then it's much more of a gamble to buy something based on the view of the another member, even when relying on the Tune Method.Spannko wrote:One of the advantages of using Tune Dem is if listener A describes X as being more tuneful than Y, then listener B will agree and could confidently buy product X without having heard it.
I think you’re right to exercise a bit of caution, particularly if it’s me doing the listening!Charlie1 wrote:I'm a bit more cautious of this approach than I used to me. Fredrik often said something like 'more often than not we'll agree when using tune method.' and I prefer that way of approaching it. If you think about the video clips then there are some folks that 99% of the time agree, like Fredrik and Tom, but some folks are a way off that level of agreement. If you're a way off 100% then it's much more of a gamble to buy something based on the view of the another member, even when relying on the Tune Method.Spannko wrote:One of the advantages of using Tune Dem is if listener A describes X as being more tuneful than Y, then listener B will agree and could confidently buy product X without having heard it.
No worries.Spannko wrote:I was actually thinking along the lines of the method being consistent, but it’s the implementation where inconsistency’s arise, and I didn’t want to cover old ground.
Thanks Charly,Charlie1 wrote:Someone asked me for the old Linn 'How to Judge A System' webpage. It was a lot harder to find than I recall, so here's a couple of older versions for posterity:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060528134 ... System.pdf
Let’s say you’ve owned a new piano for a while and it’s started to sound a “bit off” and in need of a retune. A gentleman arrives with nothing more than a special spanner and starts to fettle under the lid. You ask him where his other tools are and he tells you the only other tool he needs is between his ears. Do you say “Sorry, that’s not good enough, your idea of tune isn’t the same as mine” I’d love to see his face if you did!DavidHB wrote:I entirely agree that my approach is entirely for me. But then so also is any Tune Dem process individual to the person who engages in it. Tune Dem is a good method for working out what I prefer. But my Tune Dem results say little or nothing of certainty about what spannko, or anyone else, would prefer. Tune Dem is a subjective assessment process, not an objective system of measurement. This is a dilemma that any audio engineer will face when developing equipment. But the alternative - to rely on measurement criteria which do not fully or accurately model likely user preferences - is even worse.
David
Ivor was proud of Linn as an engineering company. Look back at the literature from the 80s and you'll see lots of that. He also gave lectures at engineering societies. I went to an early DS demo evening when Ivor used tune dem to step through different digital file formats. He was quite happy to talk about why file formats were technically flawed and why Linn felt that high res was technically superior and tune demmed better, in his opinion.Music Lover wrote:Linn abandoned TD (they removed it from their home page and stoped lecturing the method) but reintroduced it on the home page a few years back.timster wrote:Linn hasn't abandoned Tune Dem at all. It's still very central to their SO ethos.
I've visited numerous demos held by Ivor (80's and forward) and he always described and used TD. So did all Linn employees.
During recent years, demos held by Linn employees focus on technical aspects of the products - something Ivor never did. He was against technical discussions.
Some Linn reps. mention TD but it's another version, focusing on clarity.
Ivor focused on musical understanding.
Hence, that Linn products of today focus on clarity is not surprising.
Glad you found it useful.Jumanji wrote:Thanks Charly,
especially the first link I found very helpful.
The tuning of a piano is, compared with the assessment of the performance of a high end audio system, a relatively simple task. It relies on patterns in the behaviour of audio frequencies that nearly all humans recognise. So the great majority of us can perceive (with varying degrees of precision) whether a piano is in tune or not. (I'll ignore for present purposes the fact that a conventional "well tempered" piano actually distributes small errors across the tuning range to make all keys equally playable.)Spannko wrote:Let’s say you’ve owned a new piano for a while and it’s started to sound a “bit off” and in need of a retune. A gentleman arrives with nothing more than a special spanner and starts to fettle under the lid. You ask him where his other tools are and he tells you the only other tool he needs is between his ears. Do you say “Sorry, that’s not good enough, your idea of tune isn’t the same as mine” I’d love to see his face if you did!