Exakt

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

Music Lover wrote:
And inside the system, the first equipment is either DS (analogue out) or Exakt DSM - both going to have impact of the musicality.
That is very easy to demonstrate.
As you say ML, we can't influence the real source in the studio etc. so let's ignore that.

It might be easy to demonstrate that the KEDSM does sound better than an AEDSM, and I agree that it does, so yes, that part of the source does make a very small difference. But you can't call a DS a source and an AEDSM a source as they do different things. There needs to be consistency - either the DS is a source (and therefore the EDSM plus the Exaktbox is the source because it also has an analogue output), or you need to compare the EDSM to the bit in the DS just before the DAC, which is not possible. So how to determine that the bit inside the DS before the DAC is better than an EDSM? It can't be done.
Music Lover wrote:

Got a question in a PM...
To be clear, I have registered for the DYI version of Exact filters on Linn home page. Now waiting on their feedback. I hope I can use Konfig in my PC to build the 3677/4645 filter. And this without measuring the speaker elements first, as I like to start designing the X-over points first.
Exakt only applies the phase improvements by knowing the electrical characteristics of the drivers in their enclosure. I don't think designing can be done without knowing these first. Without the electrical measurement, I don't think Exakt will know what to do with the output signal.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

matthias wrote: Sorry, but in my view you have a complete wrong understanding of the source. My understanding of source is as here:
http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13
In an Exakt system you have the input signal which is the source. In the following steps the signal gets converted in multiple ways, is send into a DVC and IN THE END it is converted to analogue right before the poweramp. These multiple steps have nothing to do with the source:
https://small.linncdn.com/white-papers/ ... re-amp.pdf
Please have a look at page 7 and there are additional DSPs for Exakt.
It is clear from an engineering POV that all components have to be designed to work together but this has nothing to do with the source first principle.

Matt
I don't think I do have a wrong understanding of the source (either completely, or partially). The definition in the forum rules is fine, if that's the system being considered. But Exakt doesn't do it that way, so its necessary to think differently about the definition of a source. This doesn't challenge the hierarchy defined in the rules at all. The definition in the rules which refers to the components in the home part of the chain, assumes a transcription process - be that from a file to analogue electrical or from a wiggle on plastic to analogue electrical.

It just needs some consistency - transcription is the key to that consistency. How the transcription is achieved and the success of that transcription is, of course, entirely up for debate. Just like how good the translation from ethernet to PCM is in a streamer, or how good a DAC is in a CD player or how good a cartridge is on a turntable, they're all steps in the transcription process and each has their various merits and de-merits and debatable points. Exakt moves stuff around in the process, but it still depends on good ethernet to PCM conversion just like a DS and it still depends on a good DAC, just like a DS. But think about transcription not about components in a box just because that's the way they've traditionally been considered.
Last edited by sunbeamgls on 2017-02-18 13:47, edited 1 time in total.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Re: Exakt

Post by Music Lover »

sunbeamgls wrote: A Katalyst DAC can't be used on an Exaktlink output, that's not how it works.
Correct but a Katalyst'ed DS is better at sending the ExaktLink signal to the Exaktbox.
All equipment involved impact the musicality.
Easy to demonstrate.
It has been the same before. MDSM is less good than a ADSM feeding ExaktLink to the Exakt speaker/Exaktbox.
And KDSM is better than ADSM.
I tried this and my dealer agree.
It's all about musical understanding!
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: Exakt

Post by matthias »

sunbeamgls wrote: It might be easy to demonstrate that the KEDSM does sound better than an AEDSM, and I agree that it does, so yes, that part of the source does make a very small difference. But you can't call a DS a source and an AEDSM a source as they do different things. There needs to be consistency - either the DS is a source (and therefore the EDSM plus the Exaktbox is the source because it also has an analogue output), or you need to compare the EDSM to the bit in the DS just before the DAC, which is not possible. So how to determine that the bit inside the DS before the DAC is better than an EDSM? It can't be done.
IMO, it is better the say "source component" than the source. The LP12 is a source component as well, but has several parts like tonearm and cartridge, similar to a DS. It is interesting as ML reportet that a Klimax Katalyst has a better Exakt output than a KEDSM.
IMO, the Exaktbox is not a source component.

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Re: Exakt

Post by Music Lover »

sunbeamgls wrote:
Music Lover wrote:
And inside the system, the first equipment is either DS (analogue out) or Exakt DSM - both going to have impact of the musicality.
That is very easy to demonstrate.
As you say ML, we can't influence the real source in the studio etc. so let's ignore that.

It might be easy to demonstrate that the KEDSM does sound better than an AEDSM, and I agree that it does, so yes, that part of the source does make a very small difference. But you can't call a DS a source and an AEDSM a source as they do different things. There needs to be consistency - either the DS is a source (and therefore the EDSM plus the Exaktbox is the source because it also has an analogue output), or you need to compare the EDSM to the bit in the DS just before the DAC, which is not possible. So how to determine that the bit inside the DS before the DAC is better than an EDSM? It can't be done.
I prefer talking about source first as the word "source" is relative to the context.
If you read my post again, you notice I talk about source only one time. The musician.
After that, source first applies.

Example "source first":
In a speaker/amp-combo - the amp is more important
In a preamp/poweramp-combo - the pre is more important

sunbeamgls wrote: There needs to be consistency - either the DS is a source (and therefore the EDSM plus the Exaktbox is the source because it also has an analogue output), or you need to compare the EDSM to the bit in the DS just before the DAC, which is not possible. So how to determine that the bit inside the DS before the DAC is better than an EDSM? It can't be done.
There is consistency.
As I wrote in the previous post, all equipment influence the signal.
The first equipment involved = most important. (or a source component, the name Mattias suggested)

During 40 years, this was Linns definition. And easy to demonstrate.
With Exakt, Linn changed the message, but it's easy to demonstrate that Linn is (was) wrong.
It's all about musical understanding!
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

ML's view that the KDS/3 delivers a better Exaktlink signal confirms that Exakt continues the importance of component hierarchy in the chain to the analogue signal. Cool.

I don't think that's the discussion though.

Its about which is the better transcription chain. For me that's Exakt. For others its not.

We all agree source first is the rule. I prefer to consider a working solution, rather than a bunch of unusable components. On that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

ML - I think Linn was wrong in its marketing message. That's different from being wrong with the solution. I would urge you to separate the 2 things, even if you think they're both wrong :)
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: Exakt

Post by matthias »

sunbeamgls wrote: I don't think I do have a wrong understanding of the source (either completely, or partially). The definition in the forum rules is fine, if that's the system being considered. But Exakt doesn't do it that way, so its necessary to think differently about the definition of a source. This doesn't challenge the hierarchy defined in the rules at all. The definition in the rules which refers to the components in the home part of the chain, assumes a transcription process - be that from a file to analogue electrical or from a wiggle on plastic to analogue electrical.
It just needs some consistency - transcription is the key to that consistency. How the transcription is achieved and the success of that transcription is, of course, entirely up for debate. Just like how good the translation from ethernet to PCM is in a streamer, or how good a DAC is in a CD player or how good a cartridge is on a turntable, they're all steps in the transcription process and each has their various merits and de-merits and debatable points. Exakt moves stuff around in the process, but it still depends on good ethernet to PCM conversion just like a DS and it still depends on a good DAC, just like a DS. But think about transcription not about components in a box just because that's the way they've traditionally been considered.
I regard the source first principle as a fundamental law in music playback like gravity in physics.
Exakt does not break any rules, so we do not need to think differently about a new definition of source.
What we have to think about differently is however that the digital pathway is at least as complex as the analogue pathway and involves multiple steps and conversions on the way.
The question is whether we need Ethernet and NAS for the best digital reproduction.
IMO, is is better to have all the music stored on a very good server/computer and go directly from this server to a DAC without sending the files via Ethernet.

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Re: Exakt

Post by Music Lover »

sunbeamgls wrote:ML - I think Linn was wrong in its marketing message. That's different from being wrong with the solution. I would urge you to separate the 2 things, even if you think they're both wrong :)
I haven't said the solution (architecture) is wrong. :)
We don't really know how good Exakt can be yet.
I like to be humble as I remember it took Linn many years getting digital replay decent.
Digital replay is a more difficult than most think.

Personally I prefer a simple architecture/implementation. Normally this is better
It's all about musical understanding!
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Exakt

Post by Spannko »

Well, just for fun, I'm going to disagree with all of you regarding what or where a "source" is! ***

In my mind, the source is the original performer/s. Then, the analogue of the original performance is transported from the recording venue, through a series of stages, into our listening rooms. I see that it's the role of each stage to transport the signal, from its input to output, without any unintentional changes to the analogue of the original performance.

I prefer this model to the more traditional "source first" way of thinking because it takes the "transportation system" right back to the venue and includes everything from the venue itself, the microphones and their positioning, cables, power supplies, DAW, etc, etc, all the way to our loudspeaker drive units, and even our listening environment, and reinforces the importance of the preceding stage being of a higher quality than the following stage (otherwise, information lost at each stage, is lost forever).

*** Edit. I've missed a few posts, particularly ML's. So it looks as though I'm not disagreeing with everyone!

***Edit 2. I've just followed the link to the forum rules (which I've never actually read!) and see that FL described the signal path going right back to the performer, with the performer being the most important in the chain, way back in 2007. So it looks like I'm not only 10 years late to the party, I'm also preaching to the converted!
Last edited by Spannko on 2017-02-18 19:01, edited 2 times in total.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: Exakt

Post by matthias »

@Spannko
Agree.

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

@spannko :)
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

Music Lover wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote: A Katalyst DAC can't be used on an Exaktlink output, that's not how it works.
Correct but a Katalyst'ed DS is better at sending the ExaktLink signal to the Exaktbox.
All equipment involved impact the musicality.
Easy to demonstrate.
It has been the same before. MDSM is less good than a ADSM feeding ExaktLink to the Exakt speaker/Exaktbox.
And KDSM is better than ADSM.
I tried this and my dealer agree.
BTW, is a Katalyst DS better as a source than the KDSM, or better than a KDS/2? Just wondering if it has anything to do with Katalyst, or if it is the simplicity of the DS vs the compexity of the KDSM that makes the difference? I don't think you gave an answer to the question of KDS/3 being better than what product as an Exakt starting point?
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Exakt

Post by Spannko »

sunbeamgls wrote:
But your last point is an opinion (agreed with by some) but is contradicted by the opinions of 10 seasoned listeners, just before Christmas. Fine to express an opinion of course, but should be written as such, not as though its fact. Its not like a source upgrade and Exakt are mutually exclusive either - never quite understood that argument.
This is an excellent example of why the Tune Method rule is enforced on this forum.

No one can deny what you heard at the factory, and it's everyone's right to have an opinion. However, I was at the factory in September '15, as were many of the "seasoned" 10 who went to the factory in December '16. Using the Keltik demo as an example, it was later described on the Linn forum in glowing terms, and for some, it was the best system they'd ever heard. My opinion of the same system was that it was just about as bad as anything I've ever heard! To explain this discrepancy, I felt that the Keltik system had a big, powerful, dynamic sound with plenty of low frequency bass. But, from a Tune Method perspective, I felt that it was pretty poor. Throughout the frequency range, the Keltiks struggled to reproduce a coherent tune. I felt it had the type of sound I often describe as a "musical mess".

Now, I know this won't go down very well: a number of experienced listeners, all hearing the same thing at the same time, and all agreeing with one another, against some lone geezer on the internet! Of course, you're all going to agree that you're all right, and I've got it totally wrong, but that's not the point. In some sense, we're all right: we're just viewing what we see through different lenses.

Nearly every HiFi forum allows their members to describe what they hear using any "lens" they wish, which is absolutely fine. However, if the reader doesn't know what criteria have been used in coming to their conclusions, the information is not that helpful. This forum requires that a Tune Method lens is used to assess and describe what we hear. This way, if a member discovers that a block of polytetrananoflouride placed under her feet "improves" what she's hearing, the reader knows that it's the pitch relationships between the notes which will be improved, and not a bit of extra detail or dynamics, at the possible expense of the pitch coherence.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: Exakt

Post by matthias »

@Spannko:
Great post!

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

Spannko wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote:
But your last point is an opinion (agreed with by some) but is contradicted by the opinions of 10 seasoned listeners, just before Christmas. Fine to express an opinion of course, but should be written as such, not as though its fact. Its not like a source upgrade and Exakt are mutually exclusive either - never quite understood that argument.
This is an excellent example of why the Tune Method rule is enforced on this forum.

No one can deny what you heard at the factory, and it's everyone's right to have an opinion. However, I was at the factory in September '15, as were many of the "seasoned" 10 who went to the factory in December '16. Using the Keltik demo as an example, it was later described on the Linn forum in glowing terms, and for some, it was the best system they'd ever heard. My opinion of the same system was that it was just about as bad as anything I've ever heard! To explain this discrepancy, I felt that the Keltik system had a big, powerful, dynamic sound with plenty of low frequency bass. But, from a Tune Method perspective, I felt that it was pretty poor. Throughout the frequency range, the Keltiks struggled to reproduce a coherent tune. I felt it had the type of sound I often describe as a "musical mess".

Now, I know this won't go down very well: a number of experienced listeners, all hearing the same thing at the same time, and all agreeing with one another, against some lone geezer on the internet! Of course, you're all going to agree that you're all right, and I've got it totally wrong, but that's not the point. In some sense, we're all right: we're just viewing what we see through different lenses.

Nearly every HiFi forum allows their members to describe what they hear using any "lens" they wish, which is absolutely fine. However, if the reader doesn't know what criteria have been used in coming to their conclusions, the information is not that helpful. This forum requires that a Tune Method lens is used to assess and describe what we hear. This way, if a member discovers that a block of polytetrananoflouride placed under her feet "improves" what she's hearing, the reader knows that it's the pitch relationships between the notes which will be improved, and not a bit of extra detail or dynamics, at the possible expense of the pitch coherence.
Tune Method. Its not clever, nor exclusive, its really very simple and other people are allowed to understand it, who don't frequent this forum. Its not exclusive to this forum (being a facsimilie of another method with a very similar name). I happen to use the term musicality to mean the same thing, because it avoids the "specialness" of understanding the terminology. The fact that some found the Keltik system to their taste and others do not should not be seen as a fault in others, but that we have different tastes, maybe even some find it easier to follow a tune than others and that might explain some discrepancies. We need something to grab our attention before considering the tune. If there's nothing to create interest, then we're unlikely to consider listening for a tune worth the effort.

A mix of Exakt and non-Exakt owners all agreeing on which they preferred, having been customers of the company that leads with listening for the Tune? No, its not entirely conclusive, but its a pretty good sample. But its opinion which others are perfectly at liberty to disagree with. I can't say that was the case when Exakt was launched - it was a very mixed reaction. So perhaps its possible that some people find it tuneful and others don't, but the number finding it tuneful seems to be on the increase. It was ever this way, whichever musical reproduction technology you care to mention - people don't agree.

Some components mentioned on here as being tuneful I find dull and boring and therefore can't find it in me to listen for the tune because there is no emotional connection. Some I find much more engaging and I can hear the tune and other components fall at various points in between. What's disappointing is that disagreement is treated as ignorance of the Tune Method. Its a great tool that many people understand.

Source first and tune method. Its all good. But its not exclusive.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Exakt

Post by Spannko »

sunbeamgls wrote:
Spannko wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote:
But your last point is an opinion (agreed with by some) but is contradicted by the opinions of 10 seasoned listeners, just before Christmas. Fine to express an opinion of course, but should be written as such, not as though its fact. Its not like a source upgrade and Exakt are mutually exclusive either - never quite understood that argument.
This is an excellent example of why the Tune Method rule is enforced on this forum.

No one can deny what you heard at the factory, and it's everyone's right to have an opinion. However, I was at the factory in September '15, as were many of the "seasoned" 10 who went to the factory in December '16. Using the Keltik demo as an example, it was later described on the Linn forum in glowing terms, and for some, it was the best system they'd ever heard. My opinion of the same system was that it was just about as bad as anything I've ever heard! To explain this discrepancy, I felt that the Keltik system had a big, powerful, dynamic sound with plenty of low frequency bass. But, from a Tune Method perspective, I felt that it was pretty poor. Throughout the frequency range, the Keltiks struggled to reproduce a coherent tune. I felt it had the type of sound I often describe as a "musical mess".

Now, I know this won't go down very well: a number of experienced listeners, all hearing the same thing at the same time, and all agreeing with one another, against some lone geezer on the internet! Of course, you're all going to agree that you're all right, and I've got it totally wrong, but that's not the point. In some sense, we're all right: we're just viewing what we see through different lenses.

Nearly every HiFi forum allows their members to describe what they hear using any "lens" they wish, which is absolutely fine. However, if the reader doesn't know what criteria have been used in coming to their conclusions, the information is not that helpful. This forum requires that a Tune Method lens is used to assess and describe what we hear. This way, if a member discovers that a block of polytetrananoflouride placed under her feet "improves" what she's hearing, the reader knows that it's the pitch relationships between the notes which will be improved, and not a bit of extra detail or dynamics, at the possible expense of the pitch coherence.
Tune Method. Its not clever, nor exclusive, its really very simple and other people are allowed to understand it, who don't frequent this forum. Its not exclusive to this forum (being a facsimilie of another method with a very similar name). I happen to use the term musicality to mean the same thing, because it avoids the "specialness" of understanding the terminology. The fact that some found the Keltik system to their taste and others do not should not be seen as a fault in others, but that we have different tastes, maybe even some find it easier to follow a tune than others and that might explain some discrepancies. We need something to grab our attention before considering the tune. If there's nothing to create interest, then we're unlikely to consider listening for a tune worth the effort.

A mix of Exakt and non-Exakt owners all agreeing on which they preferred, having been customers of the company that leads with listening for the Tune? No, its not entirely conclusive, but its a pretty good sample. But its opinion which others are perfectly at liberty to disagree with. I can't say that was the case when Exakt was launched - it was a very mixed reaction. So perhaps its possible that some people find it tuneful and others don't, but the number finding it tuneful seems to be on the increase. It was ever this way, whichever musical reproduction technology you care to mention - people don't agree.

Some components mentioned on here as being tuneful I find dull and boring and therefore can't find it in me to listen for the tune because there is no emotional connection. Some I find much more engaging and I can hear the tune and other components fall at various points in between. What's disappointing is that disagreement is treated as ignorance of the Tune Method. Its a great tool that many people understand.

Source first and tune method. Its all good. But its not exclusive.

Quote, "Now, I know this won't go down very well: a number of experienced listeners, all hearing the same thing at the same time, and all agreeing with one another, against some lone geezer on the internet! Of course, you're all going to agree that you're all right, and I've got it totally wrong, but that's not the point. In some sense, we're all right: we're just viewing what we see through different lenses".

IMHO,recognising and accepting difference is far more important than everyone agreeing.

Just as a matter of interest. Which components described as being tuneful have you heard and felt they were dull and boring?
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6523
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by lejonklou »

Spannko wrote:This is an excellent example of why the Tune Method rule is enforced on this forum.

No one can deny what you heard at the factory, and it's everyone's right to have an opinion. However, I was at the factory in September '15, as were many of the "seasoned" 10 who went to the factory in December '16. Using the Keltik demo as an example, it was later described on the Linn forum in glowing terms, and for some, it was the best system they'd ever heard. My opinion of the same system was that it was just about as bad as anything I've ever heard! To explain this discrepancy, I felt that the Keltik system had a big, powerful, dynamic sound with plenty of low frequency bass. But, from a Tune Method perspective, I felt that it was pretty poor. Throughout the frequency range, the Keltiks struggled to reproduce a coherent tune. I felt it had the type of sound I often describe as a "musical mess".

Now, I know this won't go down very well: a number of experienced listeners, all hearing the same thing at the same time, and all agreeing with one another, against some lone geezer on the internet! Of course, you're all going to agree that you're all right, and I've got it totally wrong, but that's not the point. In some sense, we're all right: we're just viewing what we see through different lenses.

Nearly every HiFi forum allows their members to describe what they hear using any "lens" they wish, which is absolutely fine. However, if the reader doesn't know what criteria have been used in coming to their conclusions, the information is not that helpful. This forum requires that a Tune Method lens is used to assess and describe what we hear. This way, if a member discovers that a block of polytetrananoflouride placed under her feet "improves" what she's hearing, the reader knows that it's the pitch relationships between the notes which will be improved, and not a bit of extra detail or dynamics, at the possible expense of the pitch coherence.
Thank you Spannko!
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by ThomasOK »

In some ways I'm almost sorry I resuscitated this thread. But I'm no longer going to feed the troll.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

ThomasOK wrote:In some ways I'm almost sorry I resuscitated this thread. But I'm no longer going to feed the troll.
Shame. I thought the debate was interesting. Particularly as ML had established a source first hierarchy in Exakt.

Trying to establish what's happening isn't trolling.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
donuk
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 406
Joined: 2010-02-21 13:25

Re: Exakt

Post by donuk »

I accept this gentlemen, and obviously my contributions to this forum must be very limited in the future. But there are two points I would like to make.

Firstly, I have been listening to hifi, building up systems for decades. I have also built valve amplifiers from scratch. I have many good friends in the hifi world, dealers, reps and enthusiasts. I am also a musician (which I have been roundly told in the past is a disadvantage.) Just believe me - tunedem is a useful method of comparing perceived sounds if you know what you are talking about, and do it all the same way. But, and here's the big "but" I have met people who profess to be tunedemmers who delude themselves, and produce such a bad system that our cat would get up and go out of the room. I have no doubt that some of these people contribute to your forum and bask in the self-perceived glory of being one of the cognoscenti.

And if I tell you I understand the tunedem process, but do not consciously use it, you will not believe me, nor value my comments.

Secondly. And sorry to repeat myself from a previous post. I have met Fredrick, I love his products, and I do my best to promote his products - I recently had a local dealer friend admiring my Tundra 2. But there is no forum where I can discuss Lejonklou products where my views will be respected. How easy would it be for me to say "I have tried my Tundra with various mains leads, and by doing a tunedem evaluation, I have found its native lead to be the best"? You would be saying "Yeah, right on, Don". If my ears are good enough to want to buy Lejonklou it is a bit disingenuous to then disallow my comments on his forum.

The hifi world is shrinking and vulnerable; there is no room for elitist sects.

Just some musings,
Donuk sunny downtown York
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: Exakt

Post by sunbeamgls »

Spannko wrote:
IMHO,recognising and accepting difference is far more important than everyone agreeing.
Wise words Spannko.
Spannko wrote:
Just as a matter of interest. Which components described as being tuneful have you heard and felt they were dull and boring?
I don't think I can say here. At best its off topic and at worst it would be accused of trolling. Probably best to have said 'systems containing products recommended here' as they're components working together as they don't produce anything on their own.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Exakt

Post by Spannko »

Don,


There's nothing special about being a Tune Demmer, and if it's a club (as I so often hear it described), it's the biggest club in the world. Enjoying rhythms and tunes is very possibly a fundamental human requirement. Even babies respond to music in their mothers womb! They're pre programmed to respond to a musical stimulus. Why do so many audiophiles object to a process which is intended to maximise the accuracy of the reproduction of R&T's and thus their enjoyment of something so important? I just don't get it!
Last edited by Spannko on 2017-02-28 10:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Re: Exakt

Post by Music Lover »

sunbeamgls wrote:
Music Lover wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote: A Katalyst DAC can't be used on an Exaktlink output, that's not how it works.
Correct but a Katalyst'ed DS is better at sending the ExaktLink signal to the Exaktbox.
All equipment involved impact the musicality.
Easy to demonstrate.
It has been the same before. MDSM is less good than a ADSM feeding ExaktLink to the Exakt speaker/Exaktbox.
And KDSM is better than ADSM.
I tried this and my dealer agree.
BTW, is a Katalyst DS better as a source than the KDSM, or better than a KDS/2? Just wondering if it has anything to do with Katalyst, or if it is the simplicity of the DS vs the compexity of the KDSM that makes the difference? I don't think you gave an answer to the question of KDS/3 being better than what product as an Exakt starting point?
Sorry to be non specific, I normally use DS as a label on all DS-related products from Linn.
It was KDSM vs KDSM/Katalyst (the models with both analogue out and ExaktLink)

Conclusion #1
It's not only the DAC that is important för overall performance.


Linn have used same DAC since 2007 in Majik, Akurate and Klimax DS-products. (Wolfson WM8741)
Still every one of these geting better for each generation and competitors using same DAC is less good.

Conclusion #2
The implantation and overall optimisation is crucial, and more important than the DAC.


PS
Your last question sunbeamgls, not sure I follow you. What exaktly (hehe) did you ask?
It's all about musical understanding!
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Re: Exakt

Post by Music Lover »

ThomasOK wrote:In some ways I'm almost sorry I resuscitated this thread. But I'm no longer going to feed the troll.
I only see honset questions here. I think the Dig-Tech discussion is interesting as we know so little.
On this subject it's good with other views. You always learn something.


The important bit is that we discuss products and tweaks - using Tune Dem as evaluating method!
It's all about musical understanding!
Post Reply