Exakt

[jakez]

If I may, I’d like to throw in a counterpoint to Exakt, room correction, and the necessity of the need for someone to install a system.

If you have a room dedicated to your stereo, and you plan on living in that same house for many many years, and you have a qualified and good dealer nearby, then the tweaking has merit in my opinion. I have a great respect for anyone who can do it well, and knows the ins and out of how to get a system optimized.

For me, none of this is true. On average I move every year or two. In each place I’ve lived, the rooms are incredible different in size, shape, volume, openings, etc. There is a Linn dealer about 80km/50mi from me, but other than servicing LP12s, Linn is not a major focus for him.

I’ve been a Linn fan for over 15 years, but with the Exakt systems I’ve started to move away from Linn for these very reasons – and the cost is another.

I want a system that I can set up such that within reasonable limits of time and play is going to reach 80-90% of its potential.


For anyone curious, my current system is Linn Akubarik passive, Lejonklou Tundra mono plus Linn 2250 for the Iso-Bass, Oppo DVD, Transparent PowerBank 8, Linn interconnects and speaker wire, and Wavelength Crimson USB DAC.

Jake

[rowlandhills]

For anyone curious, my current system is Linn Akubarik passive, Lejonklou Tundra mono plus Linn 2250 for the Iso-Bass, Oppo DVD, Transparent PowerBank 8, Linn interconnects and speaker wire, and Wavelength Crimson USB DAC.

Out of interest, how do you handle the 8dB gain offset between the Tundra and the 2250?

[u252agz]

That highlights the fundamental question: what does it take to get the best out of Exakt? Maybe this is where the polarity comes in: there are those who will prefer & pursue the best from Exakt; those who will take a step back and use experience from best analogue to say it shouldn't be necessary or that complicated / critical. Which side of the line you come down on; which approach & sound you prefer is up to you - it shouldn't be this divisive; it is not a matter of right or wrong unless you are invested in developing the technology & in the sales, otherwise it's a personal choice.

I think the key issue with Exakt is ' How much musicality will one be prepared to sacrifice in order to enjoy the many benefits of this new technology'

There are benefits ranging from a quite brilliant concept and design, almost perfect execution ( barring musicality, cost and perhaps Turntable compatibility), and of course a great hi fi sound with excellent clarity soundstaging etc etc. The aesthetics and simplicity of one box and two speakers with high Family approval rating are also advantages.

For some ( myself included) the sacrifice is too much but for others it is acceptable. The problems with installation complicates matters but the fundamental issue of loss of musicality, when compared to a good analogue system, remains; at least for now.

I can understand how one can be easily seduced into the whole Exakt thing.

If I had not been fortunate enough to listen to Lejonklou products in between Linn DS and speakers, I suspect I would now be looking to upgrade my original tri-active Ninkas/LK140s/Sneaky to the Akudorik Exakt system.

[jlrchrds]

For what it's worth, Exakt installation is not straightforward. It's time consuming and from my perspective takes a lot of tunedem and tinkering to achieve satisfaction. I can't see having a dealer come over for the afternoon and getting it close to right; well unless they set up A LOT of systems and know the ins and outs. Mine sure didn't. I have a KLP12, KDSM/1, 212s (v1), 221 using Dorik Stands. It's not been plug and play from my perspective. Initially, I thought I made a massive mistake moving from my Klimax separates to Exakt Doriks. After about a week of playing and refining the setup, break in, I was getting a decent musical sound. I wasn't happy with a large chunk of my vinyl, however... that was actually caused by preset issues with the balanced connection in Konfig (the Urika was too hot and it sounded like there was clipping). After some time and additional setup trial and error (using three different setup methods), I found something that worked well and I'm still tinkering. My system sounds far better than what I recall owning before particularly with vinyl. Maybe I've just been worn down ; )

The vinyl on Exakt is just stellar, better again than digital rips to my ear and better than I recall with my KK/1. Again, it's not been plug and play. With an analog system, I can play with positioning and have a great sound with an hour or so. Not so with Exakt, I've logged in several hours on setup and plan to log in more over time.

[u252agz]

Thats an impressive job - good to hear you are now happy with. I could not even begin to start with these set up tweaks.

I go as far as having the linn dealer spend an hour or so setting up the speakers, and with simple passive systems I have usually spent an hour so prior to this with cables,mains etc

[hcl]

I believ that most people here hold "source first" pretty high. As far as I know the new KDSM with exakt link is a step up from even the old KDS/1 (better with respect to tune dem). This is said to be owned to improvements on the digital side and more precise to the clocking design. If so I would argue that "source first" dictates that a system with the new KDSM would be better than any system with any of the previous DS, e.g. Exakt KDSM based systems should be better than any other pre-exakt DS-based systems.

I would think that my understanding and execution of tune dem could be questioned and I do not have a problem with that other than that I am pretty confident that I is not the case. I could ofcourse be wrong in that regard.

That leaves us with a couple of interesting statements to consider:

1. The new KDSM os not better than KDS/1
2. Source first does not apply on Exakt and previous DS technology
3. Tune dem is not completely valid as a method to separate differently performing systems into true better and worse

1 could intiate an interesting debate. i have compared the two and found that statement 1 is false. The new KDSM is in fact better than the old KDS/1.

If one would argue that 2 is correct. I am quite intrigued to hear the argument for why that would be true.

I think no one here would argue that 3 is valid, so I leave it at that.

[ThomasOK]

There are a few people, including Anthony, who have said that the KDSM/1 is more musical than the KDS/1. However, the Exakt outputs appear to have nothing to do with this. Linn have announced the KDS/2 and ADS/2. There are also new versions of the MDS and MDSM. All these units now have ExaktLink outputs as well as analog outs so they can drive either an Exakt speaker or analog system directly.

Possibly more importantly, Linn have disclosed that they have developed a new and better clocking topology and an improved layout of the audio board both of which are said improve the musical performance of the unit. These upgrades were first implemented in the KDSM/1 and ADSM/1 and account for the KDSM/1 outperforming the KDS/1. The KDS/2 should therefore be musically at least as good as, if not better than, the KDSM/1.

Upgrades to older KDS and ADS units will also be available as will Renew kits for the replaced main boards. Linn will introduce these in Scotland in the middle of the month and are already taking orders for them. Pricing went up a little on the KDS/2 and ADS/2 but has remained the same for the Majik units.

Although these pieces all now have ExaktLink outputs, a good example of Linn making this technology more available, it is also important to note that the improved circuitry appears to benefit the analog outputs at least as much as the Exakt ones. I have been told that the KDSM/1 through Sagatun Monos is amazing, although I have not heard it myself yet. I would expect the same to be true of the KDS/2 - maybe even moreso.

[Teemu]

Is someone compared kdsm/0 (as source only) to kds/1 both with latest software?

[hcl]

There are a few people, including Anthony, who have said that the KDSM/1 is more musical than the KDS/1.

Yes, that seems to be the common opinion.

However, the Exakt outputs appear to have nothing to do with this.

On what grounds do you suggest that?

Reserving myself from the possibility that my source may have missunderstood the message from the Linn representative at the demo he attended, I question that the improvement of the clocking cirkuit that is done to the new Exakt supporting DSs would not affect the Exakt system performance in a smilar way that it affects the analogue performance of the DS. Since the clocking is the common part for both the Exakt out and the rest of the KDS(M) it woulf be really strange if the improved clocking would not affect both outputs.

[ThomasOK]

There are a few people, including Anthony, who have said that the KDSM/1 is more musical than the KDS/1.

Yes, that seems to be the common opinion.

However, the Exakt outputs appear to have nothing to do with this.

On what grounds do you suggest that?

Reserving myself from the possibility that my source may have missunderstood the message from the Linn representative at the demo he attended, I question that the improvement of the clocking cirkuit that is done to the new Exakt supporting DSs would not affect the Exakt system performance in a smilar way that it affects the analogue performance of the DS. Since the clocking is the common part for both the Exakt out and the rest of the KDS(M) it woulf be really strange if the improved clocking would not affect both outputs.

I did not say that the improvements to the clocking, or even to the circuit layout, did not improve the Exakt outputs. Indeed I would certainly expect they would. What I said was that the inclusion of Exakt outputs BY ITSELF would not improve the musical quality of the DS. That it was the other changes which brought the reported musical improvement. And that the improvements would be there if they had not included Exakt outputs as well.

[hcl]

I did not say that the improvements to the clocking, or even to the circuit layout, did not improve the Exakt outputs. Indeed I would certainly expect they would. What I said was that the inclusion of Exakt outputs BY ITSELF would not improve the musical quality of the DS. That it was the other changes which brought the reported musical improvement. And that the improvements would be there if they had not included Exakt outputs as well.

It appears I totally missread what you wrote. I apologize for that!

[ThomasOK]

I did not say that the improvements to the clocking, or even to the circuit layout, did not improve the Exakt outputs. Indeed I would certainly expect they would. What I said was that the inclusion of Exakt outputs BY ITSELF would not improve the musical quality of the DS. That it was the other changes which brought the reported musical improvement. And that the improvements would be there if they had not included Exakt outputs as well.

It appears I totally missread what you wrote. I apologize for that!

Not a problem. English is a pain in the butt language even for those of us raised with only it. The idea of trying to learn Swedish would frighten me. I already found out, in doing some translation of Harmonihyllan documents using Google Translate, that there are compound Swedish words that can have several different meanings depending on where you place the breaks.

[lejonklou]

...there are compound Swedish words that can have several different meanings depending on where you place the breaks.

Yes!

There are several facebook groups devoted to this. The intention is to entertain and educate (as some get very annoyed by incorrect spacing). Examples:

Skumtomte=Christmas marshmallow
Skum tomte=Weird Santa

Ringmunk=Donut
Ring munk=Call Monk

Kassapersonalen=The cashiers
Kassa personalen=The staff that sucks

Gå alltid lättpackad i fjällen=Always carry a light packing in the mountains
Gå alltid lätt packad i fjällen=Always walk slightly drunk in the mountains

All of these were from misspelled signs (the last one at a mountain cabin).

[hcl]

...there are compound Swedish words that can have several different meanings depending on where you place the breaks.

Yes!

There are several facebook groups devoted to this. The intention is to entertain and educate (as some get very annoyed by incorrect spacing). Examples:

Skumtomte=Christmas marshmallow
Skum tomte=Weird Santa

Ringmunk=Donut
Ring munk=Call Monk

Kassapersonalen=The cashiers
Kassa personalen=The staff that sucks

Gå alltid lättpackad i fjällen=Always carry a light packing in the mountains
Gå alltid lätt packad i fjällen=Always walk slightly drunk in the mountains

All of these were from misspelled signs (the last one at a mountain cabin).

Maybe this should be movet to another thread, but I did find it quite amusing :-))

[hcl]

...
Although these pieces all now have ExaktLink outputs, a good example of Linn making this technology more available, it is also important to note that the improved circuitry appears to benefit the analog outputs at least as much as the Exakt ones. I have been told that the KDSM/1 through Sagatun Monos is amazing, although I have not heard it myself yet. I would expect the same to be true of the KDS/2 - maybe even moreso.

As it is likely that the clock circuit improvements benefit both analogue output and Exakt out I still find it interesting that many seem to prefer the old and (altough also very good, but) inferior analogue out from KDS/1.

This I think either:

A. invalidates "source first" or tune-dem as a fully universal and objective measure for musical qulity of hifi equipment.

B. Indicates that the shortcomings of the less well performing Exakt installations are due to explicit shortcomings in the Exakt installation resulting in a sound that some find musically non satisfying.

As I have heard both a quite good Akudorik system and a very good Akubarik system I am inclined to think that B is true. Finding A to be true would be quite surprising.

[lejonklou]

The source is in the speaker

[Music Lover]

This I think either:

A. invalidates "source first" or tune-dem as a fully universal and objective measure for musical qulity of hifi equipment.

B. Indicates that the shortcomings of the less well performing Exakt installations are due to explicit shortcomings in the Exakt installation resulting in a sound that some find musically non satisfying.

C. Shortcomings in the Exakt architecture and focus on HIFI sound instead of musical performance.

For me the total failure is Exakt marketing! "The source is in the speaker".
I understand they consider the source being the D/A converter but if the customer use Exaktbox then what?
It's painful to witness such an encroachment of "Source first". (that is also deadly easy to demonstrate)

[hcl]

The source is in the speaker

That is just marketing. Why do you feel that to be relevant in a discussion about performance? Your behaviour, in this respect, continue to dissapoint.

[hcl]

This I think either:

A. invalidates "source first" or tune-dem as a fully universal and objective measure for musical qulity of hifi equipment.

B. Indicates that the shortcomings of the less well performing Exakt installations are due to explicit shortcomings in the Exakt installation resulting in a sound that some find musically non satisfying.

C. Shortcomings in the Exakt architecture and focus on HIFI sound instead of musical performance.

For me the total failure is Exakt marketing! "The source is in the speaker".
I understand they consider the source being the D/A converter but if the customer use Exaktbox then what?
It's painful to witness such an encroachment of "Source first". (that is also deadly easy to demonstrate)

Again. I think the marketing approach is irrelevant to the discussion, but I agree that the slogan only tell half of the truth.

I think the Exakt architecture is well founded, but also rather bold, introducing new and elseware un-supported interfaces. You may be right about the driver compensation to be done more with hifi-performance in mind than good tune-dem. That should be pretty easy to fix if that is the case, as the driver responce is possible to alter in the software. I'm not sure that you are right though (as I have had the opportunity to listen to very good performing Exakt systems).

[lejonklou]

The source is in the speaker

That is just marketing. Why do you feel that to be relevant in a discussion about performance? Your behaviour, in this respect, continue to dissapoint.

Please stop picking fights. I am quoting Linn. Their slogan indicates that they consider the DA converter to be the source. Your reasoning is based on the idea that the clock is the source. I think both are incorrect simplifications.

I think C is correct and would like to add:

D: We have different ideas about what performance is when it comes to musical reproduction.

[Erik]

I'm worried about the way Exakt was developed. A lot of technical explanations and talk about distorsion and measurements gives me a bad gut feeling. I hope I'm wrong when I suspect listening tests has had prioritization after technical BS.

C seems correct and D is another way of saying we value tune dem different.

/Erik

[tokenbrit]

The clearest demonstration to me that different encoding: WAV vs FLAC, and different NASs with SSD vs HDD can be heard to affect the sound, was on the receiving end of an Exakt system.The digital source was definitely not in the A-D conversion in the speakers, and realistically not in any of the components that Linn markets & sells.

[hcl]

The source is in the speaker

That is just marketing. Why do you feel that to be relevant in a discussion about performance? Your behaviour, in this respect, continue to disappoint.

Please stop picking fights. I am quoting Linn. Their slogan indicates that they consider the DA converter to be the source. Your reasoning is based on the idea that the clock is the source. I think both are incorrect simplifications.

I am not picking anything. I am truly sorry you think that, which also is the reason I feel disappointed by your behaviour in this respect. Anyway...

Could you please explain why you think that my opinion is that the clock is the source.

I think C is correct and would like to add:

It would also be interesting to know why you think C is correct.

D: We have different ideas about what performance is when it comes to musical reproduction.

There are a lot of ideas about musical reproduction and I do not think two people have exactly identical ideas in this respect. Some or many people may be close, but we all differ somewhat in our musical experiences thus also in our appreciation of music and music reproduction. We may be able to come to common conclusions using tune dem, but that does not make us identical from a music perception perspective. I think tune dem is a powerful method, but it is quite obvious that different people are differently skilled in performing and using it.

[Ozzzy189]

Anyone reading this would probably think you ARE picking fights hcl, it certainly looks like it to me reading this anyway.

[hcl]

Anyone reading this would probably think you ARE picking fights hcl, it certainly looks like it to me reading this anyway.

How is that? Please explain.

I feel there are a big desire to dismiss Exakt on here and I do not think it is correct. I do not dismiss the negative reports, but it appears there are always some non sorted condition involved and I find that a bit dsiturbing.