Exakt - dividing the tunedemmers in two camps?

[Music Lover]

Haven't been around much this fall but read this interesting observation.
It deserves an own thread imho.

NOTE, I changed a word in the third sentence so it better serves the purpose of this new thread. Hope that's ok Fredrik.

In my experience, Exact has really divided the former community of tunedemmers in two camps: Lovers and haters. Some rate it as the best ever. I rate it lower than analogue systems. I also know several people who have owned Exact, found it impressive but digitally fragmented and changed back to an analogue system. Naturally, their systems have been tuned many times before that decision was made. Why don't we read about their stories? Because a lot of money is involved. A retailer voicing criticism would get into trouble. A disappointed owner would get less money back when selling.

I find Exakt having impressive clarity, separation and dynamics with reduced distortion.
That's good!
Does Exakt enhance the understanding of the music, not so sure.
But Exakt DOES getting better and better since the introduction a year ago.

Anyway...I like to discuss if we can find a pattern here.
We all know some prefer vinyl, some prefer DS - is it the vinyl guys that dismiss Exakt?
Any other patterns?

Anyone that had the opportunity to discuss Exakt with the LP12 engineers at the Linn factory?

[Charlie1]

I definitely think the integrated Klimax 350A timing is improved on Exakt. It's one of the first things I noticed. That's not to say it's more musically engaging than before, since it wasn't a side-by-side tune dem and I couldn't recall from memory, but my subjective impression was they were a better timing speaker. I certainly enjoyed it though and I'm a vinyl person. I don't think I've enjoyed the other Exakt configurations quite as much, for some reason, especially Akubariks with exterrnal amps, but maybe that system wasn't so well set-up or it needed more burn-in. I have also heard Exakt 350A's sound awful, elsewhere, so agree with comments that set-up is important, as ever.

Also, what about the digital volume control? There are a few folks on the Linn forum that are unhappy with Exakt performance at lower volume, particularly below 50. Is it possible to change ones opinion of Exakt based on listening level? I know other people claim it is very good at low volume, so opinion is still split.

I think we all agree that there are a few ways to perform a tune dem. The important factor for me is does my methodology tie in with my own preferences when just living with the component for a while. I think mine does, and therefore, tune dem is a reliable short cut. But, it's possible we are all wired slightly differently and some tune dem approaches align better to some folks enjoyment than others. I suspect this is the case.

[hcl]

I find Exakt having impressive clarity, separation and dynamics with reduced distortion.
That's good!
Does Exakt enhance the understanding of the music, not so sure.
But Exakt DOES getting better and better since the introduction a year ago.

Anyway...I like to discuss if we can find a pattern here.
We all know some prefer vinyl, some prefer DS - is it the vinyl guys that dismiss Exakt?

I would rate myself as a vinyl lover, but only due to its sonic benefits. I find every other aspect of vinyl playing a pain (partly because I jave the vinyl player in another room from where I listen).

When I tried Exakt at home it made a lot of digitally stored music sound on par with the best vinyl. Also clearly worse at times, all depending on the recording. It was a long time since I had so many goos-bump moments in such a short time.

As you say, Exakt does really live up to its name (my interpretation). It gives a very exakt reproduction of the music, not exakt in a sterile way, but insigntful. The kind of exaktness one can experience when sitting on a good spot on a live venue (even a pure acoustic one). This side of exakt may lead some astray into details. I have not that problem. I find it revealing, removing a distrubance between the performance and my experience. It is not the reason I rate Exakt high though. I rate it high because it lets me feel the intention of the performance.

[Spannko]

I agree with the view that there appears to be a disturbing trend emerging. I've heard the Exakt at 3 different dealers and whilst I agree with all the positive comments re the sound, I also agree with all the negative comments re the muscality (from a tunedem perspective). I find the mid and hf beautifully sounding and also very good musically, as some tune demmers have commented. The time delay feature appears to work, as does the room boundary adjustment (the speakers don't sound as good as being placed in the optimum position, but at least it provides a considerable improvement). The technology appears to work well in many respects, so why doesn't the Exakt pass the tunedem test? Of the 3 I've heard, 2 couldn't play full range material to save their lives, the third was better but not great. Because some aspects of Exakt appear to work, and the variability of performance, I really hope it's due to set-up.

What's really concerning is that dealers like Peoples and Schmidt are proclaiming that tunedem is dead! This is crazy! Exakt hasn't changed the fundamantals of music reproduction - the same rules apply, and always will. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" is as true now as its always been.

[hcl]

...I also agree with all the negative comments re the muscality (from a tunedem perspective). I find the mid and hf beautifully sounding and also very good musically, as some tune demmers have commented. The time delay feature appears to work, as does the room boundary adjustment (the speakers don't sound as good as being placed in the optimum position, but at least it provides a considerable improvement). The technology appears to work well in many respects, so why doesn't the Exakt pass the tunedem test? Of the 3 I've heard, 2 couldn't play full range material to save their lives, the third was better but not great. Because some aspects of Exakt appear to work, and the variability of performance, I really hope it's due to set-up.

Could You please elaborate. I am not following what is You main concerns?

What's really concerning is that dealers like Peoples and Schmidt are proclaiming that tunedem is dead! This is crazy! Exakt hasn't changed the fundamantals of music reproduction - the same rules apply, and always will. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" is as true now as its always been.

I think You bring this a bit to far. If You refer to what Peoples and Schmidt wrote (cited below) I think You miss read tye sentiment. As I understamd what they wrote, I think they argue that there is à trend in Sweden, over-simplifying music, refering to a twisted interpretation of tune-dem. I think that is to exagerate things, but as discussed here, people previously appearing to agree over the term tune-dem seem to have ben split into two (or more) groups.

...the term 'Tune-Dem' is out. It's meaning, in Sweden anyway, has been taken by LINN retailers, customers and rival brands and ''distorted'' so customers describe a LINN system like ''some bloody African drum that holds a beat that you just can't help but dance to'' ... a mass psychosis with people bumping their heads and shaking their leg at the fantastic ''Tune-Dem'' ability of the LINN system is disturbing.

[Spannko]

I'm sorry hcl, I'm not intending to be provocative. We have to be careful because so much of a persons real intent can be easily lost in translation.

My concern is the one expressed by several people on this forum, although I sincerely hope I'm wrong: The Exakt systems I've heard so far don't pass the tunedem test, as I know it (one got close, but was still deficient). Some people say they do. I was using P&S as an example of how the term tunedem is being thought of differently by some people now that we have Exakt systems.

[hcl]

I'm sorry hcl, I'm not intending to be provocative. We have to be careful because so much of a persons real intent can be easily lost in translation.

My concern is the one expressed by several people on this forum, although I sincerely hope I'm wrong: The Exakt systems I've heard so far don't pass the tunedem test, as I know it (one got close, but was still deficient). Some people say they do. I was using P&S as an example of how the term tunedem is being thought of differently by some people now that we have Exakt systems.

Oh, I did not think You were offending anyone. I wrote the text on a non cooperative pad (without knowing how to turn the spelling "help" off, a real struggle!).

Reagrding Exakt and tune-dem; maybe it is that the better the system the more is requiered on the installation to be immaculately done to make the system fly? Previously it has allways been like that. I have no argument for that it would not continue to be like that.

After all there has also developed a trend towards more simple, passive, systems. In my view passive systems are a lot easier to set up satisfactory, but they never reach equally far as the well tuned active ones. The ones coming very close to a good active system is the ones where Solo:s are used driving the speakers (havent heard Lejonklou Mono on anything more capable than the Klångedang, so can not comment on that - not that I find Klångedang bad, but they are too small to have enough capacity to suit my needs). To me even the best passive systems posses a roughness covering the small nuances required to get really close to what the musicians are doing. It is like comparing live listening through a PA (the passive system) to listening directly un-plugged (the active system). Even a good PA strips tons of nuances from the performance and highlights some aspects, while the un-plugged listening brings through so much more emotions. I feel that the passive systems strips the performance in a similar way. They can sound very good and especially or sometimes more impressive (to me), but they also fall short in some aspects. I am not saying that active systems are perfect, just hat they are able to dig through another layer of emotions and Exakt are able to extend this further. At least for digital sources. I have not listened enough to vinyl through Exakt to say wether it is of benefit also there.

Where am I heading with this? Well, it seems that systems able to bring through the most important parts of the recordings in a good way are generally prefered over systems letting through mote information while unable to keep all aurally obvious parts to contribute to the core of the music. I feel like that(!) and others may feel this more strongly. However It seems most people also prefer a more revealing system when it manages to keep it all together. That is what I (and others) have found a well set-up Exakt system to do (and Mono or, Solo over lesser capable amps driven passive systems for that matter). It might be that, now a days the parts has come to be so good (revealing) that it has become very difficult to get the most revealing (and complex, active) systems to be coherent or consistent enough not to reveal some bottom layer inconsistency (in the system itself or the in set-up).

I am also intrigued by the quality of the recordings. What about the bottom layer inconsistencies of the recordings (are anyone thinking that the recordings are perfect, not carring any inconsistent information?). I am not, but it seems the quality of the recordings are always better than one would expect. At least has it always been beneficial to use a better component, letting more information through.

I think the bottom end conclusion is that it is better to have a system that shows as much as possible of the recording, but without showing too much of its own (the systems built in shortcomings). It seem to be a more and more of a fine ballance the better the systems gets. Source first points in this direction (or rater speaker last as I sometime think of it). Get the information coherent and consistent first, otherwise it is no point in revealing it.

(I'm sorry but this come to be a side step from the tune-dem discussion. Maybe it can be moved to a more appropriate thread?)

[Spannko]

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts hcl. It appears as though we are in total agreement! Everything you describe fits my experiences to date, with the exception of the Exakt systems reproducing all of the additional information coherently. I was trying to suggest that because I've experienced most of the improvements you (and others) describe, my hope is that the problems I've heard are due to:

a) The dealers being unfamiliar with how to get the best out of Exakt
b) The systems haven't been run-in sufficiently
c) The dealers I've visited may not have used tunedem to set the system up.

My gut feeling is that it's a combination of all three!

[Charlie1]

After all there has also developed a trend towards more simple, passive, systems. In my view passive systems are a lot easier to set up satisfactory, but they never reach equally far as the well tuned active ones.

I would expect the best playback solution to be the one with the superior power amp input stage, regardless of whether or not active or passive design follows soon afterwards. Just source first theory again. I recall playing with Silver and Black ICs with different pre-amps. The Silver ICs into lesser pre-amp was more tuneful, which is a similar concept. I'd love to compare aktiv Majik or Akurate amps against a KCT, as an example, as I wonder if the same would hold true there. I'd expect the KCT input stage to be better and be the deciding factor, but proof is always in the pudding :)

Of course Exakt makes all these comparisons so much harder.

[Lego]

Tune dem is irrelevant with Linn now ..It was always used in the past to compare linn with other rival brands ..Ivor has got as close as he can to a kind of Linn dealership the same way you have with cars BMW etc...We now go into the stores with glazed eyes wanting to buy an Exakt system ..which is probably where i was in the past why would you tune dem it ..It doesn't matter if it doesn't tune dem well .Without getting too nostalgic when I heard Lp12 ekos troika lk1 280s aktiv isobariks ..I came away wishing I had the money to buy that system ...The exakt isn't selling itself in the same way .I think to myself do I really want that Old naim/PA sound at home...probably not ..tune dem is great for comparing 2 items when you've decided to spend money . .will a better tune dem make me upgrade when happy with sound at home and empty my pockets!!??..Mos Def Not

[Charlie1]

Tune dem is irrelevant with Linn now ..It was always used in the past to compare linn with other rival brands ..Ivor has got as close as he can to a kind of Linn dealership the same way you have with cars BMW etc..

I hope you're wrong about Linn and tune dem. Times have certainly changed a lot though. I recall high street shopping with friends as a teenager would often require a visit to a hi-fi shop or three. There were so many back then, in every town. And literally wall-to-wall speakers stacked up high. We just used to mope about the stores ogling and never buying anything.

[hcl]

Tune dem is irrelevant with Linn now ..It was always used in the past to compare linn with other rival brands ..Ivor has got as close as he can to a kind of Linn dealership the same way you have with cars BMW etc..

I hope you're wrong about Linn and tune dem. Times have certainly changed a lot though. I recall high street shopping with friends as a teenager would often require a visit to a hi-fi shop or three. There were so many back then, in every town. And literally wall-to-wall speakers stacked up high. We just used to mope about the stores ogling and never buying anything.

The statement that Linn has abandoned tune-dem is simpla not true. They may have gone more quiet about it in the marketing, but they seem to rely on it in house (for > exampel <). It may be that they are depending on à more diverse set of retailers and thus can not push as hard for the turné-dem aproach as before. That would be unfortunate, but rather that (and stick to the aproach in house) than going out of business.

[lejonklou]

In my view passive systems are a lot easier to set up satisfactory, but they never reach equally far as the well tuned active ones.

I disagree. I have owned active and passive systems and there is not one active system that comes close to the passive system with Klångedang that I have now. I have also several times heard passive systems with great power amps outperform highly tuned active systems with lesser amps.

One thing that active systems do very well, though, is to perform convincingly on low volumes. Sadly this advantage is now lost in systems with digital volume. I have worked on improving the low level performance of passive systems, first in the preamp with Sagatun and now in the power amp, by paying attention to how conditions change for the circuits at different volumes.

I would expect the best playback solution to be the one with the superior power amp input stage, regardless of whether or not active or passive design follows soon afterwards. Just source first theory again.

I would expect the same. Source First is hard to beat when the aim is better music.

[hcl]

(faulty post)

[k_numigl]

A key problem with Linn’s Exact is the ignorance about the source. As we know from many trials, almost every component in the digital domain makes an effect on the music, sometimes to a disastrous level. To ignore this and develop the other end is in my view more ‘source last’ than ‘source in the speaker’ and definitely not ‘source first’. As long as the digital issues are not solved (or understood), it is so likely to lose the real musicality already by the file handling in the digital domain that I not only see no reason to ‘Exakt’ my equipment but also doubt that comparisons are made in a reasonable manner at all. An actual illustration of digital problems is my download of Shostakovich’s 5th symphony from Linn Records – downloaded and copied in a careless manner it sounded so boring that all my LPs were much better. I gave it a second chance (nice to be able to download material multiple times from Linn), used a different PC with an Intel 320 SSD, a dedicated USB-port (3.0 on the Asus E45 Deluxe) and a dedicated USB-cable (iriver) – and oops, it sounds very good. As Linn presently denies the effects in the digital world, they appear to me much like Philips after the invention of the CD (‘perfect because digital’), perhaps driven by the same motives.

[hcl]

In my view passive systems are a lot easier to set up satisfactory, but they never reach equally far as the well tuned active ones.

I disagree. I have owned active and passive systems and there is not one active system that comes close to the passive system with Klångedang that I have now. I have also several times heard passive systems with great power amps outperform highly tuned active systems with lesser amps.

I did not meen that all active systems are better than all passive ones. I´m sorry I was not totally clear on that! When comparing active v.s. passive systems I think it is interseting to compare passive v.s. active with lesser amps, but from a conceptual perspective I think it is more reasonable to use amps of equal performance level.

What active systems have you owned?

One thing that active systems do very well, though, is to perform convincingly on low volumes. Sadly this advantage is now lost in systems with digital volume. I have worked on improving the low level performance of passive systems, first in the preamp with Sagatun and now in the power amp, by paying attention to how conditions change for the circuits at different volumes.

I would expect the best playback solution to be the one with the superior power amp input stage, regardless of whether or not active or passive design follows soon afterwards. Just source first theory again.

I would expect the same. Source First is hard to beat when the aim is better music.

This I agree on. At least I have not yeat heard the proof of the oposite. There have been active systems with Majik amps that I have felt quite comfortable with, but never compared them to anything in the same context (surrounding equipment/installation and room).

[hcl]

A key problem with Linn’s Exact is the ignorance about the source. As we know from many trials, almost every component in the digital domain makes an effect on the music, sometimes to a disastrous level. To ignore this and develop the other end is in my view more ‘source last’ than ‘source in the speaker’ and definitely not ‘source first’. As long as the digital issues are not solved (or understood), it is so likely to lose the real musicality already by the file handling in the digital domain that I not only see no reason to ‘Exakt’ my equipment but also doubt that comparisons are made in a reasonable manner at all. An actual illustration of digital problems is my download of Shostakovich’s 5th symphony from Linn Records – downloaded and copied in a careless manner it sounded so boring that all my LPs were much better. I gave it a second chance (nice to be able to download material multiple times from Linn), used a different PC with an Intel 320 SSD, a dedicated USB-port (3.0 on the Asus E45 Deluxe) and a dedicated USB-cable (iriver) – and oops, it sounds very good. As Linn presently denies the effects in the digital world, they appear to me much like Philips after the invention of the CD (‘perfect because digital’), perhaps driven by the same motives.

WhaT would You propose them to do? I think they only would have a shit-storm on there doorstep if they proclaimed what You seem to propose. Not very clever. I think the best way is to work to improve tha handling of the digital data, which I think they do and not making a lot of fuzz about it (at least not until they feel they are confident that they have pinned the whole problem to the ground).

and

Nothing prevents from taking the same care for the software when having it played through an Exakt system. It seems though, as You seem to suggest, that the Exakt systems are equally sensitive to the quality of the digital side as the previous top digital players. That does not mean that Exakt is flawed in any way, just that it does not solve all problems with digitally stored music. I do not think that is what Linn claims either.

So; What is your concern? That it is expensive? That it is a more closed system? That Exakt performs better than the equally priced previous Linn systems? That Exakt uses digital volume control?

Digital volume deteriorates the signal to some degree (very small if done correctly). Analogue volume also deteriorates the signal (very small if done correctly). When already being in the digital domain it is likely that applying a digital volume control is better than converting to analogue and back to digital. When already being in the analogue domain it is likely more cost effective to remain in the analogue domain. If one have a system with a transition from ditial to analogue or vice versa it is not easy to state which version would be best (from a performance/const perspective).

(just edited a really bad automatic spell check intervention)

[k_numigl]

Why would you propose that they should do?

Quite simply because I regard the digital source problem as the turntable of today. Most folks thinking it can't make any difference. But you only have to listen. And taking care about it would be a real source first approach. In fact, there are people who do care about it, not only on a personal level (prominent example in this forum) but also on a commercial level that is accepted. Check here
http://www.audiophil-online.de/hifitest ... 212-1.html
or here for the AK500:
http://www.astellnkern.com/
http://www.astell-kern.de/ak500n_specs.html

In particular the latter seems an impressive approach to overcome the digital source problems by in house developments. As mentioned, the construction is consistent with most findings of the LS_NAS design.

[hcl]

Why would you propose that they should do?

Quite simply because I regard the digital source problem as the turntable of today. Most folks thinking it can't make any difference. But you only have to listen. And taking care about it would be a real source first approach. In fact, there are people who do care about it, not only on a personal level (prominent example in this forum) but also on a commercial level that is accepted. Check here
http://www.audiophil-online.de/hifitest ... 212-1.html
or here for the AK500:
http://www.astellnkern.com/
http://www.astell-kern.de/ak500n_specs.html

In particular the latter seems an impressive approach to overcome the digital source problems by in house developments. As mentioned, the construction is consistent with most findings of the LS_NAS design.

I recognize that is a tough call. The digital part still makes a difference hence deserves recognition. Some findings makes sense and some not and the market does not leave much room for the guys standing on the barricades. When Linn where new in the game they had everything to gain from stiring the pot, but now a days they have to concider the consequences of what they proclame and a possible impact on their market share (people are depending on the results). Furthermore, it seems the mass of real knowledge ofwhat is happening on the digital side still is too fragmented for anyone to make any firm claims. There are a lot of indications, but enough to go public, it sems?

Adding to this, the best digital play-back system I have listened too where an Exakt system, feed from a non optimised digital network installation. So, it seems (to me anyway) that the soruce-first rule does not fully apply in digial systems. If it was, a Sneaky feed from a LS NAS would easily outperform a full blown Klimax system (both immaculately set-up ofcourse).

[Charlie1]

If it was, a Sneaky feed from a LS NAS would easily outperform a full blown Klimax system (both immaculately set-up ofcourse).

Maybe the Sneaky/LS NAS is better though - has anyone checked in the same system? It would be a very difficult comparison in my experience with potentially clearer, smoother, punchier, more refined sound with better dynamics versus a small (?) improvement in one's ability to follow the tune.

[Charlie1]

I would expect the best playback solution to be the one with the superior power amp input stage, regardless of whether or not active or passive design follows soon afterwards. Just source first theory again.

I would expect the same. Source First is hard to beat when the aim is better music.

Can I pick your brain? My thinking is as follows, and it's limited by my understanding of amplifier design, but take a KCT and Klimax Xover as an example. Lets assume they have exactly the same input stage, although I don't know this is the truth, but let's say it is for now.

After the KCT input stage, the signal is then amplified - it's using the best signal possible, but will have to drive a passive crossover as well, but still, it's had the best start in life, the best source signal to amplify.

After the K Xover input stage, the signal is fed into the first aktiv circuit, then passed on again to the next, each time fractionally degraded. Then the filtered signals are all output to the various amps and their corresponding input stages etc etc. I think it's fair to say each aktiv amp will see a worse input signal than the passive KCT does, albeit an easier one to amplify (cos it's already filtered ready for driver). I'm just wondering if aktiv is always slightly worse than passive, but maybe it's very small and often not picked up during a tune dem cos the sound is so much clearer.

[Spannko]

Interesting idea, Charlie1. I think you may be correct in what you say, but I would have thought the comparison needs to be extended to the signal as seen by the drive units. The passive system would involve amplifier and X'over degradations. The active system would involve multiple amplifier degradations. I wouldn't like to guess which would degrade the signal the most though!

[Charlie1]

Interesting idea, Charlie1. I think you may be correct in what you say, but I would have thought the comparison needs to be extended to the signal as seen by the drive units. The passive system would involve amplifier and X'over degradations. The active system would involve multiple amplifier degradations. I wouldn't like to guess which would degrade the signal the most though!

Hi Spannko. I think you're right in an overall sense. My query is leaning heavily on source first theory doing its thing no matter what, suggesting that passive 'might' always have a very small advantage because it sees a fractionally superior signal extend further into the process of amplification. If correct, then it wouldn't really matter how much better an active architecture is after this point, because passive effectively has the better source. And if its a very small benefit then it might get missed in a tunedem, cos it's swamped by the overall benefits of active.

But where I struggle is that I don't really understand the inner workings of an amp, so perhaps my suggestion is not plausible.

[Music Lover]

Guys, I have yet to experience a test where the source first approach hasn't offered the best musical performance.

And based on all high-spec and well installed systems I heard without the LS-NAS, I would be surprised if it's possible to put together such a system with better performance than a system with LS-NAS.

Active vs passive in regards to degradation of signal quality (input stage quality), not enough experience in that subject sorry.

Harmoni rack vs LS-NAS. Well, THAT would be a interesting test!
Likely the LS-NAS system going to win.

[hcl]

... based on all high-spec and well installed systems I heard without the LS-NAS, I would be surprised if it's possible to put together such a system with better performance than a system with LS-NAS.

Regardless of DS (will a LS-NAS and a Squeezebox or maybe a Sneaky beat a KDS)? Anyone?

What range of systems are you refering to?