Latest DS firmware

[lejonklou]

"Clarity Vs Understanding"

So is it being suggested that the primary determinant of a good system has evolved from "tune" to "understanding"?

No, to me the understanding has always been the essence of the Tune Method.

[Spannko]

Good to hear. I was concerned for a while!

For me too, enhanced musical understanding has always been related to tune playing ability - the better the tune, the better the understanding.

I'm glad we agree on this fundamental issue!

[Music Lover]

"Clarity Vs Understanding"

So is it being suggested that the primary determinant of a good system has evolved from "tune" to "understanding"?

No, to me the understanding has always been the essence of the Tune Method.

Same here!

When I got my first LP12 in mid 80's, it was very clear that Linn and all dealers strongly spreading the gospel - it's all about understanding the music.
It did make sense then, still does!

[Music Lover]

Good to hear. I was concerned for a while!

For me too, enhanced musical understanding has always been related to tune playing ability - the better the tune, the better the understanding.

I'm glad we agree on this fundamental issue!

Getting into semantics here, sorry but I need to clarify my stand on this.

I consider your conclusion a bit too simplified.
It's not "if better tune then better understanding". Or "if XXXX then better understanding"

Better understanding is just BETTER UNDERSTANDING. Nothing else just that!
There are no proof or indicators - hence searching for clarity...more defined tunes... less distortion..."if A then B" whatever, going to fail.
IMHO


"Just Listening" is a brilliant tag-line. Sometimes it seems Linn themselves doesn't realize how GREAT it is.

[Spannko]

Good to hear. I was concerned for a while!

For me too, enhanced musical understanding has always been related to tune playing ability - the better the tune, the better the understanding.

I'm glad we agree on this fundamental issue!

Getting into semantics here, sorry but I need to clarify my stand on this.

I consider your conclusion a bit too simplified.
It's not "if better tune then better understanding". Or "if XXXX then better understanding"

Better understanding is just BETTER UNDERSTANDING. Nothing else just that!
There are no proof or indicators - hence searching for clarity...more defined tunes... less distortion..."if A then B" whatever, going to fail.
IMHO


"Just Listening" is a brilliant tag-line. Sometimes it seems Linn themselves doesn't realize how GREAT it is.

I think it would be very easy to get drawn into a "My evaluation method is better than yours" discussion!

Looking through old posts about TuneDem, I found the following which explains things far better than I could.

Fredrik wrote:

"The Tune Method is about understanding the music with many parts of your brain. Not just responding emotionally, not just analysing the plucking of a string, not just focusing on the pitch of each note in the melody, but all of these things. At the same time!"

And:

"It's quite possible that a number of people on this forum don't agree with my arguments in this discussion, but that's ok with me. Usually those who use the Tune Method reach the same conclusions - or very nearly the same conclusions - about how equipment performs. BUT when one enters the discussion of how one actually performs the method, people describe it in slightly different ways. Some people mention the flow, the ease with which they can follow the music. Others are more focused on the pitch, whether the instruments are in tune or not. Others focus on the merits of the performance. Others (like my son) can't explain what they actually do, they just do it.

I had this discussion with a Linn representative earlier this year. He claimed his view was identical to Ivor's, and that it was all about silent reproduction in the head of what was being played. He also claimed that this is the way all humans always do when they listen to music. I don't disagree with these standpoints, but regard them as simplifications. Jan Fagius summary of the neurological findings certainly tells a more complicated story.

When I have Tune Method demonstrations, I encourage people to try the method in 4 different ways. In advance I pick out 4 different songs that I personally find easy to use.

1. Repeat the melody, silently or sing out loud.
2. Is the instrument tuned? (Pitch accuracy)
3. Audition method (as described by Thomas OK on this forum)
4. Are the musicians playing together? (Similar to 3 but with more instruments and a song that is a bit complex/chaotic)

If possible, I ask people to stand in the next room on one or several of these 4 demonstrations. Usually people find that easier, as they are less distracted by the sound qualities.

Please note that these 4 ways of performing the Tune Method are very similar. One could argue that the listener is actually doing the same thing on all four occasions."

I'm in full agreement with Fredriks comments. I use approach 2 and find other things fall into place as a consequence. However, I've done listening tests with other people who use a different approach yet we both agree - I think the common factor is the need to use musically related criteria to judge the system. I have a friend who judges a system by listening to "sound stage" or how clearly he can hear a particular instrument. We never agree! He thinks TuneDem is a product of Linns marketing dept and that I've been taken in by Ivor's salesmanship! However, if I get him to concentrate on "Boogie Factor" (a concept he feels comfortable with) we end up agreeing!

The point of all this is "There are many roads to Damascus". As Fredrik was suggesting, we may take different paths, but we "should" all end up in the same place.

The confusing thing right now is "Why are people using musically related criteria to judge a system and coming to different conclusions?" The only explanation that makes sense to me is along the lines of the answer I gave to Fredriks post: We're not listening to the same systems at the same time, therefore we can't be sure that one system is set up to the same degree as the other, possibly leading to differing results. And, as the SPACE/Exakt systems are more complex to set up properly, this is much more likely.

[Music Lover]

Good post Spannko!

I've done listening tests with other people who use a different approach yet we both agree - I think the common factor is the need to use musically related criteria to judge the system.

Yeah, there are many ways performing Tune Dem. We are all unique as humans.

PS
I use a 5th method. I just FEEEEL. = Disconnecting the brain.
Start thinking... and I can't judge
(well I can judge, but as I sometimes getting fooled by my brain so IF I start thinking...I will repeat that test)

[Charlie1]

Interesting debate.

I only use Silent Repetition now. I experimented with other methods in the past, but don't really trust myself with them. I admit Silent Rep is a bit of a pain at times and not always easy to perform, except home alone, but that goes for the other methods too, in my case at least. My fear is that anything else is susceptible to things like a faster more dynamic or exciting presentation fooling me into thinking it's better musically, when in fact it's harder to musically understand. At the end of the day, my long-term enjoyment seems to tie in with it, so that's the reason I stick with it - i.e. living with each option long term ties in with my preference using Silent Rep. As has been said, we each need to find what works for us.

[Spannko]

Good post Spannko!

I've done listening tests with other people who use a different approach yet we both agree - I think the common factor is the need to use musically related criteria to judge the system.

Yeah, there are many ways performing Tune Dem. We are all unique as humans.

PS
I use a 5th method. I just FEEEEL. = Disconnecting the brain.
Start thinking... and I can't judge
(well I can judge, but as I sometimes getting fooled by my brain so IF I start thinking...I will repeat that test)

Thanks ML.

I find this whole difference of opinion thing really interesting. Being the eternal optimist, I'm still hanging on to set-up as being the explanation, but until we have two people disagreeing and explaining their reasons, when listening to the same system we'll never really know for sure.

[donuk]

Well guys - I am amazed.

Nearly a month since the last posting on this forum about this epoch making development. And much of this thread has been a discussion on TuneDem....

You will be aware that the Linn forum has been knocking up record breaking numbers of posts about all aspects of SPACE.

So what do the connoisseurs of the Lejonklou forum make of it? I detected early caution from some folks.
But have any of Mr L's followers adopted it?

Or is it just a gimmick and an embarrassment to those (like ThomasOK) who have to sell it?

For me it has changed the way I approach reproduction. You will be aware of my problems with TuneDem from another thread - but actually the more I read about it, the more I come to the conclusion that I, sort of, do it already.

Having said that I had given up on expecting my hifi to sound like the concert hall or recording studio. It could sound exciting and emotional, but I could never impose the ambiance of the concert hall on my own listening room. The idiosyncrasies of both settings can never be convincingly mixed. Now it is possible to, at least, reduce the colouration imposed in one's own home. In some ways, it is more like listening through earphones.

So has any one member, apart from myself, of the Lejonklou cognoscenti adopted SPACE?

If you haven't, I urge you to at least give it a go.

Don, sunny downtown York......

[rowlandhills]

I'm using SPACE in my main system, but have not yet fully optimised it. I've identified the required filters, but currently just dropped them to about half of the original strength (not even using 6dB increments as a sensible start) and I currently feel that SPACE enabled is slightly better than not enabled. However, I suspect that if I truly take the time to optimise (and I know that many people find going right down to 0.1dB is required for the "best" result) then I'll get something unquestionably better. However, at the moment I'm struggling to find time to do this.

To be honest, part of the reason is that I may well be moving to Yorkshire later this year, and so won't gain as much from optimising this system if it's going to get packed up and need a full reinstall in a new room later on...

[donuk]

Rowlandhills - if you do move to Yorkshire, do get in touch, we can discuss the virtues of hifi over a pint. Also be sure to check in to the Sound Organisation in York - they make good coffee, and can discuss SPACE for hours.....
Cheers
don, sunny downtown York

[SaltyDog]

Not enough time at home these days.

I have SPACE set up for 350's and my room is anything but symmetric. I am not turned off by it so far.

Not much of a contribution, other than to say it is worth trying it for oneself.

[Charlie1]

I never tune dem'd my 104's into position and they are just sat on top of a cabinet, so I've not followed the correct process and felt best I not contribute. I did input the room dimensions and openings etc., but found Space less tuneful and have left it switched off. The Study system sounds great for my needs anyway, so I've no desire to pursue it further. It it was my main system then it would be very different.

[tokenbrit]

Question: how important is it for the speakers to be 'SPACE Optimisation compatible'? I have Spendor S8e, but Linn only list Spendor A3, A5r, and A6r, with no other Spendors in the coming soon list... The closest would be the A6r, but they're a smaller cabinet & driver, with a different treble response - has me suspicious that the calculated settings would be a good start point.

Is anyone here using SPACE with speakers that aren't in the compatibility list? If so, do you feel the results are compromised by having to select a similar speaker from the list in the hope & expectation that it's near enough? Or is everyone using supported speakers?

[ThomasOK]

Salty is using ATC SCM50A floor standing speakers apparently with the K350 setting as his baseline so he has tried it and his speakers are quite different to 350s. I have yet to try it at home as I have ATC 100As and there is no setting for them either. However, they are on the coming soon list so I should be able to play with it before too long.

Of course, SPACE would only allow me to compensate the room for the KRDS - my main listening, which is to vinyl, would not be correctable - so it is of limited usefulness. Of course, you would be able to correct everything if you went full Exakt - clever that!

[donuk]

I am informed that your speaker specification is not vital. Put another way, choose speakers on the list that are similar to yours on the list and give it a try. You should get some improvements. Give it a go, it will not hurt...
Don

[Music Lover]

I am informed that your speaker specification is not vital. Put another way, choose speakers on the list that are similar to yours on the list and give it a try.
Don

Yes, the room going to excite the same nodes regardless of speaker. The nodes going to be bigger/smaller (in amplitude) depending on speaker, but you need to tune each of them individually anyway...

[Music Lover]

Of course, SPACE would only allow me to compensate the room for the KRDS - my main listening, which is to vinyl, would not be correctable - so it is of limited usefulness. Of course, you would be able to correct everything if you went full Exakt - clever that!

Correct, the only way is to get a DSM as analogue sources going to be affected by Space if you connect them to a DSM.

[tokenbrit]

I'm not sure I have the skill to know better from worse as opposed to different - sounds like a lot of work listening to settings rather than enjoying music... I know you can turn it off again so 'will not hurt' but the slap I get from the wife for spending the whole weekend listening & tweaking this node by that amount - is this setting better, or that one - will hurt & is a road to domestic if not musical disharmony.

[tokenbrit]

Updated the DS to 25, and upgraded Konfig to try SPACE Optimisation only to find that it requires IE9... Will focus on building the new, Win7 desktop - SPACE-time will have to wait

[SaltyDog]

Once again time restraints have me limited, so take this with a grain of Salt(y).

The 350's setting is differnt to the Akubariks. Did not take much to go back to the 350's.

Wondering if the ATC 100s setting will be better. Also when and if there will be a choice for 50's. It is the bass driver that gets the most change if I uderstand correctly.

[artikulate]

Ok I usually don't post often but reading some of these threads has been comical if I'm being honest. First everyone is going on and on about how using tune dem is less subjective and the best way to evaluate yet no two people on here can agree on how to do tune den---- sounds pretty subjective to me. Don't get me wrong I see the value in tune dem and use it all the time but I use it the way Linn intended---- silent repetition of the melody etc. and then ask myself is it easier or harder to follow---simple no how are my emotions, how easy is it to understand what the musicians want to convey, no does my foot tap more----- only is it easier to follow tune or not by using silent repetition. Frankly, I'm starting to think, with all due respect, that all you so called tune dem experts have no idea at all about tune dem. Now I'm not saying that your method if evaluation is not right or useful but don't call it tune dem--- it is something else and is just as subjective as listening for sound stage effects or amount of bass. Oh and by the way I hate over detailed sound with a passion and I can tell you that space has made my setup more musical not more detailed and this conclusion was reached using tune dem as linn intended. So if we want to have meaningful discussions about comparisons we should be using the same method--- this site was founded on that principle but I feel it has lost its way.

[lejonklou]

That was a surprisingly arrogant post, Ron. Especially the part about this forum loosing its way. I my opinion it's the only forum where quality is the focus and you don't have to wade through endless nonsense and bad advice.

I assume you were in the game when the Tune Method was first presented by Linn? I was. And I assume you've noted how many different texts they have produced in an attempt to explain it? Probably not, as you talk about "how Linn intended" as if it was a single event. But using the Tune Method is a practical skill and descriptions of a practical skill can vary considerably.

[artikulate]

Seems I struck a chord---no pun intended. No where in those many Linn documents about tune dem does it talk about emotions or understanding---- can you follow the tune better yes or no. I was not intending to be arrogant but if we are to make valid comparisons we need to be playing from the same playbook. So it's ok for you to be arrogant and sure of yourself in your condemnation of linn exakt etc. but when someone calls your skills into question its not ok. That seems a tad hypocritical don't you think?

Cheers

Ron

[Charlie1]

I don't think the forum has lost its way or changed. There are old tune dem discussions where a variety of methods are proposed and discussed, not just silent rep. They were very useful to me when I was trying to learn tune dem.

I suppose we could propose alternative names to the non-silent rep approaches, but I think it's a bit pedantic. Besides, the various approaches have more in common than there are differences to my mind. They share a focus on musicality rather than Hi-Fi.

I do think these recent tune dem discussions have helped us better understand one another's method. These different approaches have remained veiled for too long and are not realised by many to even exist, so it's been good to revisit the topic in more detail.

I'm curious how Linn/Ivor has evolved their own ideas though...