Tune dem

[lejonklou]

I presume your experience is that the melody wasn't better, it just seemed so?

Difficult to say... I wrote 'seemingly' because in the above example it was a tough decision. Sometimes it isn't! With many parameters, like speaker positioning, I often find there is one exact value where everything snaps into place. Then it's just a matter of finding that value.

My guess is that the really difficult situations arise when there is actually several conflicting parameters that are being changed at the same time. So both values could be better and worse - and the best alternative is simply the best compromise. [In the example above, it could be that the impedance presented by the negative feedback network is optimal at 45, but the feedback itself is optimal at 55. The best compromise then ends up somewhere between those two values.]

I presume you now find Linn's explanation of the Tune Method too simplistic? i.e. it's not just about locating the correct pitch and replaying the melody in your head?

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.

With this in mind, how did you find the changes brought by the Keel?

If the LP12's are well set up, it's an easy comparison as the Keel is much better. I don't think one should focus on whether the music feels slower or faster, as this can vary between different songs. The flow is not about speed, it's about how easy it is to follow and understand what is being played. Maybe flow isn't a very good word, since it's easy to misinterpret. But currently I can't think of a better one...

[Charlie1]

I find this all totally fascinating. Shame I haven't got time to play around with all the ideas you've thrown up, but still, it's exciting stuff!

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.

What you've said here is really useful as it helps clarify that I was understanding your ideas correctly and that there's more to the Tune Method than I'd thought.

I'm also reminded of someone I know in the industry who doesn't use the Tune Method as laid down by Linn, but would still say he uses the method. After digging a bit deeper, I'd say his usage is similar to your Son's in that he doesn't really know how he does it - although he confirmed that doesn't replay the melody in his head. I couldn't understand before how he could make such well judged decisions, but not be using the Tune Method in it's most simplistic form as laid down by Linn.

Anyway - it's all good stuff!! Thanks Fredrik.

Anyone else got any related experiences they'd like to add! :D

[ThomasOK]

There have been a number of interesting ideas talked about here but there is one I wanted to stress a little more as I think it might be important in this case. That is the idea of flow. When I think of flow I am looking for a performance where the musicians are all playing well together. For example: does it sound like the bass player and the drummer are listening to each other and playing WITH each other? Or do they sound like they are just playing their instrument in a separate room to a click track (as is often unfortunately the case in modern recordings)? This is how I think of musical flow and seems to be what Fredrik is describing. I believe it is really part of the tune method. In the tune method, part of the idea is that if you are silently "humming" along in your head with the music and someone lifted the tonearm you would generally know what the next note should be. It is the fact that the next note is not often where your mind knows it should be that causes the fatigue so common in poorly recorded, played or delivered (read most digital) music. There is a natural flow to the music, regardless of whether it is polyrhythmic, that is disrupted when the system can't play in tune.

In contrast you have what I think is better described as "speed" rather than "flow". This is what I think of when I read Charlie1's comments about faster transients, improved clarity and possibly even better timing. Unfortunately, I have found the whole transient speed thing to be a trap many audiophiles seem to fall into. They buy systems that are "fast" and "detailed" and end up with systems that can be unlistenable. An example is Nordost Valhalla cables which definitely have that fast, detailed sound but which I find are less balanced and do not flow as well as Linn Silvers. I am not saying that this is what you are doing, just pointing out a possible drawback of using speed as a way of judging system or product performance.

I do also want to say that it us not that rare to find two components that are close enough so as to make it difficult to decide which is better. I think it fair to say that Fredrik and I have run into this and I believe the other responders are likely to have as well. When we first received a Majik CD player I brought in my Ikemi to compare the two and they were quite close. I was having a hard time deciding between the two as the Majik CD was a bit more detailed but didn't seem as tuneful as the Ikemi. It was one time when I had to fall back on the "who is the better musician" comparison and then it became obvious that the Ikemi was superior. It turned out that that particular Majik CD was underperforming as the unit we replaced it with is distinctly superior to the first demo. I have also had times where one piece of equipment sounded superior with one record and inferior with a different one, and I know this has happened to Fredrik as well. Because of that I now try and verify any close comparisons with at least a few different pieces of music.

By the way, I actually very rarely use the actual tune method consciously when doing comparisons. I do think that most people who are looking for what I consider to be the right things in music reproducing apparatus use some form of the tune method in their evaluations whether at a conscious level or not as in the case of Fredrik's son or my girlfriend!

[Music Lover]

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)

I'm using a mix of #2,3 and 4 but most #4
But prefer to call it "what makes most sense"... when is the music meaning most...easiest to understand...
I.e. I don’t try to focus on anything, I just let the music fill my body and get a feeling; is it better or not?

Method #1 is not as easy for me as I then need to actively DO something. Getting into the performance side of it is dangerous.
Being relaxed and just feeeeeeel, is the key getting consistent evaluation results.

[Music Lover]

That is the idea of flow. When I think of flow I am looking for a performance where the musicians are all playing well together.

I consider "flow" being a rather easy word to misinterpret, hence the reason I never use it.
Just DID, bugger :|
I use the word "musical" instead. At least until some come up with a better word.

[hcl]

My guess is that the really difficult situations arise when there is actually several conflicting parameters that are being changed at the same time. So both values could be better and worse - and the best alternative is simply the best compromise. [In the example above, it could be that the impedance presented by the negative feedback network is optimal at 45, but the feedback itself is optimal at 55. The best compromise then ends up somewhere between those two values.]

I presume you now find Linn's explanation of the Tune Method too simplistic? i.e. it's not just about locating the correct pitch and replaying the melody in your head?

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.

I totally agree with what you have written and although I have not designed anything using the tune method ( I guess I was too lazy at the time when I did design electronics and now I do not have the time to do it anymore).

...

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)

Mostly my main usage of the method is when optimizing my own gear and then I tend to switch between the four ways back and forth. When done they all seem to be of less significance and the music just speaks for itself reaching a total understanding. Everything just fits into place is a great explanation.

One thing I have noticed that seems to resemble what you have found when optimizing a setting is that the difference or the imortance of the difference does not seem to get smaller as one gets closer to the correct or best setting. Often it seem to be the oposite. I used to have active Isobariks and I found that the difference almost always where quite big when reaching the selection between the closest best settings (0.25 dB steps). As the circuit board of the Isobarik active filter permitted it, I tried and added two additional resistors yieldning the setting 0.125 dB and 0.0625 dB implying a final accuracy <0.05 dB. Switching the 0.125 dB setting gave about the same perceived difference as the 0.25 dB switch but I felt that the 0.0625 dB switch where more a matter of subjective preference than real performance difference. It might be because of the limitations of the actual performance of the rest of the system.

One thing I have noticed is that I find it much more difficult to determine which one of two not very good settings that is best. Does anyone have a solution for that?

[Another thing that took a while to figure out where how to replace the switch settings with soldered resistors without falling of the optimum values.]

Today I find it a bit frustrating not to be able to optimize the gain for each driver as exact as it was possible to with the Isobarik filter. The fine tuning has to be made by careful positioning, but I find it to be a bit frustrating as positioning tend to affect more variables at the same time...

[One thing to consider when optimising speaker positioning is that most speakers are almost omnidirectional up to about 2-3 kHz (where 5 mm more or less from the wall corresponds to a 20-30 degree phaseshift).]

[Charlie1]

In contrast you have what I think is better described as "speed" rather than "flow". his is what I think of when I read Charlie1's comments about faster transients, improved clarity and possible even better timing.

It's actually the other table that I think has more flow, not the better sounding one. But, no, I don't see flow and speed as the same thing, although you have got me thinking what I myself mean when I use the word. It's a bit silly that I use words without thinking through what they mean to me, let alone someone else. Unlike yourself though, I've never associated 'flow' with how the musicians play together, although we could be talking about the same experience anyway. I just can't think of a better word - the music gels better, comes together more and makes more sense. It just flows better - what can I say. I thought your cable burn in service was a good example of better flow. It's good that you bring it up though :)

I don’t try to focus on anything, I just let the music fill my body and get a feeling; is it better or not?

I will definitely put some time aside and get to the bottom of these two tables and use what yourself and others have posted. I suppose if I can't Tune Dem at night I'll just have to have a glass of wine with Sunday lunch and disappear for an hour or so! But what about the Grand Prix!

One thing I have noticed that seems to resemble what you have found when optimizing a setting is that the difference or the imortance of the difference does not seem to get smaller as one gets closer to the correct or best setting. Often it seem to be the oposite.

Makes me thing how important a good set-up is and wonder how optimum my kit is!

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.

So, do you think Linn could make ever better products if they expanded their understanding of the Tune Method? If so, I presume you're already there! :) And if yes, when will your first amp be ready?

[hcl]

One thing I have noticed that seems to resemble what you have found when optimizing a setting is that the difference or the imortance of the difference does not seem to get smaller as one gets closer to the correct or best setting. Often it seem to be the oposite.

Makes me thing how important a good set-up is and wonder how optimum my kit is!

I regard it as crucial and more so for better equipment. Poor equipment does, to my knowledge (or maybe for me) not benefit that much.

[Music Lover]

Today I find it a bit frustrating not to be able to optimize the gain for each driver as exact as it was possible to with the Isobarik filter.

Agree.
I also used active Isobariks but stopped at 0.125. Lovely speakers! :mrgreen:

[Lego]

I used to find Naim amps really engaging (hairs in the back of the neck etc.);you sat there staring at the mid point between the speakers,the problem was that you really had to go there and take the music.What took me to Linn amps was the way they seemed to give the music to you no effort required to dig the tunes you could almost ignore the music if you so choose;listen to any live Miles or bill Evans everyone is just talking away to themselves not even listening.I think all that excitement stuff in hifi is phoney.When my system is on, I dont really notice it when its at its best .I play with the kids talk to my new wife etc.jump about.. Music playing away in the background then a mega cool George Benson solo jumps out at you from nowhere and blows everyone away ,high 5s all round and you think he is the best living jazz guitarist bar none.So when I'm tune deming I also look for a little bit more of that less engaging almost boring sound if you know what I mean.Hifi shouldnt be exciting or engaging the musicians should be and most of the time they are not.
To be honest Charlie if you're not sure which one to go for and they both have a different sound let them go it shouldnt be difficult to know which one you want,you'll know when you hear the right table,it will choose you.Dont beat yourself up it's not a test or a competition.Tune dem at the Olympics?Its not going to happen.(I'm doing the training just in case)
Have you tried the Lp12 on the floor to compare it to the tables?My floor sounds ok, not ideal tho.I knew one dealer who preferred non tramped Lp12s in the middle of the room on a light table of course.

[lejonklou]

So, do you think Linn could make ever better products if they expanded their understanding of the Tune Method?

I think it's evident from their products that they've got their evaluation methods nailed down pretty well! But in this discussion about "what we are actually doing when we're performing a Tune Dem", it's not surprising there is some debate.

Linn have a lot more resources than I do, but they also need to sell a lot to keep the wheels turning. As a tiny manufacturer I see at least four advantages:

1. I can push the fine tuning of circuits further than a larger company with deadlines and other restrictions can.
2. I can fine tune individual boards in a way that is not possible when manufacturing on a larger scale.
3. I can avoid mistakes by keeping total control of all aspects of a product. (For example, I would never release a new software or a new connector that sounds worse than the previous ones - as has been the case with the Unidisks and the Silver Interconnect.)
4. I can make products that are more simple and extreme in functionality, appealing to a smaller crowd of true enthusiasts. Such niche products may not be profitable at all to a company like Linn. (The dramatic reduction of the aktiv filter adjustment precision that hcl mentions is a good example of a move away from enthusiasts towards quicker installations.)

when will your first amp be ready?

Several amp designs are being worked on, but none will be released before they're good enough!

[Music Lover]

5/ you are the boss, the only boss
6/ no chareholders&investors that require ROI fast (return of investments)
7/ no need to be politically correct as a big company

[Moomintroll]

6/ no chareholders&investors that require ROI fast (return of investments)
7/ no need to be politically correct as a big company

If we're still talking about Linn - they are a privately owned company, so no shareholders. I'm not sure whether Ivor has ever worried about being politically correct.

'Troll

[Charlie1]

To be honest Charlie if you're not sure which one to go for and they both have a different sound let them go it shouldnt be difficult to know which one you want,you'll know when you hear the right table,it will choose you.Dont beat yourself up it's not a test or a competition.Tune dem at the Olympics?Its not going to happen.(I'm doing the training just in case)

So running a stop watch for the fastest Tune Dem is bad idea? Damn!
I take your point and trying too hard.
Also liked the bit about the system not drawing attention to itself and would say my experience is similar.

[ThomasOK]

6/ no chareholders&investors that require ROI fast (return of investments)
7/ no need to be politically correct as a big company

If we're still talking about Linn - they are a privately owned company, so no shareholders. I'm not sure whether Ivor has ever worried about being politically correct.

'Troll

Ivor politically correct? You must be joking! :mrgreen: This is the man who was described as a "walking PR nightmare" by his own company in a help wanted ad for a personal assistant some years back.

And along with 'Troll, I do believe that Linn Products is privately held.

[ThomasOK]

To be honest Charlie if you're not sure which one to go for and they both have a different sound let them go it shouldnt be difficult to know which one you want,you'll know when you hear the right table,it will choose you.Dont beat yourself up it's not a test or a competition.Tune dem at the Olympics?Its not going to happen.(I'm doing the training just in case)

So running a stop watch for the fastest Tune Dem is bad idea? Damn!
I take your point and trying too hard.
Also liked the bit about the system not drawing attention to itself and would say my experience is similar.

Oh, boy! Time for a new game show. "I can Dem that Tune in 3 notes or less..."

[Charlie1]

Oh, boy! Time for a new game show. "I can Dem that Tune in 3 notes or less..."

:lol:

[Music Lover]

6/ no chareholders&investors that require ROI fast (return of investments)
7/ no need to be politically correct as a big company

If we're still talking about Linn - they are a privately owned company, so no shareholders. I'm not sure whether Ivor has ever worried about being politically correct.

'Troll

Sorry, I was responding to this statement:
"As a tiny manufacturer I see at least four advantages:"

[hcl]

Excuse me for being somewhat OT.

Today I find it a bit frustrating not to be able to optimize the gain for each driver as exact as it was possible to with the Isobarik filter.

Agree.
I also used active Isobariks but stopped at 0.125. Lovely speakers! :mrgreen:

So you also did add resistors to the switchable attenuator or did you continue tuning while soldering?

[Music Lover]

Not sure I follow.
You have to do both; change and compare.
It was being made together with the Linn dealer.

[Charlie1]

Hi chaps - Just thought I'd conclude recent events. Having listened to the new 'better Hi-Fi' table for a few weeks, I recently moved back to my original 'more flowing' (there's that word again!) table and I have to say that I prefer my old table (Damn!) I've had a brief couple of evenings listening to confirm and can say that I think it just plays better music. Everything comes together more and gives me more enjoyment. It doesn't sound as impressive as the new one, but I feel more at ease listening to it.

I think one or two members mentioned a situation where instruments can either sound like they are playing together or playing by alone. I've never been aware of this aspect of music replay before, but find my old table much better in this respect. I was also surprised how little I missed the better Hi-FI.

Thinking back to when the new table first arrived, I was immediately impressed with how much better the Hi-Fi was. A bigger step forward than going from Majik to Klimax Kontrol (that's the sound, not musically). It is reminiscent of going from vinyl to CD; quieter and blacker backgrounds, better instrumental separation, tighter bass - simply a cleaner sound. However, if I'm totally honest, from day one I was a bit nervous about it and felt something was missing, but wasn't sure what or how important it was. The new table wasn't cheap either and I kind of pushed all that to one side. Thankfully I was determined to make sure it Tune Dem'd better and posted on the forum as a result of the problems.

There have been occasions recently when I've stopped playing before the last track has finished at the end of an evening. This is unusual for me. I think that cutting short St Dominic's Preview should always raise alarm bells, but obviously, I wasn't listening!

I was going to take the new table into my Linn dealer as they sell my old one and could make direct comparisons. I really wanted someone to say 'yes, you're right and you've made the right decision', but it's time to grow up and make my own Hi-Fi decisions I think :) Also, the manufacturer has agreed to refund the item, so I need to make sure it stays in new condition.

Many thanks for the excellent feedback and advice from EVERYONE who's posted. I had hoped this would be an opportunity for me to give something back to the forum, but as usual, it's been the other way around. However, It's led to a useful process of clarification regards the Tune Method which I hope others will have found helpful too - or at least interesting.

Cheers for now......

PS Here's my winner for the 2008 Tune Dem Olympics :D
http://www.isobluehifi.com/mainmenu.html

[lejonklou]

Having listened to the new 'better Hi-Fi' table for a few weeks

Any particular reason why you don't want to name the new 'better Hi-Fi' table?

I had hoped this would be an opportunity for me to give something back to the forum, but as usual, it's been the other way around.

You're being too modest, Charlie. In my opinion, you give a lot to this forum!

PS Here's my winner for the 2008 Tune Dem Olympics :D

I really like the simplistic look of those Isoblue tables. They also appear simple to install.
Now you only need to compare with the Mimer table from Tonläget! :mrgreen: Best I've ever heard, but I haven't yet heard the Isoblue.

[Charlie1]

I really like the simplistic look of those Isoblue tables. They also appear simple to install.
Now you only need to compare with the Mimer table from Tonläget! Mr. Green Best I've ever heard, but I haven't yet heard the Isoblue.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mimer and Oden tables cream the Isoblue in terms of Hi-Fi as even my Ikea Lack is a good deal cleaner and clearer sounding, but Isoblue have obviously found a way to preserve the musicality very well.

I'll have to wait until Tonläget export the Odin as I don't think I could afford the Mimer. I could be in for a long wait though as I understand they are not really interested in going global! But I don't really mind now - I'm just glad to get my MUSIC back. It does make quite a lot of difference to my enjoyment level. When I first moved the LP12 back to the Isoblue, it was easier to swap it round with the Linto. Getting everything back onto the Isoblue today has given back a bit more again, so it's definitely the right decision for me.

[ThomasOK]

I agree with Fredrik that it would be good to know the identity of the losing table as well. I don't think there should be any problem here with expressing a preference for one product over another and it would give others a better understanding of what you were listening to.

[Charlie1]

It's called the 'Time' and made by TIMETABLE-HIFI and was imported from Germany. The designer was a Linn distributer in Germany for many years.
http://www.timetable-hifi.de/TT-web2/TI ... -HIFI.html
Once they got the table back they said that there was a problem with it, possibly caused in transit. I asked for details and they said "It was a problem of adjustment." :?

They did offer to send me a replacement, but I would have had to pay for shipping back to Germany if I still wasn't happy and the shipping was quite expensive. I also wasn't confident that another unit could make up the ground musically on the Isoblue, but I could well be wrong on that.

Despite the fact that I usually put sound/music over appearance, the TimeTable really didn't match my existing system/rack/speakers very well - everything just looks so much better on the Isoblue.

I'm also thinking now that Skeets under the Isoblue with bring some of the sound improvement I heard from the TimeTable. I was surprised just how much cleaner and tidier an LP12 can be made to sound, but the music was more important at the end of the day.

Lastly, it isn't cheap at approx £750 (975 euros).