I've compared the Unidisk SC, Majik CD and both Unidisk's.
Classik
Genki (close to new classik)
Ikemi
Unidisk SC (better than Majik on SACD)
Majik CD (my choice, with M Kontrol)
nearly as good on CD as Unidisk 2.1 (better on SACD)
Unidisk 1.1 (better than other players)
in system with 242/Klimax Solo/Klimax Kontrol
I've haven't compared them with Sondek CD12, but it seems still better on CD than Akurate CD, maybe... ;)
Majik CD or Unidisk? ->Tunedem discussion
Moderator: Staff
lejonklou, thanks for clearing that up for me, my problem was that I always associated the Linn Transport with the thin tray.
And, my skin is relatively thick, so even a hostile (which your post are far from being) reply won't bother me. And, I am not trying to be politically corrent, but I like most WWII fighters. If one was to be my absolute favorite, it was the P51D Mustang, which has that fluid confident look. The ME262 was amazing, but its role was minimal. My favorite german figher is probably the FW190, but the ME109 was a mean looking machine, although I didn't care for its landing gear. Over on the pacific front, I like the Zero and the Hellcat, although the Corsair and Lightning are very cool. Like I said, they all interest me.
Funny though, I'm consistently amazed why so many people rate the SC higher than the Ikemi. In my audition, it was smooth to a fault, lacking dynamic ability and freq.extreme control. In my audition, I never considered it a serious replacement, because it wasn't even close, unless off course it was playing a higher rez format.
Well, ME262 or P51D, to each there own.
Spitfire
And, my skin is relatively thick, so even a hostile (which your post are far from being) reply won't bother me. And, I am not trying to be politically corrent, but I like most WWII fighters. If one was to be my absolute favorite, it was the P51D Mustang, which has that fluid confident look. The ME262 was amazing, but its role was minimal. My favorite german figher is probably the FW190, but the ME109 was a mean looking machine, although I didn't care for its landing gear. Over on the pacific front, I like the Zero and the Hellcat, although the Corsair and Lightning are very cool. Like I said, they all interest me.
Funny though, I'm consistently amazed why so many people rate the SC higher than the Ikemi. In my audition, it was smooth to a fault, lacking dynamic ability and freq.extreme control. In my audition, I never considered it a serious replacement, because it wasn't even close, unless off course it was playing a higher rez format.
Well, ME262 or P51D, to each there own.
Spitfire
Spitfire wrote: Also, where can I read some info on the Klimax DS?
http://lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=164lejonklou wrote: You can start reading a bit about the DS on this forum.
Have you folks been to the (U.S.) Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in Washington DC? Their WWII room is lots of fun: as you two say, the Messerschmitt BF-109 looks the most purposeful (though the Zero comes close), the Spitfire is the prettiest, the Italian Macchi 202 the most rakishly stylish (check out the length of that engine cowling!).....and the P-47 Thunderbolt is so enormous that they had to stick it out in the lobby area(!).lejonklou wrote: I always liked the Messerschmitts the most. The 109's looked so mean compared the graceful Spitfires and most of all I admired the 262
(If you do go there, be sure to check out the Bell X-1 (breaking the "sound barrier", etc.) hanging from the ceiling: if you stand at the right spot on the second floor balcony, you can sight straight along the nose -- and when you do, you'll see that it really is in fact a scaled-up 50 caliber machine gun bullet* with wings and a tail stuck onto it. Simply amazing....)
* If you're not familiar with the story: the X-1's creators had neither the math, nor the CFD, nor the experimental tools we have nowadays to determine airframe stability at transonic and supersonic speeds -- but they did know that aircraft approaching the "sound barrier" frequently went unstable and crashed. And, so, since Browning 50-cal bullets were known to be both supersonic and stable....
Spitfire -- would you know what software version was on the UniSC you listened to? Could that account for the various SC/Ikemi disagreements?
Cheers!
-C
Hi Ceilidh,
I do recall watching a doc. on the X-1 and they made reference to the browning bullet, however I have never been to that particular museum. I forgot about the P47 Thunderbolt, I remember when I was younger and 'into' making WWII model aircraft, I built the "Jug" and it seemed so far out of scale with the rest of my collection - only because it was that much bigger.
No, I don't know the soft.version of the SC, and perhaps that's the difference - although it would have required one hell of an improvement to have compared favorably to the Ikemi - in my opinion. That said, my digital expectations are based on great analog, dynamic expression with exceptional instrumental impact are two items that I value, both of which the Ikemi does very well. However, the Ikemi isn't always convincing, it can sound a touch dark and unattached with certain types of music, and the brighter SC is consistently brighter which could be to it's advantage.
This reminds me of the Genki vs Ikemi debate a while back. I remember discussing the differences with people who considered the Genki the better player. In actual fact, they preferred the tonality of the Genki, the Ikemi being a darker / punchier sounding player in a direct comparison. The same difference appears with the SC vs Ikemi, the Majik vs Ikemi, and even the Krell Standard vs SC. One of the British mags consistently placed the Genki tops during it's annual CD shootout(s) which it won twice. Therefore, they considered the Genki a much better value, although that doesn't mean they thought the Genki superior in absolute terms.
Anyways, I have played the audio upgrade game far too long, long enough to learn that initial tonality characteristics are only skin deep. Living with a unit for a period of time will always tell a truer tale. I lived with the Genki for two weeks, and I admit that I enjoyed it, but switching over to the Ikemi resulted in years of satisfaction, and more importantly, it cured that dreaded upgrade "bug" syndrome.
My next player should mimik :P the Ikemi in terms of satisfaction, the SC isn't that player.
Spitfire
I do recall watching a doc. on the X-1 and they made reference to the browning bullet, however I have never been to that particular museum. I forgot about the P47 Thunderbolt, I remember when I was younger and 'into' making WWII model aircraft, I built the "Jug" and it seemed so far out of scale with the rest of my collection - only because it was that much bigger.
No, I don't know the soft.version of the SC, and perhaps that's the difference - although it would have required one hell of an improvement to have compared favorably to the Ikemi - in my opinion. That said, my digital expectations are based on great analog, dynamic expression with exceptional instrumental impact are two items that I value, both of which the Ikemi does very well. However, the Ikemi isn't always convincing, it can sound a touch dark and unattached with certain types of music, and the brighter SC is consistently brighter which could be to it's advantage.
This reminds me of the Genki vs Ikemi debate a while back. I remember discussing the differences with people who considered the Genki the better player. In actual fact, they preferred the tonality of the Genki, the Ikemi being a darker / punchier sounding player in a direct comparison. The same difference appears with the SC vs Ikemi, the Majik vs Ikemi, and even the Krell Standard vs SC. One of the British mags consistently placed the Genki tops during it's annual CD shootout(s) which it won twice. Therefore, they considered the Genki a much better value, although that doesn't mean they thought the Genki superior in absolute terms.
Anyways, I have played the audio upgrade game far too long, long enough to learn that initial tonality characteristics are only skin deep. Living with a unit for a period of time will always tell a truer tale. I lived with the Genki for two weeks, and I admit that I enjoyed it, but switching over to the Ikemi resulted in years of satisfaction, and more importantly, it cured that dreaded upgrade "bug" syndrome.
My next player should mimik :P the Ikemi in terms of satisfaction, the SC isn't that player.
Spitfire
Spitfire, I totally agree with you regarding Ikemi vs SC and I wasn't impressed by Majik CD, when compared with Ikemi, either! Yes, the Majik CD was an early version so this may have changed, but since I want big improvements when upgrading, until recently I had my aim om the Akurate CD.
With recent developments, ie Klimax DS and the rumored less expensive models, I'm awaiting the release of the Akurate DS. I haven't heard the Klimax DS yet and I'm curious about how dealers will solve the NAS/PDA issue, but all I've read about Klimax DS on different forums make me very excited.
Maybe Akurate DS is the player you are waiting for?! :D
With recent developments, ie Klimax DS and the rumored less expensive models, I'm awaiting the release of the Akurate DS. I haven't heard the Klimax DS yet and I'm curious about how dealers will solve the NAS/PDA issue, but all I've read about Klimax DS on different forums make me very excited.
Maybe Akurate DS is the player you are waiting for?! :D
Welcome Spitfire,Pediatrik wrote:Spitfire, I totally agree with you regarding Ikemi vs SC and I wasn't impressed by Majik CD, when compared with Ikemi, either! Yes, the Majik CD was an early version so this may have changed, but since I want big improvements when upgrading, until recently I had my aim om the Akurate CD.
With recent developments, ie Klimax DS and the rumored less expensive models, I'm awaiting the release of the Akurate DS. I haven't heard the Klimax DS yet and I'm curious about how dealers will solve the NAS/PDA issue, but all I've read about Klimax DS on different forums make me very excited.
Maybe Akurate DS is the player you are waiting for?! :D
I missed a couple of posts on this thread and had to go back to make sense of it. I have to say I'm with Pediatrik on this. As you can see from my previous posts I also prefer my Ikemi to any UniDisk SC I've heard and also to the only Majik CD I've had a chance to spend time with. That being said we have a new Majik CD on demo which is currently burning in and I will do some comparisons once it settles down. I did deliver a Majik system to a customer recently and the Majik CD in it sounded easily better than anything I remember coming out of our old demo so I am hopeful.
But like you I feel there would have to be a large improvement to make it worthwhile. As I listen to 95%+ vinyl I am not really interested in chasing small upgrades on CDs. I too was looking at the posibility of the Akurate CD which we also just got a demo of but have decided to wait and see how the DS products fit in.
Like Fredrik, I have to say I have yet to hear a DAC improve the sound of the Ikemi. But, admittedly, I haven't listened to a lot of DACs.
I will also be interested to see what you think of the Akurate CD.
Hi ThomasOK,
Well, today I decided to visit my local linn dealer in order to pick up the now fully broken-in Akurate for my home demo. However, unkown to me, the Linn rep. had arrived to prepare the rooms for demo's tonight, and over the weekend, so he required the Akurate on site.
No big deal, while I was there I figured I would listen to the Akurate and also discuss the future (DS) of Linn digital.
The rep was nice, dressed in his all black Linn duds, he gave me his version of the future of Linn & DS. To make a long story short he went on about the Klimax DS as the next best thing, he even claimed he compared the Klimax DS to his own CD12 - and it easily bettered his CD12.
OK, i'm not new and talk is cheap, he said exactly what I expected him to say. :roll: Reps ALL have the very same habit when talking to potential customers, they wax poetic about future gear at the expense of past successes. Funny, what was "great" yesteryear is suddenly deemed ... well ... not as great.
Anyways, he had two rooms setup, one a Majik setup, the other with an Akurate system, which including a full blown keel/ekos se based LP12. My first listen was within the Majik system, and truth be know, although it sounded OK, my sonic expectations are consideraby higher. You should have seen the look on the reps face when I told him exactly that.
The Akurate system was a little better, still, it was closed in and dynamically challenged, with minimal freq. extension. A safe and nice sound, but not nearly as open & alive as I would prefer.
My audition lasted about an hour, most of it outside the rooms watching the rep fumbling with speaker placement, trying to find the answer to better performance. During that time, I discussing with the store owner Linn's electronics. We were in complete agreement.
I really wanted to hear the new LP12, but honestly, I don't think it would have sang to its full potential - within that system.
OK, i realize this is a Linn based board, so i'm not about to stir the natives into a super mob angry, but I will confess that as much as I LOVE Linn source components, i'm not nearly as big fan of Linn's other electronics. Yes, they sound decent, and they provide excellent turn key systems, but in my opinion, if you wish to attain superior sound, the competition is there for a reason.
Before I get bounced from this forum with a bump and a thump, my intent wasn't to flame Linn in any way, I hold the company in the highest regard, but ...
I will be evaluating the Akurate in my own system at a later date.
Spitfire
Well, today I decided to visit my local linn dealer in order to pick up the now fully broken-in Akurate for my home demo. However, unkown to me, the Linn rep. had arrived to prepare the rooms for demo's tonight, and over the weekend, so he required the Akurate on site.
No big deal, while I was there I figured I would listen to the Akurate and also discuss the future (DS) of Linn digital.
The rep was nice, dressed in his all black Linn duds, he gave me his version of the future of Linn & DS. To make a long story short he went on about the Klimax DS as the next best thing, he even claimed he compared the Klimax DS to his own CD12 - and it easily bettered his CD12.
OK, i'm not new and talk is cheap, he said exactly what I expected him to say. :roll: Reps ALL have the very same habit when talking to potential customers, they wax poetic about future gear at the expense of past successes. Funny, what was "great" yesteryear is suddenly deemed ... well ... not as great.
Anyways, he had two rooms setup, one a Majik setup, the other with an Akurate system, which including a full blown keel/ekos se based LP12. My first listen was within the Majik system, and truth be know, although it sounded OK, my sonic expectations are consideraby higher. You should have seen the look on the reps face when I told him exactly that.
The Akurate system was a little better, still, it was closed in and dynamically challenged, with minimal freq. extension. A safe and nice sound, but not nearly as open & alive as I would prefer.
My audition lasted about an hour, most of it outside the rooms watching the rep fumbling with speaker placement, trying to find the answer to better performance. During that time, I discussing with the store owner Linn's electronics. We were in complete agreement.
I really wanted to hear the new LP12, but honestly, I don't think it would have sang to its full potential - within that system.
OK, i realize this is a Linn based board, so i'm not about to stir the natives into a super mob angry, but I will confess that as much as I LOVE Linn source components, i'm not nearly as big fan of Linn's other electronics. Yes, they sound decent, and they provide excellent turn key systems, but in my opinion, if you wish to attain superior sound, the competition is there for a reason.
Before I get bounced from this forum with a bump and a thump, my intent wasn't to flame Linn in any way, I hold the company in the highest regard, but ...
I will be evaluating the Akurate in my own system at a later date.
Spitfire
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Have you heard Klimax Kontrol/Solo?Spitfire wrote: as much as I LOVE Linn source components, i'm not nearly as big fan of Linn's other electronics. Yes, they sound decent, and they provide excellent turn key systems, but in my opinion, if you wish to attain superior sound, the competition is there for a reason.
And what do you consider better than Linn amps and Linn speakers?
Welcome btw!
and...I also like aircrafts from the WWII
Look = ME109
Sound = Mustang
And as with HIFI, sound is the morst important :mrgreen:
It's all about musical understanding!
LOL, which audiophile would argue with that logic?And as with HIFI, sound is the morst important :mrgreen:
My problem with evaluating both Linn amps & speakers is that I have yet to hear one device - without the other. If I was to hazard a guess, I think the amps are the weaker link.
In the Majik system I heard on friday, I made the comment that I thought the system sounded like the amps were struggling to drive the speakers, to the scowl of Linn rep who instantly shrugged me off, as he proceeded to fix the "problem" by speaker placement. :roll:
Whatever! He's the pro, and obviously as a simple consumer, i'm not, so I didn't bother mentioning that I heard the exact same character in the Akurate system.
I'm a source first kind of 'phile, so on an overall basis I believe that Linns priorities are indeed correct. I have owned a few amps, but my favorites remain solid state designs with lots of available current. I particularily like class A biased, ineffiecent, expensive to run, amps with an absolute grip on the speaker drivers.
These kind of amps offer my ears the best overall sound quality, offering superior bandwidth and freq. extension, with lots of dynamic grip ... but off course ... they require the best possible source components in order to sound amazing, otherwise they can sound ... well ... like a compromised source component.
Thats why I prefer Linn digital sources.
Spitfire
Well, I have decided that the Akurate is not the player for me. :?
With CD, it's a very good player, highly musical, but despite what has been written, its tonality remains a far stretch from the fluid, more organic sound of the CD12. In terms of tonality, the Akurate is far closer to the Ikemi, sharing that typical Linn "dry" tonality, which the CD12 avoided.
I remain very impressed with the Majik, although it offers a different tonality altogether. If linn had added the CD engine to this player, I would probably be owning one at this very moment.
As stated, with regular CD, the Ikemi and Akurate share more in common than they differ. Any advantages the Akurate develops, does not warrant the major cost of investment (over the Ikemi), in my opinion, unless you intend to go the SACD route.
The Ikemi in HDCD mode (with CDs that have HDCD attribute = peak extend) is superior to the Akurate with regular CD, but the Akurate in SACD mode is an excellent sounding hi-res machine. If SACD is your ticket to audio heaven, consider it seriously.
So, based on what I have read here, plus David Price's recent article, I am holding up any purchase till I hear the DS series (and cheaper spin offs).
Honestly, I'm perplexed. After reading how much better the Akurate, Majik, Uni 1.1, 2.1 and SC are to the Ikemi, and how some approach the CD12 (or better it) I'm glad I did my own comparisons within an independent system.
I hope the recent DS rumours are warranted, time will tell.
Spitfire
With CD, it's a very good player, highly musical, but despite what has been written, its tonality remains a far stretch from the fluid, more organic sound of the CD12. In terms of tonality, the Akurate is far closer to the Ikemi, sharing that typical Linn "dry" tonality, which the CD12 avoided.
I remain very impressed with the Majik, although it offers a different tonality altogether. If linn had added the CD engine to this player, I would probably be owning one at this very moment.
As stated, with regular CD, the Ikemi and Akurate share more in common than they differ. Any advantages the Akurate develops, does not warrant the major cost of investment (over the Ikemi), in my opinion, unless you intend to go the SACD route.
The Ikemi in HDCD mode (with CDs that have HDCD attribute = peak extend) is superior to the Akurate with regular CD, but the Akurate in SACD mode is an excellent sounding hi-res machine. If SACD is your ticket to audio heaven, consider it seriously.
So, based on what I have read here, plus David Price's recent article, I am holding up any purchase till I hear the DS series (and cheaper spin offs).
Honestly, I'm perplexed. After reading how much better the Akurate, Majik, Uni 1.1, 2.1 and SC are to the Ikemi, and how some approach the CD12 (or better it) I'm glad I did my own comparisons within an independent system.
I hope the recent DS rumours are warranted, time will tell.
Spitfire
Spitfire, I agree with you on this, the CD12 is still a machine on its own in every respect. Anyway may I ask you how many hours of playing had the Akurate CD you listened to? Infact, particularly after migrating to lead free solders, I've found that Linn machines need a lot of burn-in time to perform as they should. In the first 3/4 months of (regular) use they are likely to sound considerably worse than expected. Fluidity is one of the things that more suffers in that period.Spitfire wrote:
With CD, it's a very good player, highly musical, but despite what has been written, its tonality remains a far stretch from the fluid, more organic sound of the CD12.
Spitfire
I still am not so sure that led free migration hasn't brought a general worsening of sound quality, but this is another story...
My 4 years old Unidisk 1.1 is indisputably much better than the Ikemi I used to own before (or any other I've heard), regardless of HDCD decoding. If the Akurate you've tried doesn't perform clearly better than the Ikemi, it may be easily not fully burned-in or otherwise an underperforming machine. I'm speaking about tune anyway (and yes, fluidity and cohesion have a great influence on it), while I sincerely don't care so much about "tonality", dry or not.
All the best,
Paolo
This is very surprising, Spitfire. Either you have been listening to a broken Akurate CD or you are not using the Tune Method when comparing. CD or HDCD, the Ikemi is so far below Unidisk 1.1 and Akurate CD that it's really no debate.
The tonality you constantly refer to indicates a subjective evaluation of sound, which may work well for you but is of no use when we are trying to share experiences with eachother.
That is why I need to stress the rule: Every contributor here needs to use the Tune Method, otherwise this becomes yet another subjective forum on the net where all opinions count (no matter how crazy) and advice is impossible to find. I won't let that happen.
The tonality you constantly refer to indicates a subjective evaluation of sound, which may work well for you but is of no use when we are trying to share experiences with eachother.
That is why I need to stress the rule: Every contributor here needs to use the Tune Method, otherwise this becomes yet another subjective forum on the net where all opinions count (no matter how crazy) and advice is impossible to find. I won't let that happen.
No debate? I've been in this hobby for 25 years, owned equipment of the very high calibre, and suddenly my opinion is "not debatable" because you claim to hear otherwise?This is very surprising, Spitfire. Either you have been listening to a broken Akurate CD or you are not using the Tune Method when comparing. CD or HDCD, the Ikemi is so far below Unidisk 1.1 and Akurate CD that it's really no debate.
Your way or the highway is it? Well, you may try and trump my opinion based on your silly methods, but obviously that doesn't mean your opinion has any more validity.
Again, your way or the highway. Fine, this will be my last post here. Obviously my advice has little merit. Take it for what its worth, your idealistic silly "tunedem" method has nothing over actual "musicality". When I listen to music, I do just that, I don't pretend to evaluate one item or another - based on your rules!That is why I need to stress the rule: Every contributor here needs to use the Tune Method, otherwise this becomes yet another subjective forum on the net where all opinions count (no matter how crazy) and advice is impossible to find. I won't let that happen.
Paolo, thank you for your reply, we have a difference of opinion that welcomes debate, refreshing to say the least.
I spent 3 nights with the fully broken in Akurate, and I very much liked it. And, don't get me wrong, it has some advantages over the Ikemi, just that IMO those advantages aren't near worthy of spending big dollars. In fact, I found the two most similar within my system, and as you suggested, neither had the dynamic capability - or the see through transparency of the CD12. And with peak extended HDCD disks, the Ikemi was easily more extended and musicaly better than the Akurate playing regular CD, despite any tunedem method I might have biased.
If you find your 1.1 superior, or the Akurate superior, thats perfectly fine. In fact I agree to a degree. The 1.1 is excellent, as is the Akurate. I consider them "better", but not necessarily superior to the extent that it warrants an upgrade. In reality, a second hand CD12 cost about the same as a new Akurate, and that to me, is a far better fit.
And consider this, as much as I like digital, I have yet to hear a digital system that was as "musical" as a top notch well setup vinyl rig, in the traditional sense that is, ei: as a "musical" transducer, tunedem or not.
Spitfire, out!
No need to get upset, Spitfire.
I wrote either you have a faulty Akurate CD or you judge things in a way that differs from the Tune Method. Paolo may be right that the unit is not broken in or there may be something else that limits the Akurate. But as you have not reported the differences in terms of musicality but rather in tonality (which is a sound term and as such has nothing to do with musicality), I began suspecting that you don't use the Tune Method.
Since I assume that you knew from the very start that we use the Tune Method here, why did you join if you consider the method silly? It is far more than a common reference point on this forum, it is the method used during the development of every hifi component made by Linn Products Ltd.
I wrote either you have a faulty Akurate CD or you judge things in a way that differs from the Tune Method. Paolo may be right that the unit is not broken in or there may be something else that limits the Akurate. But as you have not reported the differences in terms of musicality but rather in tonality (which is a sound term and as such has nothing to do with musicality), I began suspecting that you don't use the Tune Method.
Since I assume that you knew from the very start that we use the Tune Method here, why did you join if you consider the method silly? It is far more than a common reference point on this forum, it is the method used during the development of every hifi component made by Linn Products Ltd.
You're correct, I may have (well I did) over-reacted, just that your so called tunedem method hit a nerve, and it still seems very Linn'sh and even to some extent, cult'sh, when it's claimed to be the "only" method used here for evaluation.
Although musicality and tonality are different attributes, they're related, tonality is important because its something that one must like if he or she is to luv a player on an everyday basis, over a long period of time.
Listen, forgive me for my past tirade, but I know when I'm out of my element, and I certainly don't wish to get any deeper into this non "debate".
You guys take care, and enjoy. 8)
Spitfire, out.
Although musicality and tonality are different attributes, they're related, tonality is important because its something that one must like if he or she is to luv a player on an everyday basis, over a long period of time.
Listen, forgive me for my past tirade, but I know when I'm out of my element, and I certainly don't wish to get any deeper into this non "debate".
You guys take care, and enjoy. 8)
Spitfire, out.
??!
Oh my goodness -- what happened here?
I haven't looked at this thread in a couple of days, and only now peeked in to ask (ironically) what Spitfire meant about the tonality of the Majik being very different from that of the Akurate. And now I find the internet forum equivalent of overturned furniture and signs that someone has left with the car, the dog, and the cappuccino maker...
Anyway, Mr. Lejonklou (and Paolo, et al), may I please ask a rather sheepish question?
It's regarding TuneDem and my own (Ceilidh's) postings on this forum: as you know, I have trouble with TuneDem, and after all this time I'm not sure yet whether I'm doing things properly. And so, when I evaluate my system, I tend to fall back on (1) Can I hear instruments, harmonic lines, or musical nuances that I didn't notice before? ; (2) Is the sound something I can stand / enjoy listening to, for reasonable periods of time, at reasonable volumes? (That was the primary driver for my trying out your solder and Deltron plugs in place of screw-on silver-plated connectors -- with the silver-plates, my parents' system was simply unpleasant-sounding; I hated listening to it for any length of time); and (3) In the end, do my favorite CDs do a better job of moving me, bringing me to tears, or inviting me to dance with a pretty girl?
The problem with the above criteria is that none of them are really TuneDem. #1 might come close -- though I'm beginning to realize that a system can bring out "hidden detail" in a way that really isn't that musical. But #2 sounds dangerously close to the "tonality" that Spitfire was stressing, and #3 is so personal & subjective that it must be useless for everyone.
And, so, have I also been violating the TuneDem spirit of this forum, in reporting the results of experiments with my Classik + Klout and with my parents' UniSC + C5100? I've been trying to relate those reports to my best understanding of TuneDem, but some of the things I'm hearing don't seem to fit in with that understanding: for example, one thing I was going to report (in the Aktiv/Passive thread) was that certain CDs in my parents' Aktiv system now sound like they were recorded in a much bigger room than I realized before; this is something I love about the Aktiv upgrade, and it was a very noticeable effect -- but how do I couch that in TuneDem terms? Or, if it doesn't fit with TuneDem, should I not talk about it? Or is it ok to mention such things, so long as the primary emphasis is on the tune?
Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I haven't been stepping on any toes or going against the spirit of anything. I really love this forum, and you all have been so very helpful to me -- if I'm doing anything wrong, please do let me know! (Thank you!!)
Best wishes to everyone,
-C
I haven't looked at this thread in a couple of days, and only now peeked in to ask (ironically) what Spitfire meant about the tonality of the Majik being very different from that of the Akurate. And now I find the internet forum equivalent of overturned furniture and signs that someone has left with the car, the dog, and the cappuccino maker...
Anyway, Mr. Lejonklou (and Paolo, et al), may I please ask a rather sheepish question?
It's regarding TuneDem and my own (Ceilidh's) postings on this forum: as you know, I have trouble with TuneDem, and after all this time I'm not sure yet whether I'm doing things properly. And so, when I evaluate my system, I tend to fall back on (1) Can I hear instruments, harmonic lines, or musical nuances that I didn't notice before? ; (2) Is the sound something I can stand / enjoy listening to, for reasonable periods of time, at reasonable volumes? (That was the primary driver for my trying out your solder and Deltron plugs in place of screw-on silver-plated connectors -- with the silver-plates, my parents' system was simply unpleasant-sounding; I hated listening to it for any length of time); and (3) In the end, do my favorite CDs do a better job of moving me, bringing me to tears, or inviting me to dance with a pretty girl?
The problem with the above criteria is that none of them are really TuneDem. #1 might come close -- though I'm beginning to realize that a system can bring out "hidden detail" in a way that really isn't that musical. But #2 sounds dangerously close to the "tonality" that Spitfire was stressing, and #3 is so personal & subjective that it must be useless for everyone.
And, so, have I also been violating the TuneDem spirit of this forum, in reporting the results of experiments with my Classik + Klout and with my parents' UniSC + C5100? I've been trying to relate those reports to my best understanding of TuneDem, but some of the things I'm hearing don't seem to fit in with that understanding: for example, one thing I was going to report (in the Aktiv/Passive thread) was that certain CDs in my parents' Aktiv system now sound like they were recorded in a much bigger room than I realized before; this is something I love about the Aktiv upgrade, and it was a very noticeable effect -- but how do I couch that in TuneDem terms? Or, if it doesn't fit with TuneDem, should I not talk about it? Or is it ok to mention such things, so long as the primary emphasis is on the tune?
Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I haven't been stepping on any toes or going against the spirit of anything. I really love this forum, and you all have been so very helpful to me -- if I'm doing anything wrong, please do let me know! (Thank you!!)
Best wishes to everyone,
-C
Hello Ceilidh,
I personally see it this way: TuneDem is nothing what was born in a brain to invent a new method of evaluating hifi stuff (or how people has to listen). TuneDem is some kind of "essence", so one can evaluate quickly. If you have find out a quick, reproducible and systematic way to evaluate cars, you don't have to drive with every car for days to come to a conclusion. Same is tune-dem for hifi: You can listen to a system for hours and days, to evaluate which system you can enjoy longer without being stressed, on which system you can "find yourself" in unknown music more easily, which system will reduce your musical broadness (and which system will broaden it) etc. Or you can use the tune-dem method, representing all this, but which is simply faster and more effective.
Another benefit of TuneDem is that is independent of the rest of the system, you simply compare two CD players (for example) and the result regarding tune-dem will not be different if connected to another amplifier. Furthermore it is independent of the person which does the evaluation. For that reason I see that we can talk about other hifi terms, too, but to get a common basis the tune-dem method is IMHO excellent. Spitfire gave us a good example: If the Ikemi is on par with the Akurate CD player in terms of tune-dem, the Akurate is simply not ok, "broken", because the Akurate IS usually better in tune-dem, regardless who did the evaluation. Of and course this does NOT mean that the Akurate HAS to be better in everyone personal view, only regarding the criteria tune-dem!
How do you know if you have "understand" the method of evaluating using tune-dem? Not an easy question, I personally would tend to the answer: If you came to the same result as the other persons who did the evaluation using tune-dem. So a little uncertainness will remain. For example Fredrik and me evaluated some Unidisk settings using the tune-dem method and came to different results. Is that because this settings behave different, regarding the power environment? Or is that because I haven't clearly understand how to do the "tune-dem"? The only point which makes me quite sure (but only quite
) is that I did a lot of sessions with my dealer and friends, setting up the LP12, setting up the loudspeakers, setting up the subwoofer, all using the tune-dem method, and every time we came to the same conclusion. Futhermore for fun I always do the tune-dem method to evaluate how I have to plug in the power cord for new stuff. (In Germany we have two ways to do that.) Afterwards I do the measurement with my multimeter, and so far I was always right. (Except in one case, but some months later it was found out that this device had a grounding problem, after it was fixed by Linn the result was the same, tune-dem & measurement.) And another help is my wife, she always helps me to setup or evaluate stuff, and her stomach has some kind of "build-in" tune-dem detector
If you don't have a second person who helps you evaluating and to see if you are doing the method "right", maybe it would help if you simply try to setup the speaker positions three times using tune-dem. If you get exactly the same result in all three cases, identical for about 1cm, you must have found an reproducible method doing this. I personally would say that the chances are very good that this method actually IS tune-dem.
Although this message is already very long, I would like to say some notes about "the only method": I personally was in fact believing this, and for that reason I changed my Klouts for 2250. But it was a mistake, because I found out there are other criteria which are on par important for me than tune-dem. (And I changed back after one year.) And I always feel free to talk about that other criteria, too, although this criteria are very personal and not reproducible for other persons. Because of that someone could say its totally useless to talk about such criteria, because its so dependent on my person. But in my eyes a hifi forum is not only about reproducible, personal-independent criteria, but also about sharing very personal views and feelings, because music is something which is listened for very personal reasons - and music is what it should be all about.
Axel
I personally see it this way: TuneDem is nothing what was born in a brain to invent a new method of evaluating hifi stuff (or how people has to listen). TuneDem is some kind of "essence", so one can evaluate quickly. If you have find out a quick, reproducible and systematic way to evaluate cars, you don't have to drive with every car for days to come to a conclusion. Same is tune-dem for hifi: You can listen to a system for hours and days, to evaluate which system you can enjoy longer without being stressed, on which system you can "find yourself" in unknown music more easily, which system will reduce your musical broadness (and which system will broaden it) etc. Or you can use the tune-dem method, representing all this, but which is simply faster and more effective.
Another benefit of TuneDem is that is independent of the rest of the system, you simply compare two CD players (for example) and the result regarding tune-dem will not be different if connected to another amplifier. Furthermore it is independent of the person which does the evaluation. For that reason I see that we can talk about other hifi terms, too, but to get a common basis the tune-dem method is IMHO excellent. Spitfire gave us a good example: If the Ikemi is on par with the Akurate CD player in terms of tune-dem, the Akurate is simply not ok, "broken", because the Akurate IS usually better in tune-dem, regardless who did the evaluation. Of and course this does NOT mean that the Akurate HAS to be better in everyone personal view, only regarding the criteria tune-dem!
How do you know if you have "understand" the method of evaluating using tune-dem? Not an easy question, I personally would tend to the answer: If you came to the same result as the other persons who did the evaluation using tune-dem. So a little uncertainness will remain. For example Fredrik and me evaluated some Unidisk settings using the tune-dem method and came to different results. Is that because this settings behave different, regarding the power environment? Or is that because I haven't clearly understand how to do the "tune-dem"? The only point which makes me quite sure (but only quite
) is that I did a lot of sessions with my dealer and friends, setting up the LP12, setting up the loudspeakers, setting up the subwoofer, all using the tune-dem method, and every time we came to the same conclusion. Futhermore for fun I always do the tune-dem method to evaluate how I have to plug in the power cord for new stuff. (In Germany we have two ways to do that.) Afterwards I do the measurement with my multimeter, and so far I was always right. (Except in one case, but some months later it was found out that this device had a grounding problem, after it was fixed by Linn the result was the same, tune-dem & measurement.) And another help is my wife, she always helps me to setup or evaluate stuff, and her stomach has some kind of "build-in" tune-dem detector If you don't have a second person who helps you evaluating and to see if you are doing the method "right", maybe it would help if you simply try to setup the speaker positions three times using tune-dem. If you get exactly the same result in all three cases, identical for about 1cm, you must have found an reproducible method doing this. I personally would say that the chances are very good that this method actually IS tune-dem.
Although this message is already very long, I would like to say some notes about "the only method": I personally was in fact believing this, and for that reason I changed my Klouts for 2250. But it was a mistake, because I found out there are other criteria which are on par important for me than tune-dem. (And I changed back after one year.) And I always feel free to talk about that other criteria, too, although this criteria are very personal and not reproducible for other persons. Because of that someone could say its totally useless to talk about such criteria, because its so dependent on my person. But in my eyes a hifi forum is not only about reproducible, personal-independent criteria, but also about sharing very personal views and feelings, because music is something which is listened for very personal reasons - and music is what it should be all about.
Axel
Ceilidh, et all ...
As I stated, I'm out of my element here, and I simply refuse to use the tunedem method for evaluation. I'm to old and experienced to make this sort of "rule" change.
Just to be clear, this is the method I use:
1) I take a set of disks with me that I'm very comfortable, that I have heard plenty of times, in plenty of systems. These supply a point of reference, and a defined set of expectations.
2) If I am with someone else, (along with my own system, I often use friends systems for evaluating the same product (if feasable) in order to get a cross-section of opinions) I never suggest anything to them PRE session. I always wait till they develop an impression, before I suggest my own. This is the very area that "tunedem" fails miserably, because it defined preconcieved expectations, and bias, before evaluation.
3) Musicality. Such an overused term, but simple in practice. Music should have an emotional attachment, it needs to communicate on a personal level. This is one area that I think Linn source products excel.
4) Tonality. Very important, because not only is this is the first thing you hear, it will be the most consistent thing you hear during your term of ownership. On a personal basis, I prefer a sunny or bright tonality, but not at the expense of stressed high frequency reproduction. If thats the case, I will inevitably switched the unit off, and therefore, it doesn't meet my long term criteria or justify the expense of ownership.
5) Noise Floor Reproduction. Probably the most ignored quality, but one that many more experienced 'philes find most important. My system utilizes dedicated power line conditioning, and a star grounding system, it has pin drop transparency, power and huge dynamic expression. Most floors eat details related to depth. A low floor allows you to hear into the layers of sound, towards the back of the venue, with ease. Generally, the lowest noise floor systems offer the best 3D soundstage, while offering superior dynamic expression. I should add, Linn folks not need worry about this parameter all to much since this is one area that keeps bringing me back to Linn source components - time & time again.
6) Dynamic capability & expression. Does your system compress during difficult to reproduce peaks? Most do!!! Do you need to lower the volume because the sound suddenly becomes brittle? Does the leading edge of a hard hit drum or cymbal sound real? Does the trailing edge have proper decay (related to noise floor). More importantly, when the music builds, does it still remain open, does it sound powerful, is intrumental impact real and alive?
7) Frequency Extension. Often related to tonality, but considerably different. Play an organ cut, or a synth, these instuments should sound natural and powerful at the frequency extremes. Do different cymbals hit at once, smear into one sound, or do they breath and remain independent? If you're system offers proper extension, it will generally offer superior performance in all other aspects of sound reproduction.
8) Musicality: Yes I already mentioned this, but consider that all the above attributes are directly related to what one hears at a well produced live concert - it really comes down back to musicality, and emotional attachment. When you listen to a live concert, do you listen for dyamic capability or tonality, frequency extension or the noise floor? No, you listen to music, hence the definition of musicality.
Things like tunedem simply get in the way, proven by the fact that the SC gets higher ratings over the Ikemi on a consistent basis on this board, yet heard in a variety of systems, it simply doesn't come close in any of the above criteria, esp musicality.
Ceilidh. what I mean't by the Majik having a different tonality, is much the same as I stated in a prior post related to the Linn engine. The Majik (and Genki) have a brighter, sunnier tonality - more upfront compared to the Ikemi and/or Akurate, which tend to layer the music further back in a deeper 3D soundstage, while offering a darker background / perspective.
The Majik is head over heals better than the Genki, but they share the same sunny tonality. The difference, the Majiks top end sounds far more natural, doesn't compress and remains open during difficult passages.
The Genki resolved really well, but it offers a wall of sound, instead of eliminating the back wall of my listening room, which the best components do with relative ease.
As stated above, the differences between the Akurate (silly and even ignorant to say that it must have been broken) and the Ikemi was minimal in all the above departments. Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost. In my experience, the CD12 superiority over the Akurate, is much greater than the Akurate superiority over the Ikemi.
But that's just my "broken" opinion, which "tunedem" instantly dismisses.
Spitfire, in & out.
As I stated, I'm out of my element here, and I simply refuse to use the tunedem method for evaluation. I'm to old and experienced to make this sort of "rule" change.
Just to be clear, this is the method I use:
1) I take a set of disks with me that I'm very comfortable, that I have heard plenty of times, in plenty of systems. These supply a point of reference, and a defined set of expectations.
2) If I am with someone else, (along with my own system, I often use friends systems for evaluating the same product (if feasable) in order to get a cross-section of opinions) I never suggest anything to them PRE session. I always wait till they develop an impression, before I suggest my own. This is the very area that "tunedem" fails miserably, because it defined preconcieved expectations, and bias, before evaluation.
3) Musicality. Such an overused term, but simple in practice. Music should have an emotional attachment, it needs to communicate on a personal level. This is one area that I think Linn source products excel.
4) Tonality. Very important, because not only is this is the first thing you hear, it will be the most consistent thing you hear during your term of ownership. On a personal basis, I prefer a sunny or bright tonality, but not at the expense of stressed high frequency reproduction. If thats the case, I will inevitably switched the unit off, and therefore, it doesn't meet my long term criteria or justify the expense of ownership.
5) Noise Floor Reproduction. Probably the most ignored quality, but one that many more experienced 'philes find most important. My system utilizes dedicated power line conditioning, and a star grounding system, it has pin drop transparency, power and huge dynamic expression. Most floors eat details related to depth. A low floor allows you to hear into the layers of sound, towards the back of the venue, with ease. Generally, the lowest noise floor systems offer the best 3D soundstage, while offering superior dynamic expression. I should add, Linn folks not need worry about this parameter all to much since this is one area that keeps bringing me back to Linn source components - time & time again.
6) Dynamic capability & expression. Does your system compress during difficult to reproduce peaks? Most do!!! Do you need to lower the volume because the sound suddenly becomes brittle? Does the leading edge of a hard hit drum or cymbal sound real? Does the trailing edge have proper decay (related to noise floor). More importantly, when the music builds, does it still remain open, does it sound powerful, is intrumental impact real and alive?
7) Frequency Extension. Often related to tonality, but considerably different. Play an organ cut, or a synth, these instuments should sound natural and powerful at the frequency extremes. Do different cymbals hit at once, smear into one sound, or do they breath and remain independent? If you're system offers proper extension, it will generally offer superior performance in all other aspects of sound reproduction.
8) Musicality: Yes I already mentioned this, but consider that all the above attributes are directly related to what one hears at a well produced live concert - it really comes down back to musicality, and emotional attachment. When you listen to a live concert, do you listen for dyamic capability or tonality, frequency extension or the noise floor? No, you listen to music, hence the definition of musicality.
Things like tunedem simply get in the way, proven by the fact that the SC gets higher ratings over the Ikemi on a consistent basis on this board, yet heard in a variety of systems, it simply doesn't come close in any of the above criteria, esp musicality.
Ceilidh. what I mean't by the Majik having a different tonality, is much the same as I stated in a prior post related to the Linn engine. The Majik (and Genki) have a brighter, sunnier tonality - more upfront compared to the Ikemi and/or Akurate, which tend to layer the music further back in a deeper 3D soundstage, while offering a darker background / perspective.
The Majik is head over heals better than the Genki, but they share the same sunny tonality. The difference, the Majiks top end sounds far more natural, doesn't compress and remains open during difficult passages.
The Genki resolved really well, but it offers a wall of sound, instead of eliminating the back wall of my listening room, which the best components do with relative ease.
As stated above, the differences between the Akurate (silly and even ignorant to say that it must have been broken) and the Ikemi was minimal in all the above departments. Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost. In my experience, the CD12 superiority over the Akurate, is much greater than the Akurate superiority over the Ikemi.
But that's just my "broken" opinion, which "tunedem" instantly dismisses.
Spitfire, in & out.
Apologies to Nisseman that the title was changed, but I saw no way of splitting this topic in two. It was CD players and became a discussion about the Tune Method.
Spitfire, Ceilidh, Axel - thank you for your thoughts on this. It is not an easy subject - it's about how we judge performance! - and that's why we all have strong opinions about it.
On this forum, it's ok to discuss sound character, personal preferences etc, as long as it's done in addition to the Tune Method. That is the rule. If you don't care about the Tune Method, you should find yourself another forum.
The reason for the Tune Method rule is NOT that all opinions expressed in here should be identical to mine OR that I look down upon those judging performance in a different way. The reason is that the Tune Method provides a common reference point for our discussions. The intention is that on this forum - unlike every other hifi forum on the internet - all readers will know exactly how the product was evaluated.
In my opinion, the Tune Method is the closest we can get to an objective way of evaluating the performance of a musical reproduction. It is a method that has to be learned and practiced to work well, but between those who use it, there is very little disagreement.
Still, we judge how music is reproduced as humans and therefore a certain degree of debate will always be there. We will perform the Tune Method in slightly different ways (because this method relies on our human ability to interpret music) and in addition to that, we will have our personal preferences. Feel free to express those, as long as you also evaluate (or try your best to evaluate) the performance with the Tune Method!
Spitfire, Ceilidh, Axel - thank you for your thoughts on this. It is not an easy subject - it's about how we judge performance! - and that's why we all have strong opinions about it.
On this forum, it's ok to discuss sound character, personal preferences etc, as long as it's done in addition to the Tune Method. That is the rule. If you don't care about the Tune Method, you should find yourself another forum.
The reason for the Tune Method rule is NOT that all opinions expressed in here should be identical to mine OR that I look down upon those judging performance in a different way. The reason is that the Tune Method provides a common reference point for our discussions. The intention is that on this forum - unlike every other hifi forum on the internet - all readers will know exactly how the product was evaluated.
In my opinion, the Tune Method is the closest we can get to an objective way of evaluating the performance of a musical reproduction. It is a method that has to be learned and practiced to work well, but between those who use it, there is very little disagreement.
Still, we judge how music is reproduced as humans and therefore a certain degree of debate will always be there. We will perform the Tune Method in slightly different ways (because this method relies on our human ability to interpret music) and in addition to that, we will have our personal preferences. Feel free to express those, as long as you also evaluate (or try your best to evaluate) the performance with the Tune Method!
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread... Well here goes.
In some ways, Spitfire, you are evaluating on ways that are similar to the tune method but in others you are quite different. Probably most telling is your second comment about "musicality" where in your own words you invalidate many of the criteria you use for judging equipment. "When you listen to a live concert, do you listen for dynamic capability or tonality, frequency extension or the noise floor? No, you listen to music, hence the definition of musicality."
The tune method is an attempt to move the evaluation away from all the "detail, soundstage, caramel colouration" gibberish and get it back to MUSICALLY important criteria. There are a couple of things that most music has: melody and rhythm. Even if it is discordant or polyrhythmic it is still based around melody and rhythm. The tune method is simply listening to see if the musicians are more or less in tune and in time with each other and themselves. If one component makes a performer sound like a worse performer, a band sound like a less together band then it is a worse component.
We prefer to use tune method because it encompasses the most important aspects of music and because it automatically takes into account all other truly important parameters of audio system performance. If a product has harmonic distortion the musicians will sound out of tune with each other and the notes on a single instrument will sound slightly off (or sometimes greatly off) from one note to the next. The pitch of a note on an instrument is a a combination of the fundamental and all the harmonics - change the harmonic structure and you alter the pitch. The same is true for intermodulation distortion, phase distortion, frequency imbalance, etc. - deviations will cause a less tuneful, or less musical performance. Likewise a product with a lower noise floor will allow you to hear more of the subtle, low-level harmonic information and will therefore be more tuneful.
In summary, a product cannot be more tuneful unless it is audibly less distorting allowing more of the music through. This makes the tune method a more reliable method for judging components (or even live performances). The other methods are often fraught with disaster. People combine a bright speaker with a warm amplifier seeking a balanced sound. It might sound relatively even in the frequency balance but you have heaped one distortion on top of another and made a system that is musically and emotionally less satisfying - and less tuneful.
I don't really see any preconceived notions other than that the component which plays the music better (reproduces the melody and the rhythm better) is the better component.
And I don't really see some of the reasons you put forward as why tune method invalid as being valid themselves. You mention the tendency towards finding the UniDisk SC superior to the Ikemi as one reason yet you have seen that others and I prefer the Ikemi. That there are differences of opinion on this don't invalidate the tune method for me - what it tells me is that the Ikemi and the UniDisk SC are fairly close and some prefer one or the other. I agree that the two are close, and I also know that there can be enough variance between units (especially with the different software available on the SC) that the preference could easily be as much a function of the specific two units used as it could be personal preference. Pointing out your feelings on the Akurate CD vs. others is even less sensible as you state that "Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost." You agree that the Akurate is better you just don't find the level of improvement to be worth the price difference over the Ikemi. Here you are making a judgment of value and that is something only the individual can decide. A difference that I consider too small to spend $3000 on you might consider a bargain at $5000 and vice versa. Again, you do find it to be better which is what the tune method has led the majority to conclude (and I leave myself out of this as I haven't yet been able to do a proper comparison of the Akurate CD with my Ikemi, or anything else.
So maybe it isn't really too late to teach an old dog new tricks?
In some ways, Spitfire, you are evaluating on ways that are similar to the tune method but in others you are quite different. Probably most telling is your second comment about "musicality" where in your own words you invalidate many of the criteria you use for judging equipment. "When you listen to a live concert, do you listen for dynamic capability or tonality, frequency extension or the noise floor? No, you listen to music, hence the definition of musicality."
The tune method is an attempt to move the evaluation away from all the "detail, soundstage, caramel colouration" gibberish and get it back to MUSICALLY important criteria. There are a couple of things that most music has: melody and rhythm. Even if it is discordant or polyrhythmic it is still based around melody and rhythm. The tune method is simply listening to see if the musicians are more or less in tune and in time with each other and themselves. If one component makes a performer sound like a worse performer, a band sound like a less together band then it is a worse component.
We prefer to use tune method because it encompasses the most important aspects of music and because it automatically takes into account all other truly important parameters of audio system performance. If a product has harmonic distortion the musicians will sound out of tune with each other and the notes on a single instrument will sound slightly off (or sometimes greatly off) from one note to the next. The pitch of a note on an instrument is a a combination of the fundamental and all the harmonics - change the harmonic structure and you alter the pitch. The same is true for intermodulation distortion, phase distortion, frequency imbalance, etc. - deviations will cause a less tuneful, or less musical performance. Likewise a product with a lower noise floor will allow you to hear more of the subtle, low-level harmonic information and will therefore be more tuneful.
In summary, a product cannot be more tuneful unless it is audibly less distorting allowing more of the music through. This makes the tune method a more reliable method for judging components (or even live performances). The other methods are often fraught with disaster. People combine a bright speaker with a warm amplifier seeking a balanced sound. It might sound relatively even in the frequency balance but you have heaped one distortion on top of another and made a system that is musically and emotionally less satisfying - and less tuneful.
I don't really see any preconceived notions other than that the component which plays the music better (reproduces the melody and the rhythm better) is the better component.
And I don't really see some of the reasons you put forward as why tune method invalid as being valid themselves. You mention the tendency towards finding the UniDisk SC superior to the Ikemi as one reason yet you have seen that others and I prefer the Ikemi. That there are differences of opinion on this don't invalidate the tune method for me - what it tells me is that the Ikemi and the UniDisk SC are fairly close and some prefer one or the other. I agree that the two are close, and I also know that there can be enough variance between units (especially with the different software available on the SC) that the preference could easily be as much a function of the specific two units used as it could be personal preference. Pointing out your feelings on the Akurate CD vs. others is even less sensible as you state that "Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost." You agree that the Akurate is better you just don't find the level of improvement to be worth the price difference over the Ikemi. Here you are making a judgment of value and that is something only the individual can decide. A difference that I consider too small to spend $3000 on you might consider a bargain at $5000 and vice versa. Again, you do find it to be better which is what the tune method has led the majority to conclude (and I leave myself out of this as I haven't yet been able to do a proper comparison of the Akurate CD with my Ikemi, or anything else.
So maybe it isn't really too late to teach an old dog new tricks?
Hi ThomasOK,
You said, "Pointing out your feelings on the Akurate CD vs. others is even less sensible as you state that "Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost." You agree that the Akurate is better you just don't find the level of improvement to be worth the price difference over the Ikemi. Here you are making a judgment of value and that is something only the individual can decide. ".
But we are INDIVIDUALS!!!
Thats exactly my point, we all have our own way of measuring value, tunedem or ...
And based on that, you offer only contradiction, you claim my opinion lacks sensibility, yet people everwhere are making value based decisions (judgements) on an everyday basis. I always considered a judgement based on research and self education as the sensible approach.
You said, "We prefer to use tune method because it encompasses the most important aspects of music and because it automatically takes into account all other truly important parameters of audio system performance."
"Most important"!!!
To whom?
What's important to me, may not be important to you.
Once again, I'm not a "we" but rather an "I", as in "I"ndividual. And "I" think it's a rather biased process, one that measures certain musical attributes in conjunction with a specific company, who's set of values are also biased accordingly.
You may consider this method as a way to relate on common ground, but in reality, you're making the incorrect assumption that individual values aren't as worthy if it falls far enough away from the family tree.
You said, "The tune method is an attempt to move the evaluation away from all the "detail, soundstage, caramel colouration" gibberish and get it back to MUSICALLY important criteria. There are a couple of things that most music has: melody and rhythm. Even if it is discordant or polyrhythmic it is still based around melody and rhythm. The tune method is simply listening to see if the musicians are more or less in tune and in time with each other and themselves. If one component makes a performer sound like a worse performer, a band sound like a less together band then it is a worse component."
You just hit on the fundimental problem with tunedem. If a system manages to do one item correct, irrespective of colourations or presentation, it's auto labeled "better". If a system excels at another specific item, but fails your tunedem scenario, it automatically "worse".
I consider that shallow, and biased, and in no way does that encompass live music.
Perhaps I want MORE from my system. Melody and rhythm (or PR&T) are very important, but not at the expense of one or another "important" criteria.
Several criteria exist if you wish to try and recreating a live event in your own living room. Tunedem may be your ticket to achieving exactly that, but it certainly will never be mine.
And my method is the only honest way I know to communicate my opinion of said product, as I hear it. I expect the same from others, that form of credibiity is honest and free, irrespective of methodology.
Spitfire, in & out & in & out ...
You said, "Pointing out your feelings on the Akurate CD vs. others is even less sensible as you state that "Yes, the Akurate was better, but not enough considering the extra cost." You agree that the Akurate is better you just don't find the level of improvement to be worth the price difference over the Ikemi. Here you are making a judgment of value and that is something only the individual can decide. ".
But we are INDIVIDUALS!!!
Thats exactly my point, we all have our own way of measuring value, tunedem or ...
And based on that, you offer only contradiction, you claim my opinion lacks sensibility, yet people everwhere are making value based decisions (judgements) on an everyday basis. I always considered a judgement based on research and self education as the sensible approach.
You said, "We prefer to use tune method because it encompasses the most important aspects of music and because it automatically takes into account all other truly important parameters of audio system performance."
"Most important"!!!
To whom?
What's important to me, may not be important to you.
Once again, I'm not a "we" but rather an "I", as in "I"ndividual. And "I" think it's a rather biased process, one that measures certain musical attributes in conjunction with a specific company, who's set of values are also biased accordingly.
You may consider this method as a way to relate on common ground, but in reality, you're making the incorrect assumption that individual values aren't as worthy if it falls far enough away from the family tree.
You said, "The tune method is an attempt to move the evaluation away from all the "detail, soundstage, caramel colouration" gibberish and get it back to MUSICALLY important criteria. There are a couple of things that most music has: melody and rhythm. Even if it is discordant or polyrhythmic it is still based around melody and rhythm. The tune method is simply listening to see if the musicians are more or less in tune and in time with each other and themselves. If one component makes a performer sound like a worse performer, a band sound like a less together band then it is a worse component."
You just hit on the fundimental problem with tunedem. If a system manages to do one item correct, irrespective of colourations or presentation, it's auto labeled "better". If a system excels at another specific item, but fails your tunedem scenario, it automatically "worse".
I consider that shallow, and biased, and in no way does that encompass live music.
Perhaps I want MORE from my system. Melody and rhythm (or PR&T) are very important, but not at the expense of one or another "important" criteria.
Several criteria exist if you wish to try and recreating a live event in your own living room. Tunedem may be your ticket to achieving exactly that, but it certainly will never be mine.
And my method is the only honest way I know to communicate my opinion of said product, as I hear it. I expect the same from others, that form of credibiity is honest and free, irrespective of methodology.
Spitfire, in & out & in & out ...
Spitfire, I tried to point out to you earlier in this thread that tune-dem is the mandatory method of evaluation on this forum. This it not in any way up to discussion, as is clearly stated in the rules. If you can accept this, please feel very welcome to contribute to the discussion. You don't have to change your personal preferences or evaluations to do this.
In other words:
The whole idea about this forum is to AVOID this kind of endless debate. There are plenty of other forums where it is allowed to go on.
Having said that, I want to stress that we don't say that tune-dem is the "one and only" way to evaluate hi-fi, there are millions of people who happily use other methods and there is nothing wrong with that.
In other words:
The whole idea about this forum is to AVOID this kind of endless debate. There are plenty of other forums where it is allowed to go on.
Having said that, I want to stress that we don't say that tune-dem is the "one and only" way to evaluate hi-fi, there are millions of people who happily use other methods and there is nothing wrong with that.
You said, "This it not in any way up to discussion".
Yet, the name of this thread was changed to invite debate.
So exactly what are you avoiding, only the con side of the debate?
An admin said earlier "In my opinion, the Tune Method is the closest we can get to an objective way of evaluating the performance of a musical reproduction."
No, it's the closest way to guarantee universal agreement on a biased set of criteria.
I'm not here to change your methods, only to address certain failings that have become consistent based on your insistence on tunedem. You have aprox. >50% ratio of people who rate the SC higher than the Ikemi, a true indication that your insistence on Tunedem methodology falls far short from being accurate, and therefore doesn't offer readers the subjective information required.
OK, my opinion is just that, and that's fine. I suspect others will add on, and defend this forum or tunedem, and that's also to be expected.
However, my personal method of evaluation has proven very successful, therefore, why would I compromise my methodology just to appease a crowd.
Take Care. 8)
Spitfire
Yet, the name of this thread was changed to invite debate.
So exactly what are you avoiding, only the con side of the debate?
An admin said earlier "In my opinion, the Tune Method is the closest we can get to an objective way of evaluating the performance of a musical reproduction."
No, it's the closest way to guarantee universal agreement on a biased set of criteria.
I'm not here to change your methods, only to address certain failings that have become consistent based on your insistence on tunedem. You have aprox. >50% ratio of people who rate the SC higher than the Ikemi, a true indication that your insistence on Tunedem methodology falls far short from being accurate, and therefore doesn't offer readers the subjective information required.
OK, my opinion is just that, and that's fine. I suspect others will add on, and defend this forum or tunedem, and that's also to be expected.
However, my personal method of evaluation has proven very successful, therefore, why would I compromise my methodology just to appease a crowd.
Take Care. 8)
Spitfire