DS firmware - what is the lastest on the most musical one?

Hardware and software, modifications and DIY

Moderator: Staff

Post Reply
marmite
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-01-16 09:01
Location: Auckland

Post by marmite » 2012-11-03 08:45

Hi guys.

I've been really busy so haven't had time to contribute for a while (although I've been dropping in to see what's going on) but this thread, and particularly tokenbrit's comment on set up have struck a chord.

Unless everyone's set up is fine tuned using the same software version, then we are always going to have differences of opinion on which is most musical.

hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 350
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl » 2012-11-03 10:28

marmite wrote:Hi guys.

I've been really busy so haven't had time to contribute for a while (although I've been dropping in to see what's going on) but this thread, and particularly tokenbrit's comment on set up have struck a chord.

Unless everyone's set up is fine tuned using the same software version, then we are always going to have differences of opinion on which is most musical.
In my experience, if one uses tune-dem the differences are the same, only smaller, in a poor installation. It probably becomes even more important to stick to the method when the installation is not optimised.

marmite
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-01-16 09:01
Location: Auckland

Post by marmite » 2012-11-03 11:02

hcl wrote:
marmite wrote:Hi guys.

I've been really busy so haven't had time to contribute for a while (although I've been dropping in to see what's going on) but this thread, and particularly tokenbrit's comment on set up have struck a chord.

Unless everyone's set up is fine tuned using the same software version, then we are always going to have differences of opinion on which is most musical.
In my experience, if one uses tune-dem the differences are the same, only smaller, in a poor installation. It probably becomes even more important to stick to the method when the installation is not optimised.
Hi hcl

Sorry, not sure I fully understand. Are you saying the differences in software versions should be the same regardless of installation? Just that they are more obvious (bigger) in a good installation.

I find that there is a big difference between 4.1.10 and 4.9.7.
What if you're system was set up on 4.1.10 and mine was set up on 4.9.7? Should we both still prefer the same version (using tune dem)?

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-03 15:56

ThomasOK positioned my speakers using 4.7.2.

This is what sounds best to me. I never get the feeling that they should be tweaked.

Some other firmware sounds better in the first 3 seconds. They end up being out of time and fatiguing in short order.

I am willing to reflash to try out other firmware, but the only way my speakers get touched at this point is to be dusted.

So I also wonder about the tuning to a certain firmware.

Happy to remain wondering - not willing to move my speakers to learn for myself. Interested to hear from the rest of you though.

tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1065
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Post by tokenbrit » 2012-11-03 23:10

SaltyDog wrote: ... not willing to move my speakers to learn for myself. Interested to hear from the rest of you though.
:)

hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 350
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl » 2012-11-04 09:18

marmite wrote:
hcl wrote:
marmite wrote:Hi guys.

I've been really busy so haven't had time to contribute for a while (although I've been dropping in to see what's going on) but this thread, and particularly tokenbrit's comment on set up have struck a chord.

Unless everyone's set up is fine tuned using the same software version, then we are always going to have differences of opinion on which is most musical.
In my experience, if one uses tune-dem the differences are the same, only smaller, in a poor installation. It probably becomes even more important to stick to the method when the installation is not optimised.
Hi hcl

Sorry, not sure I fully understand. Are you saying the differences in software versions should be the same regardless of installation? Just that they are more obvious (bigger) in a good installation.

I find that there is a big difference between 4.1.10 and 4.9.7.
What if you're system was set up on 4.1.10 and mine was set up on 4.9.7? Should we both still prefer the same version (using tune dem)?
Yes, in general I would think so, but it also seems a seriously weird installation can give rather confusing results (for example if the the installation where done with a bad source or something was broken).

Maybe some of the more experienced guys (or women for that matter) could give there opinion on the subject.

marmite
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-01-16 09:01
Location: Auckland

Post by marmite » 2012-11-05 04:36

Thanks hcl

I'm not sure what software version I was on when my system was set up, but I'm on 4.1.10 at the moment, so perhaps proving you right as I feel 4.1.10 is quite different from others.

When I have some time I may try fine tuning the system to see if there is anything to be gained, but I have to say I'm enjoying the music at the moment and never feel like I'm listening to/for hi fi differences.

marmite
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-01-16 09:01
Location: Auckland

Post by marmite » 2012-11-22 08:49

Update time.

The last few months have been rather busy work wise, and I've also had my in laws staying for a while. Listening has therefore been limited and the music has been at the 'nicer' end of my collection (acoustic, female vocals, small scale jazz, latin american, etc) and at a far lower volume than normal.

The in laws are gone, kids were both at friends for the night and Mrs Marmite was at a work function. Time to get a bit heavier with the playlist.

Playing some Rage Against The Machine (4.1.10) brought on an uneasy feeling, the one you get when something is out of phase. timing (musically) was awful. If it wasn't for the fact I use active ATC's I would swear I was tri wired with the bass out of phase. I checked all other connections to be sure.
Does anyone else feel that 4.1.10 has timing issues?

Then I turned to (Sweden's finest) Meshuggah. It's a good way to check out your systems timing abilities. 4.1.10 simply cannot cope. It takes far too much effort to follow the time signature changes (and I know the songs well). 4.9.7 nails it.

Going back to the 'nicer' playlist, but at serious volume levels, I also prefer 4.9.7.

Maybe it's just down to personal preferences. My wife and I can like the same song but for completely different reasons. I'd also choose a Naim power amp over any SET. I'm just a timing freak I guess.

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-22 11:03

I was over at Evo from the Linn Forum's place the other night.

He has very well setup 320/D and a pair of Linn Subs. KDS-KK latest spec.

I have KDS-KK- ATC Active 50 Towers latest spec in the US using 230V.

Your description of 4.1.10 sounds like what I experience at home.

Evo's system was superb with 4.1.10.

We tried 4.7.2, which is my favorite with jRiver. Evo runs jRiver too.

4.7.2 did not work as well as 4.1.10 on his system. 4.1.10 does not work as well as 4.7.2 on my sytsem.

He tuned his room using 4.1.10. ThomasOK tuned my speakers with 4.7.2.

This brings up some questions. Have you tried 4.7.2? PM me your email if you want a copy. We were trying to decide if the room tuning or the speakers made the difference.

4.9.7 brings fatigue to me in my room. Lots of good sound at first.

usjaz
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2012-05-11 07:13

Post by usjaz » 2012-11-22 18:38

Yes. marmite, try 4.7.2, Let us know what you think! I like 4.7.2, but 4.1.10 is not bad. Still haven't had time to compare them thoroughly.

SaltyDog, a quick question. I tried different machines at home with JRiver importing library thru DLNA, but it always stops after few thousand of songs. I think jriver might have a bug with importing unicode flac.

From your jriver instructions posted on Linn forum. I am guessng you are using Jriver mounting library directly from local or networked disk (i.e. by specifying location of the library folder),not by importing thru DLNA. Is that correct? Have you tried importing thru DLNA (ie. twonky library over network)?

I also couldn't get it to import thru Miniserver. Twonky library (6.0.39) import always stops around after few thousand songs.
Klimax RDS -> Kisto -> Klimax Solo/D -> 350P & REL B1
Oppo 103 -> M6100/D -> M140, M112, 2xC102

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-22 20:35

All my files are on QNap. It is a mapped network drive on the main PC.
jRiver is directed to go there.

However, on the boat I use a tiny PC with all the music on an external HDD USB 3.0. This sometimes falls asleep.

I am not up to speed with unicode Flac. I just use dBPoweramp default FLAC rips for the most part.

usjaz
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2012-05-11 07:13

Post by usjaz » 2012-11-23 16:48

Ahh. Yes. so you are mounting the flac directory directly (via mapped network drive). That matches my expectation.

jRiver also allow you import directly from Twonky. That's where I got stuck.

I guess I will use mapped drive directly too then. I guess nothing is lost. I had hoped it worked via DLNA instead of CIFS (windows common internet file protocol, aka SAMBA, or mapped drive)

-James
SaltyDog wrote:All my files are on QNap. It is a mapped network drive on the main PC.
jRiver is directed to go there.

However, on the boat I use a tiny PC with all the music on an external HDD USB 3.0. This sometimes falls asleep.

I am not up to speed with unicode Flac. I just use dBPoweramp default FLAC rips for the most part.
Klimax RDS -> Kisto -> Klimax Solo/D -> 350P & REL B1
Oppo 103 -> M6100/D -> M140, M112, 2xC102

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-23 17:08

I was just over at Anthony's last night.

We were able to use my jRiver to pull off his laptop with either Twonky or Asset. Twonky IIRC. The albums became available faster than I was expecting. We had all PCs wired. No problems were encountered other than I couldn't figure out how to play anything from my PC or an attached USB stick.

I can usually get things working, but I have to use a trial and error methodology as I don't understand the workings of the computers like some of you guys.

My visit to Anthony did not conclusively answer any of the questions we have on which firmware sounds the best. Different place, different results.

What is in common with our systems is KK/1/D and KDS current spec.
Both are silver for each of us. (Could we be on to something? ;) )

anthony
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 677
Joined: 2007-02-04 22:39
Location: UK

Post by anthony » 2012-11-23 17:38

SaltyDog wrote:I was just over at Anthony's last night.

We were able to use my jRiver to pull off his laptop with either Twonky or Asset. Twonky IIRC. The albums became available faster than I was expecting. We had all PCs wired. No problems were encountered other than I couldn't figure out how to play anything from my PC or an attached USB stick.

I can usually get things working, but I have to use a trial and error methodology as I don't understand the workings of the computers like some of you guys.

My visit to Anthony did not conclusively answer any of the questions we have on which firmware sounds the best. Different place, different results.

What is in common with our systems is KK/1/D and KDS current spec.
Both are silver for each of us. (Could we be on to something? ;) )
Yes good to see Salty Dog, we put Davaar 4.7.2 on the KDS1, replacing the current version. I had missed this particular version. First impressions were good, but the difference was eclipsed by using Jriver, this, to me gave a much bigger improvement.
I have been watching Salty's posts, but not had time or inclination to mess around with what I thought was already good.
I will now be experimenting further, but on first listening, very enjoyable, more analogue and natural sounding.

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-23 18:05

SaltyDog's and Anthony's system seem to respond in a similar manor. This is different (very different) from Evo's system.

No conclusions from me at this time, still in search of improvements as it seems they could come from anywhere.

Evo's room plays better. His has concrete floors. My room and I believe Anthony's have suspended floors. I did not notice/feel it in Anthony's. Mine is very bouncy. Just saying.

Nicolav
Active member
Active member
Posts: 174
Joined: 2008-04-07 22:46
Location: Italy - Rome

Post by Nicolav » 2012-11-23 18:27

Tried 4.7.2, very good in my system but no luk with jriver, can't set to display 24 bit on ds and, more important, musical performance are a bit compromised.
For now I stay on 4.1.10 wich gave me the most musical pleasure.
LP12/RadikalM/Keel/Ekos SE1/Adikt/Gaio/Klimax System Hub/2 Klimax Exaktbox/6 Solos/1 A4200/A242

anthony
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 677
Joined: 2007-02-04 22:39
Location: UK

firmware

Post by anthony » 2012-11-24 22:00

Been using 4.7.2 for a couple of days now.

Have the feeling 4.9.2 has been my favourite so far.

I do not have a copy of the above, so put 4.9.3 on.

I am finding this the most satisfying, subject to getting 4.9.2.

SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog » 2012-11-25 00:17

Anthony are you using jRiver when listening since I was there?

I have not been doing any comparisons at home without jRiver conversion. So everyone keep that in mind when I post comments.

I think we still have some way to go and hope that Linn are working on something we all will like. Clearly the firmware makes a difference, that is the only thing I consider a fact at this stage. Differing results with different systems in different rooms. It becomes easier to understand why there are different opinions after hearing other systems.

I think it is easier to agree which ones miss the mark. Any thoughts?

hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 350
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl » 2012-11-25 09:39

Previously differing conclusions regarding performance differences have been possible to identified as caused by different people using different evaluation criteria. When using tune-dem only people tend to agree. I do not know to what extent tune-dem have been used when evaluating firmwares, but a conclusive verdict in any domain surely requires a common evaluation method hence an unanimous verdict will not likely pop up regardless of firmware performance.

I would prefer tune-dem to be used for comparing performance differences and if one like to give additional comments regarding other reproduction aspects feel free to elaborate, but do not mix hard core tune-dem aspects with other reproduction aspects when talking better or worse. We will get nowhare if we use evaluation methods that includes personal subjective aspects.

One thing that can lead to differing conclusions is when one tries to apply tune-dem on a single specific aspect of the reproduction, for example musical timing. I tend to use timing issues in the reproduction when trying to find my way towards what gives better tune because I to me tune-dem is somewhat difficult to use when one have an installation that is far from performing at its optimum. When one gets closer the over all feeling of the music gets more easy to evaluate and at that point I try to switch over to a less controlled form of listening letting the understanding of the tune guide me and preventing from getting stuck in a sub-optimal aspect of the reproduction.

matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Post by matthias » 2012-11-25 16:14

hcl wrote:Previously differing conclusions regarding performance differences have been possible to identified as caused by different people using different evaluation criteria. When using tune-dem only people tend to agree. I do not know to what extent tune-dem have been used when evaluating firmwares, but a conclusive verdict in any domain surely requires a common evaluation method hence an unanimous verdict will not likely pop up regardless of firmware performance.
I would prefer tune-dem to be used for comparing performance differences and if one like to give additional comments regarding other reproduction aspects feel free to elaborate, but do not mix hard core tune-dem aspects with other reproduction aspects when talking better or worse. We will get nowhare if we use evaluation methods that includes personal subjective aspects.
One thing that can lead to differing conclusions is when one tries to apply tune-dem on a single specific aspect of the reproduction, for example musical timing. I tend to use timing issues in the reproduction when trying to find my way towards what gives better tune because I to me tune-dem is somewhat difficult to use when one have an installation that is far from performing at its optimum. When one gets closer the over all feeling of the music gets more easy to evaluate and at that point I try to switch over to a less controlled form of listening letting the understanding of the tune guide me and preventing from getting stuck in a sub-optimal aspect of the reproduction.
You are absolutely right, but all Linn products including firmware are developed by tune-dem. So the question is, why has the end consumer to do the comparisons regarding tune-dem?

hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 350
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl » 2012-11-25 17:10

matthias wrote: You are absolutely right, but all Linn products including firmware are developed by tune-dem. So the question is, why has the end consumer to do the comparisons regarding tune-dem?
That is another question. It seems Linn shifts focus between major firmware releases and turns a deaf ear to sound differences between versions said only to be different in functionality. I do not know if this is the case, but it surely seems like it is.

Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 3249
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 » 2012-11-25 18:33

matthias wrote:You are absolutely right, but all Linn products including firmware are developed by tune-dem. So the question is, why has the end consumer to do the comparisons regarding tune-dem?
I'm not sure the Linn Tuners (is that what Linn calls them?) get a look in when it comes to firmware. I can't recall the specifics, but I don't think Linn applies Tune Dem listening tests to firmware. But maybe this is old information and things have changed. Pretty sure that in the early days of DS, Linn didn't think the firmware made any difference.

marmite
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-01-16 09:01
Location: Auckland

Post by marmite » 2012-11-26 04:40

Maybe I've spent too much time in bands/studios to understand the black art of hi fi. Musicians aim for a 'sound' they like with their individual instruments, to create their own signature, but when it comes to recording or playing the only things you can't have an opinion on are tuning and timing. It's either right or not. No excuses. That's my take on tune (timing) dem. If that doesn't fit, then I'm sorry, you'll just have to disregard my opinions.

I was going to ask if anyone has a copy of 4.7.2 for Sneaky DS, but that may be pointless if my opinion is worthless. I would still like to try it for my own reference.

Rufus McDufus
Active member
Active member
Posts: 137
Joined: 2012-04-28 07:56

Post by Rufus McDufus » 2012-11-26 08:01

Charlie1 wrote:
matthias wrote:You are absolutely right, but all Linn products including firmware are developed by tune-dem. So the question is, why has the end consumer to do the comparisons regarding tune-dem?
I'm not sure the Linn Tuners (is that what Linn calls them?) get a look in when it comes to firmware. I can't recall the specifics, but I don't think Linn applies Tune Dem listening tests to firmware. But maybe this is old information and things have changed. Pretty sure that in the early days of DS, Linn didn't think the firmware made any difference.

I can't imagine it's actually possible to 'tune' a bit of compiled code! I still fail to understand why, for instance, fixing a bug or adding functionality that may alter a line of code which has nothing to do with the sound-processing part could alter the sound quality, because Linn have little control over the binary file that plops out of the end of the compilation process. But I, along with many others, do believe there are differences between some firmware releases (and not just where there have been sound quality changes) - well I seem to enjoy certain f/w more than others but find it hard to detect a difference. It could very well be psychological.

User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1667
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover » 2012-11-26 10:04

Gents, I appreciate if we can focus on firmware performance test results in this thread.
Please start new threads for other subjects.
Thanks.

Any feedback on the latest one - 4.9.7?
It's all about musical understanding!

Post Reply