No, quite the opposite, SO adapts the music to the room.Gussy wrote: But that’s exactly what SO is trying to do - to improve the sonic characteristics of the room!
Matt
Moderator: Staff
No, quite the opposite, SO adapts the music to the room.Gussy wrote: But that’s exactly what SO is trying to do - to improve the sonic characteristics of the room!
Well, for those of us not fortunate enough to have acoustically perfect living rooms, I would maintain that SO is a pretty useful tool.matthias wrote:No, quite the opposite, SO adapts the music to the room.Gussy wrote: But that’s exactly what SO is trying to do - to improve the sonic characteristics of the room!
Matt
More correctly (perhaps), SO adapts the way the system is playing the music. And the system includes the room.matthias wrote:No, quite the opposite, SO adapts the music to the room.Gussy wrote: But that’s exactly what SO is trying to do - to improve the sonic characteristics of the room!
Matt
+1DavidHB wrote:I've thought a bit carefully before responding to this, and to the points Fredrik made. I am conscious that Fredrik is the host of this forum, and in current circumstances I am grateful for the hospitality. So the last thing I would wish to be is in any way discourteous or disrespectful. But in plain honesty I have to say that my own repeated experience of Space Optimisation (SO) and its sibling Exakt is so far removed from what Fredrik describes and you imply that, even allowing for the fallibility and variability of human perceptions, I find the difference of view quite bewildering.Ozzzy189 wrote:Yes davidHb, just bin it off and focus on the music. How did we ever manage before?
I'm not a fan in the slightest. I may be in the minority but hey, I can live with that.
Let's begin with what we agree on, which is really the most important part of the discussion. I entirely agree that audiophile Hi-Fi is all about the music. I also agree with Fredrik that the task of the Hi-Fi system is to reproduce or re-create so far as possible the emotional experience of the original performance (howsoever you define 'original' in the particular context of the recording). For this process to work, the system has to remove (or not put in place) barriers that will distract the listener and reduce the emotional impact. The stated purpose of SO is to remove or reduce distracting artefacts produced by the interaction between the speakers and the listening room. So SO is designed not to add artificiality, but to remove it.
Of course we completely disagree in our assessments of the effectiveness of SO, and I'm afraid that at present I can see no way to bridge that disagreement. I have listened to a number of system demonstrations with and without SO, as well as, extensively over several years, to my own progressively developing system. In all cases, using SO with careful modelling of the room and Tune Dem adjustment of the parameters has made the music for me, and, when I am in company, those listening with me, easier to connect with, more immediate and more engaging (which is essentially what I understand by the term 'more musical').
My earliest experience of just how effective SO can be was in the old Hidden Systems showroom at Hartley Wintney. This was very early in the life of SO, even before the Davaar 150+ watershed in the development of the Linn software. Chris was demonstrating to me the (at that time passively connected) Akubariks that I still have (and which Fredrik, incidentally, has listened to), driven by an ADSM/1 and Akurate 2200 amplifier. the demo was mainly conducted with SO switched on. When, to demonstrate its effect, Chris switched it off, the music immediately became less clear, less engaging, and lifeless by comparison.
All in all, then, I hope that, even on this forum, respectful differences of opinion on the effectiveness of SO can continue to be expressed. It remains to be seen what changes the new version of SO will bring (as I have an Exakt system, it's not available for me yet). Even for an SO supporter like me, the new version will have to be seriously good to better the Paulssurround adjusted settings I am currently using.
David
No and yes ;-)anachronid wrote: I've never had a satisfactory answer to the question whether 'room modes' (which I understand as referring to distortions caused by the interaction of the music source with the room in which it is played) are dependent on volume level.
My experience has been that SO settings that may improve the sound at very high volume have less effect, or even have a negative effect - e.g. in sucking life out of the music - at lower volume.
I would always setup SO at my ‘normal’ volume setting. Whilst high volume will excite modes more, you will, indeed, overcompensate if your usual listening level is below that. I’ve confirmed that approach in conversation with Philbo, his advice being that you want the room/system to sound at its best at the volume you normally listen at.Jumanji wrote:No and yes ;-)anachronid wrote: I've never had a satisfactory answer to the question whether 'room modes' (which I understand as referring to distortions caused by the interaction of the music source with the room in which it is played) are dependent on volume level.
My experience has been that SO settings that may improve the sound at very high volume have less effect, or even have a negative effect - e.g. in sucking life out of the music - at lower volume.
No, Room modes are only dependent on room properties.
Yes, the interesting question is, are those room modes even excited by the speakers? If not, they are not relevant.
The degree to which they are excited (if at all) is determined by the speakers and the volume. So I think you may be right. The gain cut may be too deep for low volume and correct for higher volumes (assuming the Linn filters are not volume dependent which I think is a correct assumption)
J.
I think the answer isJumanji wrote:No and yes ;-)anachronid wrote: I've never had a satisfactory answer to the question whether 'room modes' (which I understand as referring to distortions caused by the interaction of the music source with the room in which it is played) are dependent on volume level.
My experience has been that SO settings that may improve the sound at very high volume have less effect, or even have a negative effect - e.g. in sucking life out of the music - at lower volume.
No, Room modes are only dependent on room properties.
Yes, the interesting question is, are those room modes even excited by the speakers? If not, they are not relevant.
The degree to which they are excited (if at all) is determined by the speakers and the volume. So I think you may be right. The gain cut may be too deep for low volume and correct for higher volumes (assuming the Linn filters are not volume dependent which I think is a correct assumption)
J.
Quite so. SO sounds better - for me.anachronid wrote:It's an easy comparison to make - what sounds better to you in your system is better.
Actually, no, because I haven't tested that point specifically, though I have certainly heard systems at different volume levels during the course of SO setting sessions. Paulssurround, whom many members here will know from the Linn forum and who does follow the discussions here, often does quite a bit of his SO setting work at (for me) higher than normal volume levels. The changes he makes at those levels do seem to carry through to lower volume levels as well.anachronid wrote:Any thoughts (my previous post) on whether the beneficial effects of SO in your system are volume-dependent?
The cut is relative to the baseline gain level - 0dB. Downstream of the SO processing, the DVC will, in effect, adjust that baseline. In my understanding, the lower the volume (i.e base gain) level, the more the range of SO adjustments will be compressed. So SO adjustment will, on this understanding, be proportionate to gain and therefore to perceived volume. Which is, I think, the result that the user would want.timster wrote: The SO profile for the room has fixed cuts - or at least the representation does. A 16dB cut is a 16dB cut, it's absolute, not relative. I assume they are calculated for "normal listening levels", probably a best-guess within a range of comfortable listening levels. Turn it up that much higher and they won't be enough, much less and they'd be too much. Unless they're applied with a relative adjustment, which is unlikely.
+1sunbeamgls wrote:
More correctly (perhaps), SO adapts the way the system is playing the music. And the system includes the room.
What I find slightly bemusing here, is that there is a view that SO is universally bad. SO can be bad, because its not perfect. Just like every other component in the chain between performer and the ear can be good or bad. Why some find some component imperfections to be so much more offensive than others is, it seems, a mystery.
For me, reducing the mush that room modes add gives greater clarity and insight to the musical experience - which is what happens when speakers are correctly positioned and/or SO is done well. I've also heard SO implementations that completely suck the life out of the music (particularly early iterations set to the default calcs). Hopefully those of you who spent many hours positioning the speakers in the room to get the most musical result will not think that was a waste of time, as its largely addressing the same issue, albeit limited to the physical characteristics of the interaction whereas SO can potentially take it a step further.
David, you're one of the most articulate and respected people on the hifi forums and I respect your opinion. However I think the tundra sounds far superior to an akurate 4200 and you yourself don't, so the fact that we disagree over space optimisation doesn't really surprise me.DavidHB wrote:I've thought a bit carefully before responding to this, and to the points Fredrik made. I am conscious that Fredrik is the host of this forum, and in current circumstances I am grateful for the hospitality. So the last thing I would wish to be is in any way discourteous or disrespectful. But in plain honesty I have to say that my own repeated experience of Space Optimisation (SO) and its sibling Exakt is so far removed from what Fredrik describes and you imply that, even allowing for the fallibility and variability of human perceptions, I find the difference of view quite bewildering.Ozzzy189 wrote:Yes davidHb, just bin it off and focus on the music. How did we ever manage before?
I'm not a fan in the slightest. I may be in the minority but hey, I can live with that.
Let's begin with what we agree on, which is really the most important part of the discussion. I entirely agree that audiophile Hi-Fi is all about the music. I also agree with Fredrik that the task of the Hi-Fi system is to reproduce or re-create so far as possible the emotional experience of the original performance (howsoever you define 'original' in the particular context of the recording). For this process to work, the system has to remove (or not put in place) barriers that will distract the listener and reduce the emotional impact. The stated purpose of SO is to remove or reduce distracting artefacts produced by the interaction between the speakers and the listening room. So SO is designed not to add artificiality, but to remove it.
Of course we completely disagree in our assessments of the effectiveness of SO, and I'm afraid that at present I can see no way to bridge that disagreement. I have listened to a number of system demonstrations with and without SO, as well as, extensively over several years, to my own progressively developing system. In all cases, using SO with careful modelling of the room and Tune Dem adjustment of the parameters has made the music for me, and, when I am in company, those listening with me, easier to connect with, more immediate and more engaging (which is essentially what I understand by the term 'more musical').
My earliest experience of just how effective SO can be was in the old Hidden Systems showroom at Hartley Wintney. This was very early in the life of SO, even before the Davaar 150+ watershed in the development of the Linn software. Chris was demonstrating to me the (at that time passively connected) Akubariks that I still have (and which Fredrik, incidentally, has listened to), driven by an ADSM/1 and Akurate 2200 amplifier. the demo was mainly conducted with SO switched on. When, to demonstrate its effect, Chris switched it off, the music immediately became less clear, less engaging, and lifeless by comparison.
All in all, then, I hope that, even on this forum, respectful differences of opinion on the effectiveness of SO can continue to be expressed. It remains to be seen what changes the new version of SO will bring (as I have an Exakt system, it's not available for me yet). Even for an SO supporter like me, the new version will have to be seriously good to better the Paulssurround adjusted settings I am currently using.
David
Thank you for your kind words and your understanding. I assure you that the latter is mutual. Disagreements are the stuff of forum dialogue (when of course there is courtesy and mutual respect, which there is in this case). And I hope that I made clear in my post that no offence at all was (or could legitimately be) taken; I am simply genuinely surprised by the depth of the disagreement on SO. But then every day's a school day.Ozzzy189 wrote:David, you're one of the most articulate and respected people on the hifi forums and I respect your opinion. However I think the tundra sounds far superior to an akurate 4200 and you yourself don't, so the fact that we disagree over space optimisation doesn't really surprise me.
Please don't take any offence at my opinion, it's just my way of trying to say we're all different and and strive to enjoy the same thing via different means. Ozzzy.
Not sure that will help too much in some circumstances.Spannko wrote:Guys,
There’s only one way to solve this .......... videos!!!
Get your phones out and record the difference. No excuses please!
Has changed to...LinnDocs on 28th September wrote:'''ANALOGUE OUTPUTS''' (XLR & RCA,variable level) - To connect to a preamplifier (or power amplifier when internal volume control is enabled)
It sounds like there's no fixed-level output - that's cutting out some market share? I know most preamps will have an option for setting an input to unity gain, but it still seems a bit... odd? I wonder if it's a technical limitation of the modular design or if it's just been artificially crippled for some reason?LinnDocs on 1st October wrote:'''ANALOGUE OUTPUTS''' (XLR & RCA,variable level) - To connect to a power amplifier.
I sincerely hope that the bass and treble shelf features are introduced, as I listen in a relatively 'bright' room with a lot of hard surfaces: the system sounds best with a 2db treble cut @ 12k hz (and +2db bass gain @ 65hz)Briain wrote:Hi
There's also no bass or treble shelf option, so for those 'in-Exakt' users who use that in the current SO (which I do in my bedroom system to good effect; I use a 1 dB bass shelf and a 1 dB lower sub setting to help better integrate it with my 212s) it might be worth holding off until these features appear (assuming that is in the plan, of course; I'm sure it will be as they can be exceedingly useful tools).
Bri
I use them the same way as you do.anachronid wrote:
I sincerely hope that the bass and treble shelf features are introduced, as I listen in a relatively 'bright' room with a lot of hard surfaces: the system sounds best with a 2db treble cut @ 12k hz (and +2db bass gain @ 65hz)
Have you experimented with the "optimisation preference" slider?donuk wrote:
I use them the same way as you do.
I understand from Linn that they will not be introducing this feature, nor in fact any graphical adjustments.
Better keep safe copies of your present firmware and Konfig!
Donuk sunny downtown York
Funnily enough, I decided to try in out tonight and 10mins into the new calculation and I am still queued :-((phino wrote:Have you experimented with the "optimisation preference" slider?donuk wrote:
I use them the same way as you do.
I understand from Linn that they will not be introducing this feature, nor in fact any graphical adjustments.
Better keep safe copies of your present firmware and Konfig!
Donuk sunny downtown York
My reading of the SO v2.0 manual is that this is probably covered by the Absorption sliders. V1.0 used the shelves to correct for inaccurate assumptions.donuk wrote:I use them the same way as you do.anachronid wrote:
I sincerely hope that the bass and treble shelf features are introduced, as I listen in a relatively 'bright' room with a lot of hard surfaces: the system sounds best with a 2db treble cut @ 12k hz (and +2db bass gain @ 65hz)
I understand from Linn that they will not be introducing this feature, nor in fact any graphical adjustments.
Better keep safe copies of your present firmware and Konfig!
Donuk sunny downtown York