Yesterday I went to a fascinating event hosted by Goodwin's High End. Linn, of turntable fame, presented their new forays in the digital domain, called Space optimization, a software implemented on their network players (networked server + D/A converter).
Gilad Tiefenbrun, son of audio legend Ivor Tiefenbrun, gave a spirited presentation, supplemented by some remarks from his technical developer. They first demonstrated their three network players, Majik, Akurate and Klimax, and then went to the room optimization part.
While the chain was of high quality, with the transducers being Magico Q7 Mk II speakers (the related Magico M Project speakers are the best sound I have heard), the sound of the demo was not the greatest, at least from where I sat, off-center; but this is often a problem with demos. This made the first part with a comparison of the three network players less interesting to me, since I barely could hear any difference. Others in the audience enthusiastically reported great differences, but I wonder how reproducible these findings would have been under blind conditions. Anyway, at that stage the speakers had been in a sub-optimal position, for reasons that would become apparent later. Tracks in that part of the demo were from Linn's own recording of Mozart's Requiem, and London Calling by The Clash.
Yet then it became really interesting, with the Linn Klimax as the source. We switched to a jazz track with female voice. The bass was boomy and the voice just o.k. Subsequently, they moved the speakers to their optimal position, further away from the side walls and more forward. The bass became tight (the bass coming out of those large Magico speakers, and of course from the Linn Klimax source, is impressive) and, importantly, the voice became much more expressive and nuanced. All in all, the improvement was very significant. While the bloated bass prior to the re-positioning of the speakers had been just an annoyance, the real emotional reward with the optimal speaker position was in the enhanced expression of the voice. Then came the core part of the demonstration. They moved the speakers back again to their sub-optimal position, but now activated the room optimization software. The result was stunning: it almost sounded as good as the speakers in the optimal position! They repeated the demo on another track, this time with male voice. After the room optimization software was activated, the voice sounded so much better. The idea was that under constrained conditions, where the speakers cannot be in their optimal position in the room, the sound can be greatly improved with digital correction.
The fascinating part of all this is that the room optimization software only affects the lower frequencies. As their technical developer told me afterwards, their basic optimization goes only up to 80 Hz, and they fine-tune it on top of that with correction up to no more than 200 Hz. Yet the human voices, which are quite a bit above these frequency ranges, also sounded so much better with correction. The technical developer told me afterwards that they were surprised themselves, but he explained it such that with room nodes there is delay of musical energy in the low frequencies that affects subsequent events that are of lesser energy, like those of the midrange. Interestingly, the recording with the male voice did not even feature that much bass, but with optimization the voice still sounded much clearer, more natural and more expressive.
The room optimization software only uses correction from calculation of room nodes, based on simple physics and input of room dimensions and speaker position. Thus, it only takes into account the room itself. Both Gilad Tiefenbrun and the technical developer were adamant that microphone measurements are not the optimal way to approach the room problem. In those measurements, the frequency responses of both the microphone and the speakers enter the equation, muddling and complicating things.
All in all, I found the demo most remarkable and educational. I thought that the concept of just correcting the room itself by simple calculations, without frequency measurements, was highly interesting, and the audible result was simply stunning. Moreover, they said that due to schedule issues they had only time to correct the room with software set-up for half an hour; with more set-up time the results could have been even better.
Certainly, in my optimized room there may be less need for such correction, and I don't have the bass issues that I heard at Goodwin's with the sub-optimal speaker position. Yet there seems little doubt to me that even my system/room could benefit from such room optimization software. The catch of course is that it is only available in Linn's network players. Yet I am starting to consider that I might audition their top network player, the Klimax, next to other options to upgrade my digital source in the future. I am confident that under more optimal circumstances the differences between their three network players would also become more apparent.
I wish the Linn Crew would have concentrated on the Space Optimization software only. Trying to demonstrate more or less subtle differences between network players of different price ranges at conditions of sub-optimal speaker placement and, necessarily, sub-optimal seating positions (only one person of the entire audience can sit in the sweetspot) is perhaps an overly optimistic undertaking. Prospective buyers would shop in their preferred price range anyway; nobody would bother comparing a $ 5 K player (the Majik) with one costing four times as much (the Klimax), even though they both may be excellent in their respective price class. They could simply have said that the Space Optimization software is available on all their players, and leave it at that. Dedicating all the time to the room optimization program would have allowed to make more comparisons, and also to demonstrate what difference it would have made at the optimal speaker positioning, something I would now be dying to hear, after having mentally digested the event some more. The demo of the Space Optimization software was without a doubt an unmitigated success. It definitely got me interested.
Gilad Tiefenbrun, son of audio legend Ivor Tiefenbrun, gave a spirited presentation, supplemented by some remarks from his technical developer. They first demonstrated their three network players, Majik, Akurate and Klimax, and then went to the room optimization part.
While the chain was of high quality, with the transducers being Magico Q7 Mk II speakers (the related Magico M Project speakers are the best sound I have heard), the sound of the demo was not the greatest, at least from where I sat, off-center; but this is often a problem with demos. This made the first part with a comparison of the three network players less interesting to me, since I barely could hear any difference. Others in the audience enthusiastically reported great differences, but I wonder how reproducible these findings would have been under blind conditions. Anyway, at that stage the speakers had been in a sub-optimal position, for reasons that would become apparent later. Tracks in that part of the demo were from Linn's own recording of Mozart's Requiem, and London Calling by The Clash.
Yet then it became really interesting, with the Linn Klimax as the source. We switched to a jazz track with female voice. The bass was boomy and the voice just o.k. Subsequently, they moved the speakers to their optimal position, further away from the side walls and more forward. The bass became tight (the bass coming out of those large Magico speakers, and of course from the Linn Klimax source, is impressive) and, importantly, the voice became much more expressive and nuanced. All in all, the improvement was very significant. While the bloated bass prior to the re-positioning of the speakers had been just an annoyance, the real emotional reward with the optimal speaker position was in the enhanced expression of the voice. Then came the core part of the demonstration. They moved the speakers back again to their sub-optimal position, but now activated the room optimization software. The result was stunning: it almost sounded as good as the speakers in the optimal position! They repeated the demo on another track, this time with male voice. After the room optimization software was activated, the voice sounded so much better. The idea was that under constrained conditions, where the speakers cannot be in their optimal position in the room, the sound can be greatly improved with digital correction.
The fascinating part of all this is that the room optimization software only affects the lower frequencies. As their technical developer told me afterwards, their basic optimization goes only up to 80 Hz, and they fine-tune it on top of that with correction up to no more than 200 Hz. Yet the human voices, which are quite a bit above these frequency ranges, also sounded so much better with correction. The technical developer told me afterwards that they were surprised themselves, but he explained it such that with room nodes there is delay of musical energy in the low frequencies that affects subsequent events that are of lesser energy, like those of the midrange. Interestingly, the recording with the male voice did not even feature that much bass, but with optimization the voice still sounded much clearer, more natural and more expressive.
The room optimization software only uses correction from calculation of room nodes, based on simple physics and input of room dimensions and speaker position. Thus, it only takes into account the room itself. Both Gilad Tiefenbrun and the technical developer were adamant that microphone measurements are not the optimal way to approach the room problem. In those measurements, the frequency responses of both the microphone and the speakers enter the equation, muddling and complicating things.
All in all, I found the demo most remarkable and educational. I thought that the concept of just correcting the room itself by simple calculations, without frequency measurements, was highly interesting, and the audible result was simply stunning. Moreover, they said that due to schedule issues they had only time to correct the room with software set-up for half an hour; with more set-up time the results could have been even better.
Certainly, in my optimized room there may be less need for such correction, and I don't have the bass issues that I heard at Goodwin's with the sub-optimal speaker position. Yet there seems little doubt to me that even my system/room could benefit from such room optimization software. The catch of course is that it is only available in Linn's network players. Yet I am starting to consider that I might audition their top network player, the Klimax, next to other options to upgrade my digital source in the future. I am confident that under more optimal circumstances the differences between their three network players would also become more apparent.
I wish the Linn Crew would have concentrated on the Space Optimization software only. Trying to demonstrate more or less subtle differences between network players of different price ranges at conditions of sub-optimal speaker placement and, necessarily, sub-optimal seating positions (only one person of the entire audience can sit in the sweetspot) is perhaps an overly optimistic undertaking. Prospective buyers would shop in their preferred price range anyway; nobody would bother comparing a $ 5 K player (the Majik) with one costing four times as much (the Klimax), even though they both may be excellent in their respective price class. They could simply have said that the Space Optimization software is available on all their players, and leave it at that. Dedicating all the time to the room optimization program would have allowed to make more comparisons, and also to demonstrate what difference it would have made at the optimal speaker positioning, something I would now be dying to hear, after having mentally digested the event some more. The demo of the Space Optimization software was without a doubt an unmitigated success. It definitely got me interested.
.
