The Linn Exakt system and the future of high end audio.

[asiufy]

Linn has chosen their approach and they are entitled to present it in the best light and anyone else with some experience on the topic is entitled to criticize their choice and their presentation.

I agree with you. Everybody, with proper experience, is allowed to criticize their choices.

I've used both, and I find the microphone method cumbersome. Maybe I'm a putz, but I could never get two sets of measurements to look the same. As such, I prefer Linn's. Distances are exact, and Linn does a lot of work modelling the speaker in their labs (not only Linn's own, but a lot of other brands). You're still not getting the point of Linn's product: reduce complexity. Again, this feature was added to existing product. Linn could've mailed out a microphone, with a 100 page manual, with a big "GOOD LUCK" in the end... But they opted to make it simpler, at least in my eyes. You can probably perform mic-based room measurements in your sleep, but a lot of people can't, and most importantly, don't want to.

As I said, it'd be fun to test both methods, as well as their implementation side by side (Linn's and DEQX's, for instance, or DIRAC's).

 

[FrantzM]

I certainly would not think this is an easier way to do it and, frankly, only the home builder can know the construction details of the room and no one, not even the owner or designer, knows the acoustical properties of the design/decoration/furniture.

Nonsense. Anyone who uses measurement microphones knows that (1) they come with calibration files and (2) how to use those files. Moreover, it would not be of significant cost for Linn to provide a suitable microphone.

It is not up for debate. Anyone who has done such modelling knows how idealized it is and that it can, under the best of conditions and intentions, provide only an approximation of the real room.

Linn has chosen their approach and they are entitled to present it in the best light and anyone else with some experience on the topic is entitled to criticize their choice and their presentation.

+1

 

[DaveyF]

If Gilad truly stated what Davey F said, then that is clueless, to dismiss passive treatment is ridiculous, perhaps he said it as a marketing ploy ,or is just ignorant either way poor.
For the price of the Linn systems, the manufacturer could have given their dealers a microphone and taught them how to use it.
Keith.

Keith, you seem to have an absolutely immense amount of knowledge about audio and home systems in particular. I have to say that I too felt that to dismiss passive treatments was an interesting comment, however, I do not know enough about DSP to state that what Gilad said makes no sense. The idea of digital room treatment is one that does work, this has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. The demonstration that Gilad gave was very convincing and was easily heard by anyone who wasn't deaf.
Does that mean I would introduce a DSP into my system and room--probably not, because as much as possible I believe strongly in NOT messing with the signal from the TT or the front end . The idea of converting everything to 24 bit digital and then sending that signal directly to the speakers with no further interference from other ancillary gear is an interesting one, and from the sound of the system, one that definitely works. Like Alex says above, for someone who wants a system that is essentially set it up and play ( with resulting good sound), this is a great benefit. Also, for someone who has to deal with a major WAF factor, and who has to listen in a 'compromised' location ( no jokes here) then again, this system could be a god send.
To state that Gilad has no clue as to what he talks about...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I agree with you. Everybody, with proper experience, is allowed to criticize their choices.

My criticism is not about their choices but about their justifications.

I've used both, and I find the microphone method cumbersome. Maybe I'm a putz, but I could never get two sets of measurements to look the same. As such, I prefer Linn's. Distances are exact, and Linn does a lot of work modelling the speaker in their labs (not only Linn's own, but a lot of other brands). You're still not getting the point of Linn's product: reduce complexity. Again, this feature was added to existing product. Linn could've mailed out a microphone, with a 100 page manual, with a big "GOOD LUCK" in the end... But they opted to make it simpler, at least in my eyes. You can probably perform mic-based room measurements in your sleep, but a lot of people can't, and most importantly, don't want to.

I do get it. However, they are not arguing that this is "just" an easy and uncomplicated approach (which I grant) but that the other approaches are, at the very least questionable.

As I said, it'd be fun to test both methods, as well as their implementation side by side (Linn's and DEQX's, for instance, or DIRAC's).

That is probably not going to happen. I would be interested in hearing what they can accomplish with their system but I doubt that their ecosystem is compatible with mine.

P.S.: I am going to sit back now as I think we are beginning to argue in circles.

 

[asiufy]

I think this video describes the "Space Optimization" feature pretty well:

http://www.linn.co.uk/music-systems/technology/space-optimisation

It's not technical at all, but it explains what the feature does, and how it'll (potentially) help out.

The way I see it/read it, Gilad meant that Linn's own system won't be helped by passive treatments, as you simply won't be able to account for them while setting up the Space Optimization feature. I mean, you can enter all sorts of details about your room, but not (AFAIK) acoustic panels or bass traps. That's by design, and that's what Gilad meant to say, that those might not be helping IN THE CASE OF HIS PRODUCTS. Of course, with a proper mic/measurement-based DRC, the panels will be automatically accounted for in the result.

 

[RayDunzl]

Here's a manual:

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/SPACE_optimisation_and_SPACE_optimisation_+

and

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Advanced_SPACE_optimisation_and_SPACE_optimisation+

 

[amirm]

Here's a manual:

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/SPACE_optimisation_and_SPACE_optimisation_+

and

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Advanced_SPACE_optimisation_and_SPACE_optimisation+

Thanks Ray. This is quite comprehensive. I suspect their approximation is quite good and in some ways potentially superior due to knowledge of loudspeakers.

Love to hear it sometime. I searched for an AES paper and came up empty. They must have published something. Alex can you find out if there is a paper?

 

[DaveyF]

Amir, if you have a chance to hear the Linn Exakt system, I do recommend that you give it a listen. I thought it was very impressive and was in some ways equal to some of the best systems that I have heard. Certainly for the a'phile who would like to not concern themselves too much with synergy and room concerns, this system should be on their short list.
Apparently, Linn also supplies a stand alone streamer...I think it is called the Linn Climax DS1, that allows some of the DSP without needing to utilize their speakers and also they supply a Linn Ekaxt box, which I think allows the basic DSP to be utilized with anyone's ancillary gear.
Alex would be able to clarify these options, but I think they may well be worth looking into for a number of a'philes that are having problems with their rooms and are not in a position to easily adjust the location and type of their gear.

 

[asiufy]

Amir,

I'll contact them and see if there's anything academic published about the Space Optimization feature.

Dave,

Space Optimization can be used with any Linn streamer, old or new, and doesn't rely on their active amplification products (either the speakers, with built-in amps, or their separate amps). You can use it with your regular amp, as long as the streamer is a Linn. The feature works the same across the entire range, from the cheaper to the more expensive unit.
That's why Linn needs to "map" all these third-party speakers, and that's a similarity with Devialet's tech, as they also map the different speaker's capabilities. The difference is that Devialet tries to "fix" the speakers, while Linn only uses that knowledge, along with your room information, to deliver sound quality that doesn't change, anywhere you place the speaker in the room. So it's not only optimizing the room/speaker interaction at the "sweet spot", it's basically creating a sweet spot, anywhere you place the speakers in the room.

There are basically 3 levels of "goodness" for Linn streamers, and they all provide the same feature set. The differences are in the resulting SQ, due to both incrementally better build and component quality.

Majik : Entry level. DS is streamer/DAC only, DSM has a built-in preamp with inputs, and an amp, that you can use with any speaker and/or Linn's own active speakers.
Akurate: Mid-tier. No built-in amps. DS is streamer/DAC only, DSM has preamp/volume control and analog inputs/outputs. The Exakt DSM versions are to be used with other Linn products (amps and/or active speakers), so they don't have analog outputs.
Klimax: Top. Same as above.

We have all 3 leves in the store, and they've performed flawlessly from day one. They truly bring me faith in the whole digital/computer audio ecosystem


cheers,
alex

 

[Purite Audio]

Amir,

I'll contact them and see if there's anything academic published about the Space Optimization feature.

Dave,

Space Optimization can be used with any Linn streamer, old or new, and doesn't rely on their active amplification products (either the speakers, with built-in amps, or their separate amps). You can use it with your regular amp, as long as the streamer is a Linn. The feature works the same across the entire range, from the cheaper to the more expensive unit.
That's why Linn needs to "map" all these third-party speakers, and that's a similarity with Devialet's tech, as they also map the different speaker's capabilities. The difference is that Devialet tries to "fix" the speakers, while Linn only uses that knowledge, along with your room information, to deliver sound quality that doesn't change, anywhere you place the speaker in the room. So it's not only optimizing the room/speaker interaction at the "sweet spot", it's basically creating a sweet spot, anywhere you place the speakers in the room.

There are basically 3 levels of "goodness" for Linn streamers, and they all provide the same feature set. The differences are in the resulting SQ, due to both incrementally better build and component quality.

Majik : Entry level. DS is streamer/DAC only, DSM has a built-in preamp with inputs, and an amp, that you can use with any speaker and/or Linn's own active speakers.
Akurate: Mid-tier. No built-in amps. DS is streamer/DAC only, DSM has preamp/volume control and analog inputs/outputs. The Exakt DSM versions are to be used with other Linn products (amps and/or active speakers), so they don't have analog outputs.
Klimax: Top. Same as above.

We have all 3 leves in the store, and they've performed flawlessly from day one. They truly bring me faith in the whole digital/computer audio ecosystem


cheers,
alex

Sound quality that doesn't change wherever you place the speaker in the room!
Have a word with them Alex.
Keith.

 

[DaveyF]

Sound quality that doesn't change wherever you place the speaker in the room!
Have a word with them Alex.
Keith.

Keith, have you actually heard the Linn Exakt system? Or for that matter any good DSP based system?

The demo that I attended did demonstrate very well the fact that one can reposition the speakers into a very unfavorable location in the room...and with the Exakt system working, get excellent sound. IMHO, the SQ was close to the sound of the speakers when they were placed in their optimum location....very close but not quite as good. But, the SQ was far far better than without the DSP. I felt that the SQ at the optimum positioning with the DSP applied was the best overall sound, ( which in some ways made sense to me, not so much to Gilad, LOL....however the recreation of the depth of image to my ears was superior...which again IMO makes sense to me...since the physical aspect of the speakers was well into the room vs. the speaker being placed right up against the front wall).
So, no I don't think the sound doesn't change wherever you place the speaker...but that to me is irrelevant. The ability to taylor the sound to the requirement of your positioning due to ...WAF or ?? is far more important.

 

[Al M.]

Keith, have you actually heard the Linn Exakt system? Or for that matter any good DSP based system?

The demo that I attended did demonstrate very well the fact that one can reposition the speakers into a very unfavorable location in the room...and with the Exakt system working, get excellent sound. IMHO, the SQ was close to the sound of the speakers when they were placed in their optimum location....very close but not quite as good. But, the SQ was far far better than without the DSP.

All my experiences as well, as I reported earlier on WBF:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18596-Linn-event-at-Goodwin-s-digital-room-optimization

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Keith, have you actually heard the Linn Exakt system? Or for that matter any good DSP based system?

The demo that I attended did demonstrate very well the fact that one can reposition the speakers into a very unfavorable location in the room...and with the Exakt system working, get excellent sound. IMHO, the SQ was close to the sound of the speakers when they were placed in their optimum location....very close but not quite as good. But, the SQ was far far better than without the DSP. I felt that the SQ at the optimum positioning with the DSP applied was the best overall sound, ( which in some ways made sense to me, not so much to Gilad, LOL....however the recreation of the depth of image to my ears was superior...which again IMO makes sense to me...since the physical aspect of the speakers was well into the room vs. the speaker being placed right up against the front wall).
So, no I don't think the sound doesn't change wherever you place the speaker...but that to me is irrelevant. The ability to taylor the sound to the requirement of your positioning due to ...WAF or ?? is far more important.

I agree that DSP has a growing future in audio, Room/Speaker correction being one of its great triumphs so far. There will likely be others, as the technology is still young. I am familiar with a number of such DSP EQ tools, and I have used it myself for over 8 years with great, really outstanding results. Several close friends, who I first introduced it to, and I myself would never be without it. It is a genuine audio breakthrough and it is gathering increasing acceptance, even in the tough as nails, tradition-bound hi end audio world. My personal current favorite is Dirac Live, which happens to be an extraordinarily easy to use tool, mike measurements and all.

But, I must say that I am not at all impressed with this Linn approach. I find it naive, at best. It is quite clear how it works from the manual, but that is what is problematical. It relies on building a purely theoretical model of your room acoustics (apparently below the transition frequency in the bass where room modes dominate and where theoretical modeling is straightforward) coupled with speaker characteristics known from some test sample of that speaker's response obtained somehow, somewhere by Linn. (Too bad if your speakers are not on the list.) It builds the model from room and speaker/listener dimensional data plus limited building and surface materials data input. And, that is pretty much it. Too bad if you treated your room, because their model does not recognize that. Also, too bad if your room is not perfectly rectangular (mine is not in a critical dimension) because the model does not deal with that. Etc. It derives from the model a frequency domain target curve to correct for the theoretical room modal issues. It then applies this via DSP to digital, PCM playback.

Contrast that with most other leading DSP EQ packages, which base their target curve on actual mike measurements in your room with your speakers, rather than a theoretical model. Do your furnishings have an effect? They will not be considered in the target unless they are measured. Ditto for acoustic treatments, room shape, etc.

The complexity issues with mike measurement are greatly exaggerated by those who have never done it properly or by those who have an agenda to promote this Linn product. A quite acceptable calibrated test mike is under $100. Applying the custom mike calibration curve is as complex as copying a small file from a thumb drive. Horrendously tough, right?

I cannot speak for all other products, but a mike calibration of my 7.1 system with Dirac takes 20 minutes. Stereo would take less than half of that. I do not see that the tape rule measurement and data entry for Linn would be better than that.

For some, particularly those who already have the Linn gear in question, I think this tool would be better than nothing, likely much better, in solving the common and pervasive bass room modal issues most any room has. It might serve as a good, very basic introduction to DSP EQ. But, it leaves a lot on the table by avoiding mike measurements of what is really going on with your speakers in your room.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But, I must say that I am not at all impressed with this Linn approach. I find it naive, at best.

Worse than naive as Linn argue lamely for its superiority. After reading the instructions, they seem both tedious and constrained by too little data input. For an example of what kind of input will permit the decent acoustical room modeling, see an app called CARA (http://www.cara.de/ENU/index.html) which is described here (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/cara.htm). Nonetheless, even the developers of CARA concede that on-site measurements surpass their excellent modelling......and are faster than all the data input and analysis.

For some, particularly those who already have the Linn gear in question, I think this tool would be better than nothing, likely much better, in solving the common and pervasive bass room modal issues most any room has.

Yes, better than nothing.

 

[DaveyF]

Worse than naive as Linn argue lamely for its superiority. After reading the instructions, they seem both tedious and constrained by too little data input. For an example of what kind of input will permit the decent acoustical room modeling, see an app called CARA (http://www.cara.de/ENU/index.html) which is described here (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/cara.htm). Nonetheless, even the developers of CARA concede that on-site measurements surpass their excellent modelling......and are faster than all the data input and analysis.

Yes, better than nothing.

The Linn Exakt system is not just a DSP system...I believe that the whole package and system approach is what lets them stand apart from the typical HT audussey set up.
Remember that the speakers in their system are tuned to the computer algorithm and that they have even 'apparently' taken into consideration the grill cloth material. The speakers are
a big part, what with their 'active' x-overs and on board electronics.
I can tell you that this system delivered in spades what no other HT system I have ever heard could!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The Linn Exakt system is not just a DSP system...I believe that the whole package and system approach is what lets them stand apart from the typical HT audussey set up.
Remember that the speakers in their system are tuned to the computer algorithm and that they have even 'apparently' taken into consideration the grill cloth material. The speakers are
a big part, what with their 'active' x-overs and on board electronics.

Sure and microphone measurements can distinguish whatever parameters affect the sound including all the electronics in the signal path. Not a convincing argument.

I can tell you that this system delivered in spades what no other HT system I have ever heard could!

Fine. One day I may get to hear it.

 

[DaveyF]

Sure and microphone measurements can distinguish whatever parameters affect the sound including all the electronics in the signal path. Not a convincing argument.

Fine. One day I may get to hear it.

Kal, first of all, no one is trying to argue...and secondly, since you obviously have not heard the system, I would suggest a listen before further discourse.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, first of all, no one is trying to argue...and secondly, since you obviously have not heard the system, I would suggest a listen before further discourse.

Sure. I have made no comment on the sound but I do not have to in order to find fault with their arguments.

 

[Rodney Gold]

the acid test would be the the linn theory system vs something like dirac/acourate which relies on measurement both in the same room with the same speakers/system..
And even then results would be subjective.

 

[7ryder]

FWIW, I heard the Exakt system at Definitive Audio's Music Matters last year.

They used a Linn Akurate Exakt DSM and Akurate Exact-Akubarik loudspeakers. Frankly I wasn't impressed. The worst sound of the night was Devialet's Phantom presentation, but if they hadn't been there, I would have rated Linn's demonstration the worst and this is from an owner of Klimax gear (at the time). Best sound of the night was ARC gear with the new Wilson Sabrina speakers and it wasn't even close.

Here's Stereophile's report on the event http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-absolutely-matters-definitive-audio