akamatsu

Next time your neighbours complain about your music being too loud, just tell them it isn't you, it's Michael down in Point Roberts. Since we have a lot of summer homes that belong to Canadians here, and Canadians can't cross the border, yard maintenance is being neglected. I thought about neglecting my yard as a show of solidarity.

This is what @Philbo had to say about Boundary Optimisation: Consider an ideal acoustic point source. At any given frequency is produces a known acoustic volume velocity into a full sphere. Now place that source on a boundary, it still emits the same volume velocity but now into half the space. The acoustic intensity in that space is thus double what it was in the full sphere, so we observe an increase in power output by the source. If we move the source some small distance from the boundary we still observe a power increase at low frequencies, where the wavelength is long enough that the source may still be considered as 'seeing' the boundary, but the power support will drop away at higher frequencies. The source at a given distance from a boundary will have a mathematically predictable frequency dependent acoustic power response. Consider this for three local boundaries (floor and two walls) and you can approximate (quite accurately) the frequency dependent power response of a source placed in a room. Do this for each source in a loudspeaker (each drive unit and port) and you have a good idea of the power support offered by the room to a loudspeaker in a given position. Boundary optimisation calculates the expected power response for the loudspeaker in the ideal position, and for the practical position then optimises for the difference between them. The results of boundary optimisation are not shown in the graph in Konfig for a couple of reasons; 1) we do not anticipate that user interaction with the filters will improve their effectiveness (I have tried) 2) they would only serve to confuse the process of adjusting room mode optimisation filters Phil.

I suppose it could since it knows the attributes of the speakers, and it knows where you are sitting relative to the speakers. And, it knows the toe-in. We may be onto something here.

The nomenclature can be confusing. There's "time of flight," and then there's "phase alignment." Time of flight is handled by SO+. Phase alignment is handled by Exakt. Exakt doesn't know how far you are sitting from the speakers. SO+ does. @sunbeamgls , is this your understanding? I'm scratching my head over here.

It looks as though you will be getting the Karousel in isolation, that is, with no other upgrades. Most of us have taken advantage of the promotion. Myself, I went from Krystal to Kandid. So your feedback will be especially telling. I look forward to it. You may want to clear your calendar for Thursday. Last night, I forced myself to go to bed at 1:20 am.

I too read it wrong, but caught myself just in time.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I remember back in the 1980s, Linn would do single speaker demonstrations. I don't hear about that anymore, but I don't think the laws of physics have changed. Linn were adamant that all drivers, even telephones in the room would affect sound quality. I too have considered the affect of idle speakers in a surround system. I agree with you, not for me. I have a separate surround system in a dedicated theatre room.

We need to find a torque driver for North America, easily sourced (Amazon), not too expensive, and feels good in the hand. I'll start searching. Another consideration is getting to isobarik drivers. Perhaps a wrench would be better suited for that. Ideally, a wrench that goes below 0.8 Nm. I'm thinking Wera from Germany.

I think that's the best analogy yet.

But bass isn't directional. Especially with isobaric configured woofers on the 530s, and Akubariks. I'm still thinking time of flight. The only other option would be boundary condition, which is bass only. Come to think of it, I haven't noticed anyone from Linn visiting this forum in a long while. I think it was @PeteLinnwho shed so much light on SO when he joined the conversation. Perhaps, like Batman, we could shine a beacon in the sky with a Linn logo and someone would come to the rescue.

My 530s are at 9 degrees and I sit 4 metres from the front wall. So, I guess it is a matter of taste. But as I've said a few times previous, I like the big wall of sound. I'm not a fan of the sound stage as to me, it is more of a hifi attribute than a musical one. I find the bigger sound to be more tuneful. Bigger sound? Perhaps I should just get a Klimax 350 system.

Agreed. Set up the speakers (toe-in in part of setup) with SO off. Then accurately input the information. SO+ deals with time of flight. I would think that toe-in would, along with distance to listener, temperature, and humidity, affect this. Perhaps someone with more in-depth technical knowledge of SO+ could explain this better. It's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Perhaps you meant less toe-in when the distance to the speakers is large, rather than more toe-in? Or perhaps I didn't understand. I have 530s, so quite different from a 3K array speaker. They are toed-in at 9 degrees if I recall correctly. I'm fairly far from the speakers. The centre lines of the speakers cross well behind the listening position. I prefer the bigger open and wide "wall of sound" that this setup provides (remember the measurements we did and the sidewall reflections?). It is simply more musical to my ears.