Jump to content

DavidHB

Wammer
  • Posts

    2,575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DavidHB

  1. Good point. Not that I'd mess with my LP12 in any case. I think that my description of the interaction between the top plate and the suspended mass makes it clear why the hangers have to be vertical. David
  2. It is very slightly over size for the recess, and so bends upwards when fitted. this bending (torsion) works la bit like a leaf spring or a torsion bar on a car. It counteracts, via the springs that are attached to it and the grommets which serve as dampers, the downward force exerted by the suspended structure of the LP12. The sprung and damped suspension acoustically isolates the turntable/bearing/subchassis/arm assembly from the surrounding environment. Just so, except that the torsion is more compression than tension. And if the top plate is fitted properly, the torsion should again be present. David
  3. No, they care. They want the top plate not to be (completely) flat. The fop plate acts as torsional springing, counteracting the effect of the sprung suspension. David
  4. I believe so. This would, I think, apply to Series 3 used with any external DS/DSM. Essentially, 302s are "conventional" Exakt speakers, so a kind of mini 520 if you like, except that they also have a direct HDMI/ARC input, so that they can be used (and controlled) from a TV with an ARC capable HDMI socket. The 301s are full DSMs in their own right, other than that their inputs (except HDMI/ARC) are wireless. Again, however, I haven't found much of this in the documentation, so there is still an element of guesswork. I showed my daughter a picture of the 3 Series on stands. Her reaction: "I like the shape but am not wholly sold on the bright white. Bit Barbarella for me. You're getting different ones for the bedroom though, aren't you?" So I sent her the link to the M109s I have ordered for my second system, to which the reaction was, "Ah yes, I like those ones. Better than the Barbarella numbers. Which might look better in a darker tone.." The oracle has spoken. Not that I agree with her about the colour. David
  5. Gilad's point, in the video to which I linked in my previous post, was that, in a crowded marketplace, Linn should only offer products that stand out from the competition. He was referring to passive speakers when the said this, but it obviously applies to other product groups as well. If Linn had thought that preamplifiers in particular still had a viable place in their lineup, they would not have discontinued the KK and AK. But Gilad did say specifically that Linn was still in the business of making amplifiers, though he also acknowledged that the current range was a bit long in the tooth. David
  6. ... assuming that the Series 3 firmware variant allows for it. I have no reason to believe that it doesn't, but it isn't something I have seen documented. David
  7. I wonder how you'd make that work. The 301 (master) speaker, which has the DSM and all the controls, only has the one Exakt port, which is needed to connect to the 302 in the stereo pair. The 302 has two Exakt ports (the sum total of its connectivity), and so can be used for daisy chaining. Maybe you could connect the Urika II to the 302. Until I looked at the specifications, I hadn't realised that the 301 has full DSM capability. So, if you already have a device on which you can install the control point app, and either an online music subscription or a music library on your network, your good to go with a full Exakt system with just the 301 and 302. It's not the cheapest way to get a DSM (an MDSM/4 and a pair of 109s will cost you £1,000 less), but it's the cheapest way to get into Exakt. David
  8. Me too. That 60s look (if that is what it is) is coming back into fashion. I've never quite seen the point of Series 3, because it seems far too expensive to be "just" a Bluetooth speaker, but with the stands it becomes a stylish and more affordable way into Exakt. Linn claim that Series 3 outperforms the Majik 109s. Has anyone had a chance to make this comparison? David
  9. You might want to read the release notes. There is an interaction between the payer firmware and the control point. The point is that both the DS firmware and the app need to be to the required build level. David
  10. The latest Davaar beta release (80.389) appears to have further updates related to Tidal authentication . To receive that release, you do of course have to enable the downloading of beta releases in Konfig. David P. S. The release notes page is at https://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Beta:DsDavaar
  11. Steel yourself and open Konfig. If you need to, navigate to your device via the "Change" link. The Configuration page of your device will open, with its About tab showing . "Software variant" is the second entry in that list. Essentially, it indicates (using the main board number, as previously described) which firmware variant your model uses. Each time Linn releases a new Davaar firmware version, it produces different variants of that version for different DS/DSM models. These used to be identified by model designations, but, for reasons too boring to describe, that simple option became unworkable, so the software team switched to designating firmware variants by reference to the main board identifier of each model. If you know which software variant you have, you can identify the main board in the list of PCAS board designators. If you know which board you have, you know for sure which model you have. Simples. David
  12. Yes, but that only addresses (to a degree) design and manufacturing. Logistics and (rather crucially in this case) dealer response are other relevant issues. If it turned out that a significant number of dealers felt they could sell Exakt more easily if there were an Exaktbox 4 option, I would have to agree with you. The only difference would be, at best £2K off the total price of going Exakt. Would that make the difference? It's an interesting question. Akamatsu has posted a link to a rather informative interview with Gilad Tiefenbrun (https://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/147223-gilad-interview/?tab=comments#comment-2655721), in which he expresses disappointment that Exakt has not achieved the traction that he hoped and expected it would. Would an Exaktbox 4 increase that traction significantly? It would be nice to think that it would, but I have my doubts. I think that the real problem is that most of the target market just does not 'get' Exakt, just as it didn't get Aktiv in the past. There are probably a fair few reasons for this; it's not all Linn's fault, though, Heaven knows, "the source is in the speaker" didn't help. David
  13. I have now viewed the video you linked to, and can thoroughly recommend it. Many thanks for posting the link. In many ways, the video is complementary to the earlier podcast, so they are worth streaming in reasonably quick succession. Gilad is much more forthcoming about why Linn is doing some things and not others than I would have expected him to be. His answers very largely make sense to me. I particularly like what he says about the distinction between "lifestyle" and "audiophile" products that is often made. Yes, Linn makes lifestyle products, but then in a sense it always has done. In any home there has to be a balance between competing requirements. Different people make different choices for different use cases, and Linn needs to find a way of covering as many of those choices/use cases as possible. So the issue is not about product categorisation but about balance and consumer choice. I can relate to that approach. David
  14. I shall certainly follow that one up. But I think that the original reference was to a podcast accessible via https://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/144957-gilad-tiefenbrun-podcast/?tab=comments#comment-2609643 In this interview, Gilad is remarkably forthcoming about some of the difficulties he faced in his early days at Linn. It gives an insight into a personality which is obviously very different to his father's. David
  15. I think that the "Fw" is just "firmware". The 903 is the key number in the main board designation, which you can find on the About tab of the device configuration page in Konfig. Board designations always begin with "PCAS", which I guess is short for "printed circuit assembly". The PCAS number is probably the best indicator of the model, as it shows the board revision number as well as type. David
  16. You will recall that my KEDSM has no output other than Exakt. I currently use the Mojo for listening via the Toslink connection on my Urika II. This is for late night headphone listening when my daughter is in residence, which during COVID lockdown is not happening of course. The Mojo is kept, usually connected to the Urika, on the rack next to the KEDSM. When in use, it migrates to the armchair a few feet away. It is easily small enough to be treated as an inline device, and sits on the arm of the chair for access to the volume control. Toslink is notoriously fussy about cable lengths. My dealer Chris and I tried several cables, and anything longer than 2m didn't work satisfactorily. I did also try the Mojo with my phone (USB C to micro USB), and that worked well with a 2m cable. The only trouble is that the audio rendering capabilities of all the consumer computing and communication devices I have tried are so compromised that pairing them with a half decent DAC is a waste of time. David
  17. I have I believe said as much on this forum. My original source for the information was the dealer who sold me my original pair of 109s (five years after upgrading to Akubariks, I have now ordered another pair of 109s for my second system). I have never heard 109s Aktiv, but I have heard them both passive (obviously) and Exakt. To my way of thinking, Exakt was a bit of a disappointment, in comparison to the benefits it brings to other speakers. While (again obviously) I like the 109s for what they were designed to be - good passive standmounts with the option to be used on a shelf without degrading the sound quality too much - the best upgrade for them is actually a decent and properly integrated subwoofer. Beyond that, it is best to replace them, as I did. David
  18. But could it be profitably made and sold at £4K? And how does it fit into the product line? An Exaktbox 4 will not work with any current Linn speaker, which I suspect would matter presentationally if not profitably to Linn. I like your "modular" idea, but, if the pricing of Selekt is anything to go by, the current Exaktbox-i is already a more cost-effective entry point to Exakt. These are, of course, all points about which we do not know enough to take a firm view. At the same time, I don't see any indication that Linn has much interest in "entry level" Exakt. Indeed, if the omission of Exakt ports from the MDSM/4 is any indication, the reverse would seem to be the case. David
  19. Couldn't the purists have fun discussing that one! Historically, of course, the DS came first, so it is the starting point in that sense. And all DSs and DSMs can be used with conventional analogue preamplifiers, by disabling their internal (digital) volume control. With the Katalyst models, however, it is difficult to make out a good use case for doing this. The digital volume control is actually implemented in the DS/DSM processor. It's nothing more (or less) than continuous real time arithmetic, carried out immediately before the digital signal is fed to the DAC. The signal enters the volume control at unity gain (i.e. unattenuated), and is then continuously multiplied by whatever gain factor (0 > 1) is set by the user on the volume control. And that's all it is - no special component, just a software process. The problem with this approach is called quantisation. The volume control function (multiplying by a number less than 1) in effect reduces the number of bits available to represent each time slice of the signal. At low volume levels and with inadequate initial bit depth, the processor can, in effect, run out of digits to represent the dynamic range of the music accurately. The solution is to use larger initial word lengths, so that significant bits in the signal are not truncated by the volume control action. Larger word lengths require greater processing power, and Katalyst has a much more capable FPGA processor than its predecessors. So far as I can tell (and others have reported in similar terms), Katalyst systems exhibit no audible quantisation effects at any practicable listening volume. This in effect eliminates the need for an alternate analogue signal path and volume control. Removing components from a board design helps to improve sound quality. So, in general, the omission of the alternate path from Katalyst has to be regarded as a good thing. Just to be clear, the Linn White Paper (a very interesting document, well worth reading) predates Katalyst. Even at that time, however, Linn were claiming that the then current KDSM outperformed the Klimax Kontrol as a preamplifier. There was a fair amount of disagreement with this view at the time. But I think that it is fair to say that Katalyst has, in effect, silenced the dissenters. David
  20. It would be more correct to say that a DSM replaces the normal functions of a conventional analogue preamp. The default case with the analogue inputs (not just phono) always was that they were converted from analogue to digital, processed (including Space Optimisation and volume control) in the digital domain, and then converted back to analogue. The ADSMs (not the ADSs) up to /2 had the option of an all analogue passthrough path with an analogue volume control. It is this passthrough that has been omitted from the /3 (Katalyst) ADSM. While converting to digital and back again may seem counterintuitive, it actually works rather well. So well in fact that Linn designed their flagship Urika II phono stage on that basis, and have now used somewhat similar technology in the (MM) phono stage within the new MDSM/4. David
  21. No. Direct was removed, or rather it was not implemented in the completely redesigned Katalyst board. It wasn't needed. David
  22. Asking at the same time for a pair of Fiskars shears to cut the Gunstigs up with might serve to lower the level of unintended domestic expectation ... David
  23. The chances are that, certainly on decent equipment, a fair few people will notice the difference. After all, 13 bit is only one eighth of the data depth of 16 bit. David
  24. Setup will have played its part, but we've all found that the new bearing makes a big difference for the better. Hearing things for the first time is a pretty typical experience; with a lower noise floor, the Karousel seems to provide more "empty air" around the music, so that we hear it more clearly. It happens that I'd not used my LP12 for a few days when, today, I listened to my old recording (from about 1960) of Yehudi Menuhin and George Malcolm playing the Bach sonatas for violin and continuo. Menuhin and Malcolm add a viola da gamba (played by Ambrose Gauntlett) to the mix - it was an option suggested by Bach - and the whole thing works very well. On my setup, the recording is as clear and tuneful as any modern counterpart, with only a tiny bit of rumble from the tape deck or cutting lathe betraying its age. With chamber music such as this, you get an almost tangible presence with a Karousel equipped LP12 that, in my system at least, is not fully matched by any other source. David
×
×
  • Create New...