BB1

Wammer
  • Content Count

    597
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

212 Excellent

About BB1

  • Rank
    Experienced Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    Germany

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    Linn KSH
  • DAC
    Linn KEB/1s
  • Power Amp/s
    2x A4200s, 2x A2200s
  • My Speakers
    Linn Akubariks
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don’t think so. The output of the AK 4497 (i.e. the Katalyst DAC) is differential. In its data sheet you’ll see two examples showing how to create a single-ended and a differential output from the DAC’s output singals. Example 1 (single-ended output): Example 2 (differential output): At Akkurate level Linn’s output stage is based on example 1 and the "cold" signal on its XLR output gets generated by an opamp inverting "Analog Out". Therefore two conversions take place. From balanced to unbalanced (OPA 1611 in example 1) and then from unbalanced ("Analog Out") to balanced by adding another opamp inverting the unbalanced signal. At Klimax level it would make no sense at all to drive the output transformer by a single-ended signal and "misusing" it for converting the single-ended signal to a balanced one. Hence I’d bet that the output stage at Klimax level is similar to example 2.
  2. Besides the fact that a speaker with this shape has no room at all for speaker chassis on it’s front side, I’d assume that even such a speaker would have at least 3 three spikes, with two of them located at a rectangular angle to the speaker axis, no matter if they are nearer or farther away from the the speakers front. In order to prevent tipping over, it’s also required that one of these two spikes is located much closer to the outer side of the speaker, and the other one much closer to its inner side. By measuring the distances to the front wall of these two spikes and knowing the distance between them, I I(or SO2) can easily calculate the toe-in value for such a speaker…
  3. Thats’s your fault, not mine. Well, my error would have a been a bug on Linn’s side. All I would have to do is measuring the distance to the front wall of a second speaker reference point instead of having to measure or calculate the angle. If you’d checked my diagrams, you might would have noticed that this isn’t true.
  4. +1. By the way, the unpopulated PCB has been manufactured 14/10/19 by ZOT.
  5. No, any arbitrary reference point of the speaker can be chosen for measuring the angle. In the following sketch the blue triangle matches the way you’ve measured alpha. The red triangle is identical to the blue one and uses the same reference point on the speaker’s side. And the purple triangle is similar to the red one, i.e. all three angles of both triangle are identical, but it moves the reference point to the outside top rear corner. In the next sketch, the upper green triangle is similar to the purple one and therefore it is also similar to the blue one in my previous sketch: The sine of alpha is a / c, where c is the width of the speaker’s rear side. The length of a can be calculated as L2 - L1, where L2 is the distance from the outer top rear corner to the front wall and L1 is the distance from the inner top rear corner to the front wall. Therefore sin (alpha) = a / c = (L2 -L1) / c and alpha = acrsin ( (L2 -L1) / c). SO2 doesn’t know the width of the rear side, but the width of the front side. Hence its calculation of the toe-in angle must be based on the position of the outside top front corner (as indicated by the lower green triangle in above sketch). By just adding the option to enter the distance between the inner top front corner and the front wall in SO2, it could calculate the correct toe-in value automatically. Agreed, the reference point for e.g. KEF Blade 2s is „Front centre of plinth“. But wouldn’t it be of great benefit if Linn would offer entering a second reference point for automatically calculating the toe-in if the speaker geometry allows for it? Please note that I’ve corrected an error my previous post. At practical toe-in values the effect of this error is negligible since the lengths of the adjacent and the hypotenuse are nearly the same. If e.g. "a" is 5 mm the correct angle is 1.6372° whereas the incorrect angle is 1.6366°. And if "a" is 3 cm, the correct angle is 9.87° and the incorrect one 9.73°.
  6. Yes, the „Speaker Metrics“ contain the front baffle width. LinnAkubarikSpeakerMetrics.xml <SpeakerMetrics version="3"> <Manufacturer>linn</Manufacturer> <Model>akubarik</Model> <Width>0.21</Width> <XYMeas>Outside top front corner of cabinet</XYMeas> <ZMeas>Bottom edge of plinth</ZMeas> <DriveUnits> ...
  7. My last sentence in my previous post wasn’t aimed at you, David. Obviously we’ve posted at the very same time.
  8. What surprises me is that SO2 requires to enter the toe-in value in angular degree. How would one measure it? With a geometry set square? Wouldn’t it be much easier to just have to enter the distance between the speaker’s housing rear outer and inner corner to the rear wall? Yes, I know how to calculate the required toe-in value in angular degree. In a right-angled triangle the tangent sine of alpha is defined as the length of the opposite divided by length of the adjacent hypotenuse. In this case the length of the opposite is the difference between the distance of the speaker’s housing rear outer and inner corner to the rear wall and the length of the adjacent hypotenuse is the speakers’s width on its rear side. Hence alpha (the required toe-in value in angular degree) can be calculated as the arctangent arcsine of the opposite divided by the adjacent hypotenuse. I’d be seriously interested in a rough estimation what percentage of Linn’s dealers and customers are able to either measure or calculate the toe-in value in angular degree correctly. My Akubariks are toed-in 5 mm (roughly 0.2 inches). I leave it up to you to calculate the toe-in value in angular degree.
  9. Thanks for reporting back. The issue Carl E is faced with is definitely a different one than the one you’ve seen.
  10. Yes. The "components" on the ADSM’s output side and the Ax200’s input side are operational amplifiers. On the ADSM’s side the XLR „cold“ signal gets generated by an additional operational amplifier. On the Ax200’s side. the balanced signal will be converted to an unbalanced signal (again, via opamps), because Ax200s are not a truly balanced design from input to output. Since I’ve bought my two A4200s initially as external amplification for an MDSM, they were RCA models. At the time I’ve upgraded to KEBs (XLR outputs only…), I’ve asked Linn if replacing my RCA 4200s by XLR 4200s would result in better SQ. Their reply was that "I should listen myself". If Linn would be sure that Ax200s with balanced inputs are sounding significantly better than the ones with unbalanced inputs, I’m quite sure that I would have gotten a different answer…
  11. No, the analogue output stage of a KDSM is totally different to the ADSM’s one. The KDSM’s output stage contains an audio transformer, which isn’t present in the ADSM. And Linn strongly suggest not to use the KDSM’s RCA and XLR outputs at the same time, since using RCA "will degrade the XLR output audio", but there is no such suggestion for the ADSM form Linn. As far as I know, the ADSM’s negative polarity terminal (aka "cold") on its XLR output socket is generated by just inverting the "hot" signal also fed into the RCA jack by on additional operational amplifier. In other words, the analogue output stage of the KDSM is truly balanced, whereas the output stage of the ADSM isn’t.
  12. In general you can, because the voltage gain factors of both types take the different output voltages of the ADSM (or any other Linn source) into account. The output voltage of the XLR output is twice as high as the RCA’s output voltage. Since the balanced type has a voltage gain of 22.6 dB, whereas the RCA type has a voltage gain of 28.6 dB, both amps will play at the same volume (6 dB is equivalent to a factor of 2). Of cause you can’t connect an output of a balanced Ax200 to an input of an RCA Ax200 input or vice versa in a multi-amp system. Although adapters from XLR to RCA and RCA to XLR are available, using them would lead to a mismatch in volume of the amps. Let’s assume that the volume setting of the DS is 50. If connecting an RCA amp to an XLR output, it would play as loud as if the volume setting is 56. Accordingly a balanced amp connected to an RCA output would play as loud as if the volume setting is 44. If a balanced connection is of benefit, depends on two factors: Cable length and how the balanced output and input stages are designed. The longer the cable is, the more susceptible it is to coupled in noise from the outer world. Since such outer noise effects both signal lines the same, such noise cancels itself out on the receivers side, which „calculates“ the difference between both signal lines. At Akurate level the XLR output signal is generated by additional components which invert the RCA output signal. On the amps side, additional components are needed to transform the received balanced signal to an unbalanced one (i.e. RCA). The errors introduced by these additional components can outweigh the benefits of the balanced transmission, hence I’m not surprised that your dealer prefers the RCA version.