DavidHB

Wammer
  • Content Count

    941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

299 Excellent

3 Followers

About DavidHB

  • Rank
    Experienced Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    Isle of Wight, UK
  • Real Name
    David

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    Linn LP12
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    Ekos SE/1, Adikt
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    Lejonklou Gaio
  • Digital Source 1
    Klimax Exakt DSM
  • Digital Source 2
    Kiko
  • DAC
    Akurate Exaktbox 10
  • Pre-Amp
    Akurate Exaktbox 10
  • Power Amp/s
    Akurate 4200s/2200
  • My Speakers
    Akubariks (active)
  • Headphones
    Grado PS500
  • 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. My results would be different to the above. I find that transcoding to WAv24 from standard FLAC (16 bit or Hi-Res) gives resultants consistent with a slight lowering of the noise floor.. This result did not change when I upgraded to Exakt and later to Katalyst. I don't use ReplayGain. David
  2. If I were seeking out something like this, I'd contact Krescendo Hi-Fi ( @CJ1045 on the forum), and discuss my chances of finding the item. I know that other dealers sell on older Linn items to CJ, and he may have helpful contacts. I suspect that the sites listed above will be more miss than hit for the more specialist items. David
  3. Yes, that's my understanding too. The only profile stored locally is the one loaded in the DS(M). Also, as I understand it, it is run as a v2 profile. One interesting test, which I have not yet managed to do, is to discover whether the same profile (which has to be of v1 origin) sounds the same when played as v2 as it does in its 'native' v1. David
  4. That scares me even with the Tiger Paw Javelin (ARO -> Javelin, geddit? ), and that does have an arm lift. I know that it's more money (and I do like the Javelin, sound-wise), but on a baseboard that moves already, like Nestor T. I much prefer the ergonomic solidity of the Ekos SE/1. David
  5. This is correct. When you go into SO in Konfig, it will tell you that the profile it has loaded (presumably the current v1 surround profile) is not the one that is currently applied, and you can then press the relevant button to apply it. Likewise, when you go into SO on the web app, it will allow you to apply any v2 profile you have saved. Version 2 also allows you to save the Version 1 profile currently loaded as a version 2 profile. But how that at present works with surround sound I am not quite sure. David
  6. Yes, I think, on re-reading the instructions in the Development Forum, that you are right. The instructions say "please sign up by contacting Linn using the using the Linn Web App's “Contact Linn” feature, found under Help & Support." The key word is, of course "Web", which I missed. I've never heard any app other than the control point referred to by the name "Linn" Clear as mud? Perhaps not, but confusing for sure. David
  7. No. The Linn app is the new (in beta and iOS only) replacement for Kazoo. But it's nice to have confirmation that it can be done through the Linn Account as well; that should have been made clear. David
  8. I'm due to provide a progress report on my experiences with the Keith Monks DiscoveryOne Redux RCM. I have cleaned about 25 records so far. The time constraint has not been in the cleaning (the Keith Monks website claim of about 3 minutes per record is not unduly optimistic), but in listening to them all afterwards. But a pattern is starting to emerge. In the meantime, we have had @ThomasOK's thoughtful and informative post. I'm certainly not going to sidetrack the thread into a discussion about how feasible or otherwise it is to do A/B comparisons of RCMs. I guess that Thomas would agree that, for ordinary users, it is pretty damned difficult. Which is why my report will not claim that the Monks machine is better than this or that other model, because I don't know whether it is or not. From what Jon Monks told me, I believe that what Thomas says about the origin and design of the Loricraft machine he uses is quite correct. Relations between the two company principals (Terry O'Sullivan at Loricraft, and Keith Monks) seem to have been quite amicable. Loricraft's main activity has been keeping the Garrard turntable brand alive, and, earlier this year when Terry retired, he sold the company to SME (of tonearm fame), who have said that both Garrard and RCM production will continue. AFAIK, little if any development work has been done on the Loricraft RCM recently, whereas Jon Monks has developed new cleaning fluids as well as producing new models using the established technology. He has now developed a threadless version of the Keith Monks machine (still with a fine, albeit redesigned, vacuum nozzle). He has promised that our machine will be modified to the threadless standard, as soon as it can be made to work properly on our model (which apparently is the only one in the range that has proved problematic in development). For the present, like Thomas, I am happy with the "nozzle and thread" arrangement, though it is a tad messy to extract the used thread from the spent fluid, and I have yet to learn how easy it is to re-thread the machine. A spool of thread lasts for hundreds of records, so I may not need to fit a new spool before the machine is modified. Following on from Thomas' interesting tests and findings, one aspect of the Monks system that makes it different is the fluid used. The Monks company supplies three different fluids. One is for normal cleaning of vinyl records, and is by far the most commonly used. One is for cleaning shellac discs (78s). and probably does not need to concern us here. The third, called "BreakTheMold" (hereinafter BTM) is for pretreatment of particularly soiled discs. Interestingly, the instructions for using BTM do not recommend a separate vacuuming after using BTM, but assume that the cleaning fluid will be applied normally once the BTM has been left on the record for a minute or so. The instructions are specific, as Thomas pointed out, that no cleaning fluids should not be left on the record for an extended period of time before vacuuming. The Monks cleaning fluids do not use any form of alcohol, but are a mixture of biodegradable botanicals in triple-distilled water. Their main disadvantage is that the mixing is a complex process, and Jon Monks has not yet found a way of distributing the cleaning fluid as a concentrate that can be diluted locally, which adds significantly to shipping costs. But at least the fluid itself can be emptied into the drain with a clear conscience, which is probably more than can be said for the gunk removed from the records. Thomas' description of the differences between the Loricraft and other, cheaper vacuum machines also apply to the Keith Monks machine, so I don't need to repeat them. However, there is a difference on the Monks machine in that, while you can use a hand held brush to apply the fluid (and would do so when using a separate brush with BTM), the normal method us to use a brush mounted on an arm that swings over the record, and which dispenses fluid from a container inside the machine via a push-button pump on the front panel of the machine. This makes it easier to control the amount of fluid applied. With the turntable running (at 80 rpm on the Monks machine), the brush is rotated up and down by hand on the swing arm, spreading the fluid to produce an even, shiny film on the whole playing surface of the disc. Vacuuming can then begin. The turntable motor and pump are controlled by a microswitch attached to the vacuum arm. Move the arm so that the nozzle is over the record label, byond the record spindle. The motor and pump switch on. Place the vacuum head on the record label, and it will begin to traverse the label, moving outwards by centrifugal force. While the nozzle traverses the label, pump and spread the fluid as previously described. Rotate the brush away from the record surface while the nozzle is still on the record label. If you are a bit slow in getting the fluid spread, it is easy to pick up the vacuum arm and move it back. Once the nozzle is on the playing surface, the vacuuming process is fully automatic. You will see the playing surface become matt and dry as the fluid is progressively vacuumed off. The nozzle continues moving to the outer edge of the record, drops off the record at the edge, and the motor and pump switch off when the arm is <1cm beyond the edge of the record. The side is then clean, and, once the brush arm is swung out of the way, the record can be turned over immediately, both because it is largely dry and because the turntable mat has a pattern of pyramids that allow any excess fluid to drain away. Any odd drops on the edge of the record or the top plate of the RCM can easily removed with kitchen towel. It is worth saying that this step-by-step description makes the whole process sound a great deal more complicated than it actually is. After 2 or 3 records, muscle memory takes over and the process becomes pretty intuitive. Also, once vacuuming begins, the machine can be left to look after itself if there are distractions or interruptions. So how well does the process work? First impression: pretty well, actually. It becomes apparent that some records are, sadly, just not redeemable, but any that were more or less listenable to begin with are, IMO, greatly improved. Not only is most (or, in fortunate cases, nearly all) of the obvious dust and dirt (the clicks and pops) removed, but the underlying noise level of the record is significantly improved, making the music clearer in every respect. In other words, effective cleaning really does change the way in which the interface between the record groove and the stylus renders the musical signal. This post is already long enough, so I'll only preview future posts on the performance of the system with one example. The oldest records in my collection that I can date for sure are the Yehudi Menuhin/Bath Festival Orchestra recordings of the Bach Brandenburg Concertos. Notes on the record sleeves tell me that I bought this pair of discs in August 1962, the month in which I received my 'A' level results. I must have played these discs dozens of times down the years, but they are still in remarkably good condition. The only time they had previously fully cleaned was when they were new, in the record shop; a label on each inner sleeve announces that they were cleaned on a Cecil Watts Parastatik machine, which IIRC was a large device with the record held vertically between contra-rotating brushes, turned by a mangle-sized handle. After cleaning this venerable pair of discs with the Keith Monks machine, surface noise has been reduced to negligible proportions, and I am hearing detail in the music that I have never noticed before (even on the CD copy of the recording that I also have). That's all for now. Questions and comments would be welcome. David
  9. Yes I'm confused too. Furthermore the instructions on the Linn Development forum ask us to use the "Contact Linn" feature of the Linn app, which, being Android only, I don't have. I have asked whether the helpline or the "Contact Linn" option will do as well. David
  10. I find that easier to do in SO v2 than in v1. Getting back to the thread topic, that's all the more reason for making sure that the primary speakers are fully on song before going down the subwoofer route. David
  11. The advice on stepped floors in the SO v2 manual is to average the room height. Here's the passage: "Where floors are stepped it is recommended to take an average height measurement: depending on the surface area of each floor section this average height measurement will lie somewhere between the minimum and maximum height. Consider a stepped floor with a small raised section which covers less than 50% of the surface area, as shown below; the raised section can be ignored here, so that the average height measurement would be 3 m." In the absence of other advice, I'd treat stepped ceilings (such as the one over your bay) in the same way. As the area over the bay is likely to be quite a small proportion of the total ceiling area, the adjustment to the ceiling height will probably be quite small, unless the ceiling of the bay is a lot lower than the main room ceiling. Example. Ceiling covering 90% of the room area - 3m. Ceiling covering 10% of the room area - 2.5m. Weighted average height (in metres) = (3 * .9) + (2.5 * .1) = 2.95 David
  12. This is potentially significant, because I believe 'plaster on brick' can in fact be either drywall or concrete. An internal partition of single skin brick or block with plaster on both faces is definitely drywall. An external cavity wall (brick and block or brick and brick with plaster, possibly with either or both of cavity insulation and external render) is surely, from the Linn guidance, likely to be in the concrete range? When SO v2 for Exakt becomes available. I shall certainly experiment. David
  13. The isobaric system is designed to get good, deep bass out of a relatively small cabinet volume. This, IMO, also makes the bass tight and responsive, such that it reduces dramatically if you overdo the SO filtering; conversely, if the interaction with the room muddies the sound, that will be very apparent as well. in your case, it might be worth working on the detailsof the room model; for instance, are particular walls likey to be more or less absorbent than the standard? I don't know how far all of this apples to the Akudoriks, with their standmount configuration. But I am pretty sure that the rather unsatisfactory audition I had of the Exakt Akudoriks when they first came out (beatifully precise, but seriously bass light) was the result of incorrect SO settings. A number of contrbutors to this forum have noted that the 'doriks have an excellent bass response, and this ought to be particularly true when they are run in Exakt mode. As I initially made rhe mistake of trying out sub-woofers when the underlying problem was the SO settings, I think that it is worth checking out whether the problem is the same in the present case as well. David
  14. If you are asking whether it's possible, it's what I have, so yes. If you are asking whether this is a sensible way forward, again yes (with no less an authority than @ThomasOK suggesting it). The Kore can then be replaced with a Keel as a later upgrade. If you are recommending this option, then I think that everyone who has offered advice so far agrees with you. David
  15. Not as much as a bit of well-adjusted bass reinforcement, would be my guess. That said, I found that the best way to get really good bass from my 'bariks was to get the SO settings tight (credit to Paul). Particularly with the Akudoriks (which I did audition when the Exakt version came out) I think that it is easy to overcook SO, and lose a lot of bass in the process. David