I fully agree with you here. I was kind of reluctant to switch to SO2 but after some tweaking on my side and I believe upgrading on Linn’s side SO2 beat my best SO1 profile. As an engineer I like graphs for control and unlimited adjustment possibilities for experiments . I was able to get the associated XML file out of the system (I saw your other thread) but I couldn’t interpret some parameters fully. But it would have been nice at least to visualize the SO2 profile,yes I want to have my cake and eat it, I want to best of SOv2 with the ability to customise like I can in SOv1....
Generally, Space Optimisation targets frequencies at and below 80 Hz.so maybe my approach is wrong given SOv2.
i should sort the room treatment out 1st and then do SOv2. my concern here is that SOv2 won't understand or care about the room treatment, why should it, your average joe doesn't do room treatment....
My Vicoustic Extreme Bass Traps target 75-120 Hz, so there is little overlap.
I think you will find some great synergy between SO and bass traps.
Fair pointGenerally, Space Optimisation targets frequencies at and below 80 Hz.
My Vicoustic Extreme Bass Traps target 75-120 Hz, so there is little overlap.
I think you will find some great synergy between SO and bass traps.
so use SO to address low frequency and room treatment to address higher frequency? I think my Gik bass traps overlap a little more with SO frequencies though - but I guess I can zero those in SOv1
Yes, sort the room out first. The problems with the room happens after the signal left the speaker, so what you do with electronic compensations is that you "prevent" signals triggering your room problems to leave the speakers. But those signals are part of the music. You correct errors with errors. Still I prefer to have the possibilities to do so since some of the room treatments are simply not feasible to do in a family living room. What you would like to get rid of is a strong room signature that will give a sameness to music.hmm this has got me thinking.
I'm a hobby photographer as well, there's an axiom often quoted - get things right optically 1st before post processing.
is the same true for hifi? i.e. get the room sorted out physically with room treatment 1st before you use SO? (clearly there are constraints here).
maybe I should compare SOv1 + REW with SOv2?
To measure is easy to interpret the measurements are much more difficult, but there is plenty of help to get in forums across the net. But you will soon see a pattern between what you hear and what you can see in charts. For me frequency response is not crucial if it is good enough, but timing is. I would like to have the sub playing in correct phase with delayed front speakers. Most often you are able to delay the sub by adjusting phase but the problem is the opposite. So I don't measure the distance to the speakers, I measure the time of flight. Then I can set the distance to the front speakers that match the timing and not the physical distance.
I would not mind to pay extra to be able to switch on custom filters in SO2 but I can see that Linn is afraid of much more support doing so.
For the moment I'm stuck in SO1 and still very happy.
Me too – I prefer SO1 for all the reasons discussed above.For the moment I'm stuck in SO1 and still very happy.
Phobic, you mentioned earlier not to expect anything soon but I think we are due a report back
Hmmm, unless you installed some accoustic treatment not SWMBO approved, and will never be heard from again
Similar threads
- Replies
- 79
- Replies
- 163
- Replies
- 2