Room Correction... yes. Microphone... no!

[1_sufferin_mind]

Linn includes a room correction system called Space Optimisation which does not use a micropone. Instead, the user enters room dimensions and any acoustic features like

Enter the room dimensions into our on-screen tool—running on any computer or laptop—along with the construction type and any features, such as windows and doors that will affect the sound. Select your make and model of speakers, enter their location and where you’ll be sitting, and Space Optimisation will do the rest.

According to their literature,

Space Optimisation creates an exceptionally detailed acoustic model of the room, then taking account of the specific characteristics of your speakers, it identifies exactly how to deliver the best sound to you.

The correction profile is then stored in the particular Linn audio product being used. And if your setup is less than ideal, Space Optimisation can compensate:

The acoustic model takes into account your chosen practical position for your speakers, and emulates the sound that you would have heard in the ideal location.

It's probably a long shot but do you have, or do you know anyone who has, personal experience with this room correction tool?
Do you think Space Optimisation could be as effective as Audyssey XT32 or Dirac Live - or for any microphone-based tool?

 

[Todd Anderson]

I don't know anyone that's used something like that... theoretically it makes sense, but eliminating real world measurement bothers. Then again, using the cheap microphones manufacturers supply with their AVRs bothers me too...

 

[Peter Loeser]

I have no direct experience with Linn audio but this would be a very interesting comparison.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

I think it is a faulty idea. There are too many variables in real rooms for something like that to be really effective. I can't imagine it being consistently effective.

 

[tesseract]

I agree with Leonard. The Linn method seems very rough, dealing only with remote projected EQ fixes that do not deal with distance setting or impulse in any useful fashion.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Should I be skeptical as well? On one hand, my inner lazy-self wants to believe. Less work for me. But on the other hand, Linn offers no scientific explanation to back their hype. That could very well be because they're merely protecting their intellectual property. In stark contrast, Dirac has no such reservations, and has published at least one paper detailing their scientific approach.

I have trouble visualizing how Linn's Space Optimisation can best similar room-modeling algorithms. While it accounts for subtleties such as construction materials and speaker models, how could it possibly be specific enough to account for varied materials and open floor plans? They could maybe get my buy-in if other proven software existed.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

It does not deal with the real world variables in favor of pre-defined assumptions. I just don't see what value there is in this.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I suspect the only ones you'll ever get to tell you that this system works is someone working for Linn (naturally)... or someone reviewing their product in a big name magazine. I don't think they would let me review it. And I would be literally stunned to the utmost degree if it even came close to working. Can they take into account openings in the room, how large those openings are, how large the adjoining room is that is thru that opening, odd shaped rooms, reflections, acoustic panels (thickness, size and location of each), furniture (soft finished and any hard surfaces), carpet or hard flooring, wall material, ceiling material, windows, wood blinds and/or cloth curtains, glass and/or pictures on the walls, distance of speakers from the front wall, side walls, ceiling and listener... and then data for every speaker available? It ain't gonna happen... they are living in a dream world.

 

[tesseract]

A simple summation of the Linn method is, it is a guess.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

A simple summation of the Linn method is, it is a guess.

lol... that's a good one. Is that the same as an estimation?

Who's guess is it you reckon?

 

[tesseract]

lol... that's a good one. Is that the same as an estimation?

Who's guess is it you reckon?

Linnbot?

 

[Lanion]

It does not deal with the real world variables in favor of pre-defined assumptions. I just don't see what value there is in this.

Interestingly, it relies heavily upon listening data. You must enter in the ideal location for your speakers for it to generate EQ for where your speakers actually are. It seems like you have to make up an ideal position for in-ceiling speakers.

I found this video on youtube. It shows the interface.

I also found this 53 page setup guide, which I just read all of...


The most interesting tidbit is that the user/installer can enter in where the ideal speaker position is based on their ears and where the speakers have to be for practical reasons. So, there is some real world input that goes through the software. Interesting idea for someone who is not very technical to set it up.

It also has software like REW's room simulator and allows for a lot of parametric EQ in the settings, which you would really need measurements for to put in anything sensible for high freqeuencies. It allows for simulation of room modes for bass eq.


My take is that Linn's approach is simpler and harder to mess up for someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There is no way someone can over-EQ based on one mic measurement taken in non-ideal circumstances. I wouldn't want potential customers getting a bad impression of my product because someone misunderstood how to use auto-calibration properly. I don't know what the average Linn buyer is like, but maybe this is effective marketing and differentiates Linn as being more 'pure'.

 

[Mike-48]

I think it is a faulty idea. There are too many variables in real rooms for something like that to be really effective. I can't imagine it being consistently effective.

That, precisely.

I've not had experience with the Linn method, but (like many of us, I assume), I've calculated expected acoustics performance from room dimensions and major features and then actually measured acoustic performance in the room. They have never agreed! As an acoustician pointed out to me, even walls are not absolute -- the relevant acoustic dimension may be around the center of a frame-constructed wall. It may be at the outer (concrete) wall of a finished basement. That's just the simple stuff! Then factor in the effects of furniture, and such a method is almost certain (IMO) to fail.

 

[Kakkadu]

I agree with Leonard. The Linn method seems very rough, dealing only with remote projected EQ fixes that do not deal with distance setting or impulse in any useful fashion.

The wall construction alone makes a critical difference. If you have a building with wooden walls, it requires completely different corrections compared to a concrete walled one.