Lyngdorf discussion

Hi Rob,

I understand your remark in terms of the TDAI 2170 and 3400.

But what about the MP-50 which has no amplification built in?

Or am I interpreting something wrong?

Marcel
To be honest I find the prospect of adding either a 2170 or 3400 to an existing processor of a different brand just as worrying! You are adding the totally different sound signatures, levels and operating systems of the two devices into the equation. Then you have the different remote codes and sequences to think about...
 
I understand that reservation.

I had a Denon Receiver with a TDAi2170 sat on the back for a couple of months to see if it "worked" and everyone loved the results. My problem is that there are so many ways of combining systems but I have to keep 9 different systems sounding amazing as clients can turn up at anytime.

On the Forum Day where we will be doing a room correction shoot out, I'll be able to have it set up here for members to assess. I think its fab but there is a bit more trial and error to get it right so its not for everyone.
 
With regards different room correction being better in different type of rooms, this isn’t what I have found.

I’ve used RoomPerfect in hundreds of rooms, most of which are normal to large rooms with no acoustic treatment, but I’ve also used it in…………

· A garden with the Model D speakers playing next to a Steinway & Sons grand piano with the two playing together and you couldn’t tell where the piano and recording crossed over

· A huge garage where super cars were serviced – a room about 30 x 20 x 6m

· A very small kitchen in central London – a room about 4 x 6 x 2.2m

· A customer garage where every surface was poured concrete, so about as acoustically “hard” as it gets – a room about 25 x 15 x 4m high

· A castle with walls built to withstand cannon fire

In every room it performed flawlessly, first time, after the simple standard set up. I think this is largely because with RoomPerfect you measure all of the room, not just across the seating area.

Every bit of the room changes the sound of your speakers, so every bit of the room must be measured. A by product of this is the sound is incredibly even throughout all of the room.

The one exception to this is the amount of treatment and damping in the room. If you have a normal room, then this lends itself to RoomPerfect as these were the sort of rooms its was intended for and designed in. Remember it was developed for hi end stereo played in normal rooms.

If you have a highly treated room, then the other systems will give their best results in these spaces as they were designed in these spaces. I’m sure RoomPerfect will still give better results, but the principal is that they were designed for different applications and with a different starting point.


And off he goes again!!:facepalm::laugh:

How long before you start stating your other mistaken claims again ie

That only RP was designed for domestic spaces
That only RP doesn't change the character of the speakers. Btw, you were called out by a number of people that your claim of this was based on your complete misunderstanding of how a microphone works lol
 
I don't know but I think its the wrong way to upgrade system.

I see lots of clients who have made the same mistake with Oppo 205's. The best output from this device to a Processor or Receiver is the digital out. To spend and extra £1500 for better D/A's and then convert the signal back with another A/D is only going to make things worse. You want less in the chain and not more.

Add a £10,000000000 DAC or pre amp to the chain and it can only make things worse.



I can't speak for the MP50 but both myself and another forum member have came to the conclusion that the DAC in the TDAI can be easily bettered with an external one.

I can only assume the DAC ( or its implementation) in the TDAI isn't the best.
 
And so are you! I'm sure Ron can speak for himself.
Why not Carry on with your A/B comparison of Trinnov vs RoomPerfect and actually give a detailed explanation to why you have come to the conclusion that the Trinnov is better than RoomPerfect in every way.
 
Why not Carry on with your A/B comparison of Trinnov vs RoomPerfect and actually give a detailed explanation to why you have come to the conclusion that the Trinnov is better than RoomPerfect in every way.


Why would I need to? Your mate Ron has explained time and time and time and time again that only RP really works:rotfl:

Btw, did you bother to read the review in the link on my thread? Was there enough detail in that for you?

You could also google it; and while you're at it google DEQX. There's a lot more out there if you look
 
Why would I need to? Your mate Ron has explained time and time and time and time again that only RP really works:rotfl:

Btw, did you bother to read the review in the link on my thread? Was there enough detail in that for you?
You need to because you made such a big deal about doing it and so far all you have done is posted a bunch of screenshots and said the Trinnov is better than RP in every way......I was under the impression that you were doing it for the good of the many not to keep it to yourself.
 
You need to because you made such a big deal about doing it and so far all you have done is posted a bunch of screenshots and said the Trinnov is better than RP in every way......I was under the impression that you were doing it for the good of the many not to keep it to yourself.


No, you need to because despite no longer being a forum sponsor you still put food on your table by selling this stuff.

You never answered my question, did you read the review in the link? That was written by sound engineers, ie people who understand how a microphone works:rotfl:
 
No, you need to because despite no longer being a forum sponsor you still put food on your table by selling this stuff.

You never answered my question, did you read the review in the link? That was written by sound engineers, ie people who understand how a microphone works:rotfl:
And there’s you thinking that Danish Audio Company is my only line of work......
For me when a member makes such a big deal about doing an A/B comparison in order to address the balance then I want to read his personal findings......not a link to a sound engineer that is talking about one of the two that are in the A/B comparison......
You have made every effort to jump into this thread when it suits you best.......I am sure I’m not the only person waiting to read your findings.

BTW I did but have no interest in how the Trinnov microphone works.....as I have no interest in how the Lyngdorf supplied microphone works.....I assume they both are listening out for a noise that is being generated, or has the microphone been reinvented....correct me it I’m wrong!
 
Last edited:
Related to that: I have the possibility to buy a demo model of the high-end 8-channel DAC/streamer from Swiss company Merging NADAC, i.e. their "NADAC Player".

Is it possible to bypass the MP-50's internal DAC(s) and use the NADAC Player instead?
Will you be doing 5.1/7.1 or Dolby Atmos?
 
And there’s you thinking that Danish Audio Company is my only line of work......
For me when a member makes such a big deal about doing an A/B comparison in order to address the balance then I want to read his personal findings......not a link to a sound engineer that is talking about one of the two that are in the A/B comparison......
You have made every effort to jump into this thread when it suits you best.......

BTW I did watch the video linked but have no interest in how the Trinnov microphone works.....as I have no interest in how the Lyngdorf supplied microphone works.....I assume they both are listening out for a noise that is being generated, or has the microphone been reinvented....correct me it I’m wrong!


I'm not making a big deal, you just interpret it as being a big deal because it doesn't fit your narrative.
My thread is just one page and just my opinion nothing more. Hardly a big deal.

The only reason I jump into this thread is when opinion tries to get sold as fact.

Btw, I was talking about the the Lyngdorf microphone. Somebody thinks that by pointing it at the speakers you only measure the speakers lol......

But let's not get personal. I only take issue with claims I believe are incorrect, and that after all is the the point of forums. Either you guys need to prove that

1) RP is the only RC designed for domestic spaces

2) RP is the only RC not to change the character of speakers

Or stop repeating it over and over again....or at least don't get annoyed when challenged on it
 
1) RP is the only RC designed for domestic spaces

2) RP is the only RC not to change the character of speakers

You quote me with quotes never made by me......and you know that!!!!

Let’s read your findings please on your personal comparison........does not matter whether or not you can articulate it properly.....you clearly have a voice.

As someone who owns a Lyngdorf product I would have thought you would know that the first measurement is pointed forward.......if that’s a stereo set up then it is not pointed at a speaker but to the front of the room.....and then the rest of the measurements are placed randomly around the room to gain knowledge of the room.......does make me wonder whether you have ever set your RP1 up properly.:(

Have a good day indus.
 
Last edited:
Will you be doing 5.1/7.1 or Dolby Atmos?

Atmos in a 5.x.4 setting. I realise that multi-channel processors and amps are mostly limited to 8 channels because of the space in the typical cabinets. For amps it is easily solved as some brands have different MCH amps, e.g. with 3, 5, and 7 channels, etc.

That is one of the reasons why I was (and still am) thinking about combining active and passive speakers. Actives as FL and FR and maybe C which reduces the power amp requirement to 6 or 7 channels. Hence an 8-ch power amp such as the upcoming MXA-8400 from Lyngdorf would be sufficient to drive everything.

Any experience, thought, comment are welcome!
 
Interesting approach - beast of an amp! tho if using sub par atmos and surround speakers tho. I would personally be looking to use something like that in a high end system.
 
Interesting approach - beast of an amp! tho if using sub par atmos and surround speakers tho. I would personally be looking to use something like that in a high end system.

Fully agree sir.

I looked at Steinway Lyngdorf until one of the UK retailers told me that I cannot buy only the speakers and mix it with Lyngdorf's MP-50 and MXA-8400.

The speaker brands most often mentioned are: 1) Lyngdorf's own BW-2/FR-1 combo, 2) Dali Rubicon and 3) M&K's 300 series. I understand that the UK retailers mention these as they have them in their portfolios.

Frankly, from the looks only I really like the BW-2/FR-1 combo and not so much the M&K. And I think my wife will agree; yes I try to keep an eye on the WAF ;-)

Assuming I would opt for a sub/sat combo and given that in-wall and in-ceiling are no option I can choose between on-wall or on a stand, what is your opinion on the M&K S300 vs the MP300?, did you try the MP300 in your room or went straightaway for the S300 for LCR?

You use IW-versions for atmos. What would you recommend to me: MP300 or S300T?
The latter will be used for the rear channels (SL and SR); the sides cannot be used, hence 5.x.4 and not 7.x.4.

Finally, why did you choose a different brand sub instead of M&K?
 
The speaker brands most often mentioned are: 1) Lyngdorf's own BW-2/FR-1 combo, 2) Dali Rubicon and 3) M&K's 300 series. I understand that the UK retailers mention these as they have them in their portfolios.

Uk retailers (good ones) have accounts with many brands - getting an MK or Dali account isn't the same as getting B&W, KEF or Monitor Audio for example.

Frankly, from the looks only I really like the BW-2/FR-1 combo and not so much the M&K. And I think my wife will agree; yes I try to keep an eye on the WAF ;-)

Understand, but my preference would be the MK over the Lyngdorf I don't think there's any competition there.

Assuming I would opt for a sub/sat combo and given that in-wall and in-ceiling are no option I can choose between on-wall or on a stand, what is your opinion on the M&K S300 vs the MP300?, did you try the MP300 in your room or went straightaway for the S300 for LCR?

For me to do in wall would have been a major pain in the balls as there's a chimney breast in the middle of the wall, so any stud wall would have been deep also the IW versions were not available at the time. In terms of which sounds better - the argument is that there is less reflections and perhaps a tiny bit more output - altho personally I've never heard in walls sound better than my on stands.

You use IW-versions for atmos. What would you recommend to me: MP300 or S300T?
The latter will be used for the rear channels (SL and SR); the sides cannot be used, hence 5.x.4 and not 7.x.4.

I'd use S300T for the rears, it'll widen it out a bit 150 series are fine for Atmos.


Finally, why did you choose a different brand sub instead of M&K?

Because they X12 didn't exsist when I got my sub and choice was very limited in the UK. Also got a cracking deal on the Paradigm.
 
Yes no need for a MiniDSP for this. If you can use HDMI with REW (as I do without any driver with my Mac) it is the simplest way.

Here is a simple method to time and phase align one sub with two bass managed front speakers (but of course there are many possible variants of this, but this is the one requiring the fewest number of measurements IMO):

1) Make sure you have measured the distance to the tweeters of both front speakers with a laser and set that distance in your processor (you could use timing ref for that too but I think it is not necessary as this will be more than accurate enough). Also set the distance to the sub to some approximate number, it will be changed shortly… Don't forget to press "Save" :)

2) Set the sub size and crossovers to about 2x the usual (so in my case 200Hz since my XO is usually 100Hz). That will very likely include the *fastest* impulse from most subs including the XO band. Don't forget to press "Save" :) Place the mike exactly in the MLP.

3) Turn off/mute/disconnect the right speaker, select "use timing reference" and use the LEFT channel (left speaker tweeter) as the timing reference. Play a sweep to the sub through the RIGHT channel from 30-200Hz (assuming the RIGHT channel is bass managed to that sub, if not select the LFE channel or whatever that will output a sweep in your sub).

4) Press "info" on the measurement you just did (but it is also visible in the measurement panel to the left of the screen). You will see numbers for the delay (in ms and distance + or -) based on the initial rise of the impulse of the sub. Add that negative or positive distance to your sub original distance measurement. The resulting distance will most likely be a bit "short", corresponding to the VERY first impulse from your sub, and perhaps at above the normal XO frequency. That is probably not the optimal distance (it is too short to blend well with the speakers at your usual XO). Confirm the distance by running (3) one more time: now the delay should be within a few cm (it is not 100% accurate, so do not expect 0cm). No point in getting stuck here. Go to (5).

5) Now we will try to optimize the blend/remove phase cancellations between sub and speakers: First set your usual XO and sub size (In my case sub size = 200Hz, XO= 100Hz, i.e., sub size = 2x the XO). We will run 3 measurements from 20-500Hz in BOTH speakers, the SUB, and with both speakers + sub, with the XO activated. That sweep will cover the whole XO region by at least a couple of octaves on both sides (assuming an XO for 80-120Hz). Don’t worry, your speakers and subs will be safe because of the XO.

6) Turn off (I have active speakers;-) both front speakers and run a sweep in the sub (e.g., through the BOTH hdmi channel) from 20-500Hz with the XO activated. Call that measurement SUB.

7) Turn on both front speakers and turn off the sub. Run a sweep from 20-500Hz through the "BOTH" channel (i.e. output in both speakers but not the sub). Call that measurement SPEAKERS.

8) Turn on both front speakers and turn on the sub. Run a sweep from 20-500Hz through the "BOTH" channel (i.e. output in both speakers including the sub). Call that measurement TOTAL

9) Plot those three graphs on “all SPL” or “overlay”. Probably, at some places within the XO band (at least one octave), there will be some cancellations between the sub and main. You can see that by comparing the amplitude response of TOTAL with SUB and SPEAKERS. The TOTAL should be no less than either SUB or SPEAKERS anywhere, and hopefully higher right on the XO frequency. If it is a several dB less at some places (it probably is), try to adjust the distance of the sub UP incrementally by 10cm increments. Repeat the TOTAL measurement (see 8) and call that new measurement TOTAL+10cm.

10) Repeat (9) for 10cm, 20cm, 30cm, 40cm, .. (Also you may want to try -10cm, -20cm- -30 cm but I doubt it will work)… You will soon see a trend where the cancellation gets smaller or larger and moves up or down in frequency. Choose the sub distance that results in the “highest overall SPL” ie. the smallest cancellation in the most critical XO region (say, from 60 – 120Hz). But I would put some more weight at reducing cancellations in the lower frequencies within the XO band to preserve as much headroom as you can. At this point you can, if you like, also look at the actual impulse graphs, phase of each speaker vs sub at different frequencies etc to help guide the tweaking. But that is “intermediate level”. This was “basic” level.

11) Done. Run RP and let it fix all the rest. Measure the result with REW. It should look good. And sound good J

Caveats: Of course, this is a very basic approach and I cannot guarantee that it will ALWAYS work, although in the simple case of one sub and two speakers it should in 8 out of 10 cases… With more complex setups e.g. stereo front subs and LFE subs, it is a lot more complicated, but still possible to just extrapolate from the above description. But with multiple subs you have to decide if you want to align the subs first, and then with the speakers etc. You can also decide to measure each pair of sub and speaker individually, instead of just “BOTH” as I have outlined here. Or even more “clever” stuff. Note also that sometimes I have seen that the initial rise of the impulse can be WAY off from the peak impulse, and that difference can vary between subs, and phase can vary a lot between subs. Then it is time to read and experiment... and the basic approach may not work. I cannot list all the options and I am still learning and trying to understand how to deal with that myself ;-)

cheers, Erik
Attached is first attempt Erik if you have time to comment! :)
Yes no need for a MiniDSP for this. If you can use HDMI with REW (as I do without any driver with my Mac) it is the simplest way.

Here is a simple method to time and phase align one sub with two bass managed front speakers (but of course there are many possible variants of this, but this is the one requiring the fewest number of measurements IMO):

1) Make sure you have measured the distance to the tweeters of both front speakers with a laser and set that distance in your processor (you could use timing ref for that too but I think it is not necessary as this will be more than accurate enough). Also set the distance to the sub to some approximate number, it will be changed shortly… Don't forget to press "Save" :)

2) Set the sub size and crossovers to about 2x the usual (so in my case 200Hz since my XO is usually 100Hz). That will very likely include the *fastest* impulse from most subs including the XO band. Don't forget to press "Save" :) Place the mike exactly in the MLP.

3) Turn off/mute/disconnect the right speaker, select "use timing reference" and use the LEFT channel (left speaker tweeter) as the timing reference. Play a sweep to the sub through the RIGHT channel from 30-200Hz (assuming the RIGHT channel is bass managed to that sub, if not select the LFE channel or whatever that will output a sweep in your sub).

4) Press "info" on the measurement you just did (but it is also visible in the measurement panel to the left of the screen). You will see numbers for the delay (in ms and distance + or -) based on the initial rise of the impulse of the sub. Add that negative or positive distance to your sub original distance measurement. The resulting distance will most likely be a bit "short", corresponding to the VERY first impulse from your sub, and perhaps at above the normal XO frequency. That is probably not the optimal distance (it is too short to blend well with the speakers at your usual XO). Confirm the distance by running (3) one more time: now the delay should be within a few cm (it is not 100% accurate, so do not expect 0cm). No point in getting stuck here. Go to (5).

5) Now we will try to optimize the blend/remove phase cancellations between sub and speakers: First set your usual XO and sub size (In my case sub size = 200Hz, XO= 100Hz, i.e., sub size = 2x the XO). We will run 3 measurements from 20-500Hz in BOTH speakers, the SUB, and with both speakers + sub, with the XO activated. That sweep will cover the whole XO region by at least a couple of octaves on both sides (assuming an XO for 80-120Hz). Don’t worry, your speakers and subs will be safe because of the XO.

6) Turn off (I have active speakers;-) both front speakers and run a sweep in the sub (e.g., through the BOTH hdmi channel) from 20-500Hz with the XO activated. Call that measurement SUB.

7) Turn on both front speakers and turn off the sub. Run a sweep from 20-500Hz through the "BOTH" channel (i.e. output in both speakers but not the sub). Call that measurement SPEAKERS.

8) Turn on both front speakers and turn on the sub. Run a sweep from 20-500Hz through the "BOTH" channel (i.e. output in both speakers including the sub). Call that measurement TOTAL

9) Plot those three graphs on “all SPL” or “overlay”. Probably, at some places within the XO band (at least one octave), there will be some cancellations between the sub and main. You can see that by comparing the amplitude response of TOTAL with SUB and SPEAKERS. The TOTAL should be no less than either SUB or SPEAKERS anywhere, and hopefully higher right on the XO frequency. If it is a several dB less at some places (it probably is), try to adjust the distance of the sub UP incrementally by 10cm increments. Repeat the TOTAL measurement (see 8) and call that new measurement TOTAL+10cm.

10) Repeat (9) for 10cm, 20cm, 30cm, 40cm, .. (Also you may want to try -10cm, -20cm- -30 cm but I doubt it will work)… You will soon see a trend where the cancellation gets smaller or larger and moves up or down in frequency. Choose the sub distance that results in the “highest overall SPL” ie. the smallest cancellation in the most critical XO region (say, from 60 – 120Hz). But I would put some more weight at reducing cancellations in the lower frequencies within the XO band to preserve as much headroom as you can. At this point you can, if you like, also look at the actual impulse graphs, phase of each speaker vs sub at different frequencies etc to help guide the tweaking. But that is “intermediate level”. This was “basic” level.

11) Done. Run RP and let it fix all the rest. Measure the result with REW. It should look good. And sound good J

Caveats: Of course, this is a very basic approach and I cannot guarantee that it will ALWAYS work, although in the simple case of one sub and two speakers it should in 8 out of 10 cases… With more complex setups e.g. stereo front subs and LFE subs, it is a lot more complicated, but still possible to just extrapolate from the above description. But with multiple subs you have to decide if you want to align the subs first, and then with the speakers etc. You can also decide to measure each pair of sub and speaker individually, instead of just “BOTH” as I have outlined here. Or even more “clever” stuff. Note also that sometimes I have seen that the initial rise of the impulse can be WAY off from the peak impulse, and that difference can vary between subs, and phase can vary a lot between subs. Then it is time to read and experiment... and the basic approach may not work. I cannot list all the options and I am still learning and trying to understand how to deal with that myself ;-)

cheers, Erik
Here is my first attempt Erik if you have any comments? :) You'll need to alter the .txt extensions to .mdat as .mdat files are not accepted as uploads.
 

Attachments

  • speakers.txt
    160.8 KB · Views: 47
  • sub_0ms.txt
    160.7 KB · Views: 36
  • Total.txt
    160.7 KB · Views: 42
Uk retailers (good ones) have accounts with many brands - getting an MK or Dali account isn't the same as getting B&W, KEF or Monitor Audio for example.



Understand, but my preference would be the MK over the Lyngdorf I don't think there's any competition there.



For me to do in wall would have been a major pain in the balls as there's a chimney breast in the middle of the wall, so any stud wall would have been deep also the IW versions were not available at the time. In terms of which sounds better - the argument is that there is less reflections and perhaps a tiny bit more output - altho personally I've never heard in walls sound better than my on stands.



I'd use S300T for the rears, it'll widen it out a bit 150 series are fine for Atmos.




Because they X12 didn't exsist when I got my sub and choice was very limited in the UK. Also got a cracking deal on the Paradigm.


Understood for the LA vs MK.

Perhaps I created some confusion ... I am trying to understand quality differences, if any, when comparing the S300 (stand version) with the MP300 (on-wall version), not the IW-version as that is out of the question in my case. I see in MK's brochure that the MP300 is not THX certified but doubt whether that has much influence on SQ.

S300T tripoles in the rear is understood.

As for the atmos channels, good to note that 150's would suffice. Same question remains: go for an on-wall version (MP150) or a tripole version (S150T)?

Understood for choice of sub. Why didn't you choose 4 subs?, is that only necessary when using Lyngdorf's high-bandwidth boundary subwoofers? I think I have seen people reporting setups with 4 of those "subs" to accommodate sats and in addition use a "real sub" as LFE channel ...

The more I try to understand the more confused I get. LOL.
 
Hey Marcel

Bonjour

The difference in quality between MK in room, in wall and on wall speakers is tiny.

They all use the same drive units and very similar sized enclosures and so unlike say a B&W floor stander and the in wall equivalent, the two are much, much closer.

Often a big problem in many home cinemas is that people place the speaker in less than ideal positions to fit around a screen for example. In this case you should definitely pick the one that you can position for the best imaging.

Assuming placement is not an issue, then go with the in-room speaker as its response below say 110Hz will be a bit smoother than the in room, but honestly most people would be really pushed to tell the difference.

In 95% of cinemas I see, people are trying to get the biggest screen in the room possible with the best sound. Let’s assume you have a room 7m long and you want a 3.8M wide screen that you will sit 4m from, this leaves 3.2m behind you if you use the in wall front speakers.

If you use the in-room speakers, you have to build the front wall out and then you will loose say .6m of the length of the room which is less than ideal.

In this scenario, the in-wall speaker will be much cheaper to install, will allow you to keep the room as big as possible and is much less likely to be compromised by the timber frame at the front of the room required to support the screen and fabric around it.

When you look at the complete solution, the in walls are a typically a no brainer.

This is a great example of why you have to look at the best overall solution rather than just buying all the best bits.

I find Tripoles are always better for side and rear use and if you can put them on ceiling, I love them too. To keep it simply installing a Tripole will give a similar effect to fitting three regular speakers.

Why don’t you come over for a play? When you see and hear lots of systems next to each other and see how they are installed, understanding the best complete solution for your room becomes very clear.

By the way if you want the best Atmos experience for example you really should aim for identical speakers all around you. This is another reason why satellite speakers make so much sense…….

R
 
Rob has answered the other questions as I would have so to your further questions.


I see in MK's brochure that the MP300 is not THX certified but doubt whether that has much influence on SQ.

The S300's are used in the listening room at THX headquarters they are very much THX certified.

The New 7.1 M&K Sound Home Theater Demo Room at THX - M&K Sound®

Understood for choice of sub. Why didn't you choose 4 subs?, is that only necessary when using Lyngdorf's high-bandwidth boundary subwoofers? I think I have seen people reporting setups with 4 of those "subs" to accommodate sats and in addition use a "real sub" as LFE channel ...

Because I couldn't afford them.. they're not exactly cheap, certainly not now at a eye watering £5,500.. or is it £7,000 for the persona sub (same thing)

I run my subs in stereo out of Aux1 and 2 on the MP50 - this deals with all the necessary. You can use 4 for an even better response, however I'm not dropping £14k on a slight upgrade.. that is for crazy people.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom