Tweaks you got rid of because they were not effective (enough)?


There are some audiophiles for whom cost is no object; they buy what they wish and every single tweak and gadget which promises to improve the sound. And the industry is all too happy to produce such tweaks -- often made of expensive materials with elaborate engineering explanations. Those who question the value of these tweaks are frequently accused of being "naysayers" who are either too ignorant or insensate to realize that "everything matters."

Of course, money spent one place cannot be spent elsewhere; expenditures on tweaks take the place of other more central factors affecting the sound. In some cases, those tweaks are worth it; you can hear the difference, and that $400 (or whatever) really could not have improved your speakers or sub or amp, etc.

So, the question here is simple: Which tweak have you tried which, after some experience and reflection, you realized was either *not* effective or not the most effective way to improve your system? 
8700e65e 845e 4b1b 91cc df27687f9454hilde45
These things did not work FOR ME:

  • Green pens for CDs.
  • Rings that went around the circumference of the CD.
  • Noise filter on the Ethernet line.
  • Fancy power cords.
  • Fancy interconnects.
  • Fancy USB cables (these days -- they helped back in 1990 or so).
  • Raising speaker cables off the floor with insulators.
  • A reclocker was effective with one equipment combination, but deleterious with another.
  • A friend put crystals on my power cords to show me what they could do (I’m not kidding!). They didn’t do anything I could hear.
  • Ferrite cores on speaker cables and power cords (though they might be helpful in a high-RF environment)
BEST tweak by far: soundproofing! Talk about "lowering the noise floor"!

Interesting list. And of course, all your experience, so no arguments from me.

What you say which I profoundly agree with is the need to treat my room. Not sure how, but if it is like nearly everyone else's room, it's got "issues."
Synergistic cables that have boxes that plug in the wall which just throw noise into the system.Luna cables phono ground caused a channel to go out after i took it out the channel  came back and put my original ground back everything was ok
Not that effective? Too many cones and footers to recall, let alone list.
Probably the most over-priced over-hyped is the Shakti Stone. 

With others, cost-effectiveness is everything. Ordinary laundry anti-static spray doesn't make a big difference, but doesn't cost hardly anything so is well worth it to me. Ditto painting CD (back when I listened to CD, yikes, that was long ago!)  

Tube dampers not only don't work, but actually made the sound worse.  




I bought only 2 ready made products(used) with a good reputation few years ago before i started my own set of experiments...Bybee one and Alan Maher.....They made a small difference...Enough to convince me about the importance of the electrical noise floor embeddings...

But this small benefit was for me expansive...

I explore for myself other solutions and with the months passing, i discover many unorthodox way to replicate some results of very costly products ( Bybee for example use some crystals)...

After 2 years i discover that there exist 3 embeddings dimensions and that no tweaks can solve all the three and even one by itself...

I then explore these 3 dimensions with a systematic listenings experiments course of my own discoveries...

NO tweaks can solve all embeddings problems, you must solve them one by one by listening and move a step at a time....

The good news is that i paid peanuts for all my created homemade devices and what i bought new was revised and modified and paid also peanuts...


People who speak about tweaks wait for a simple solution to a complex problem, easy to solve by listening experiments and cheap materials....but there is no simple ready made solution that will replace your EARS listening experiments...

The 3 embeddings are the mechanical resonance/vibrations problems, the electrical general noise floor, and the acoustical passive and active dimensions...

You must adress each one by listening first....Not buying....

Example: i bought springs boxes to put under the speakers on top of my own multi layered sandwiche isolation platform....They made at peanuts price a difference.... But after listening i discover the weakness of this spring isolation idea ( they dont affect the desctructive internal resonance).... I decide to finetune it and put a second set of springs boxes on top of the speakers and under a heavy load.... The difference of compression between the 2 sets of springs boxes, one under the speakers and the other one on top of the speakers and directly under the load made a great improvement, decreasing the internal speakers resonance....Then an apparent solution(springs) revealed itself unsufficient by listening experiments, and was revised and greatly improved by the listening experiments....

And trust me the mechanical embedding is as important as the other 2 embeddings, unbeknownst to most....

Ready made tweaks are never a solution by themselves, only a pointer to a true solution that you must create yourself for your particular system and house and ears.....The good news is it is useless to pay much money, all is easy to replicate or be inspired and create your own devices....

Dont upgrade, dont buy anything costly, think and embed everything one step at a time....

True hi-fi cost peanuts if you know how to listen attentively....

It is not so much the price paid that define a true audiophile system, it is first the way the system is embedded in the 3 dimensions.... There is NO comparison between the same system before and after the rightful embedding process...NONE....
Not knowing that, people unsatisfied, upgrade toward costly new hyped electronic component or costly "tweaks"....

:)
From exotic cables, to spikes, to fancy mains leads, to various cones, excessive contact cleaning /enhancements, various wall shelves, deep freezing CDs (yes, even that!) none of them were worth anything more than the initial thrill of trying and hoping.

Eventually the penny dropped.

To get a real improvement it was better and more cost effective in the long run, to just buy better equipment, eg cassette decks, turntables, Minidisc machines, and especially loudspeakers of course.

I’ve tried so many tweaks and they’ve all been more or less a useless waste of time and resources.

Except maybe 2.

Securing the removable stylus assembly to the cartridge body (MM) with a drop of superglue may have resulted in a drop in surface noise.

[ I’ve also heard of another tweak involving some form of isolation between cartridge and headshell (as mentioned by the Funk Firm), but have never tried it myself]

Like @mahgister (see above) I’ve also found that some form of isolation placed under loudspeakers (sorbothane, springs, or just pieces of thin rubber etc) usually helps to clean up the bass end and as a consequence, the midrange too.

Springs might be the best but are far too wobbly for my domestic arrangements, so I suffice with a few simple rubber pads which also seem to help.

Despite the lack of much factual evidence, there also seems to be growing acceptance in pro circles that something like speaker isolation pads can be of real benefit in mixing/ monitoring.

Athough some manufacturers will now offer the consumer the choice between using spikes or rubber feet, none as far as I know have commented upon the differences or which they think is better.
Once I got my Audioquest Niagara 1200, I had no more need for the Gutwire grounding wires that connect to an unused RCA and a AC outlet.

On one component, a hum was introduced so I had to remove it. On the other, there was no hum so I kept it in for awhile. It was when I removed it to see how sounded was when I heard how it hindered the overall sound.

All the best,
Nonoise
@cd318 Thanks for your candor on the things you've tried but decided weren't doing much. It's so easy to imagine one is hearing something "subtle" in response to a tweak, that it's nice to hear someone just come out and say, "nope, didn't hear a difference."

And by the way, anything that removes a problem -- like a hum -- or prevents a problem -- like a surge protector -- does not fall into the definition of "tweak" that I'm utilizing in this thread. They seem like necessary or obviously prudent things to do.
10+ @cd318. 

I once bought some contact improver oil stuff. Most of my silliness was in buying stupid equipment the apogee of which was a Transcriptors Vestigial tonearm. Then to make matters worse I stuck a Koetsu Rosewood in it. I learned fast about tonearm resonance. The Koetsu would fly out of the groove with every good kick drum beat. Tail between my legs I ran back to my trusty old SME 3009. I had a Transcriptors  Gyrodec. That chased me back to LP12 #2. Then there was the Wyn Strain Gauge Cartridge the worst tracking cartridge I ever owned. Even worse than the Koetsu in the Transcriptors arm! Back then I wqs getting everything at salesman's comp and would usually sell it off without much if any loss. We did not have all that tweaky junk back then and the marketing was not there to support it. Humans need time to perfect their lies. 
From exotic cables, to spikes, to fancy mains leads, to various cones, excessive contact cleaning /enhancements, various wall shelves, deep freezing CDs (yes, even that!) none of them were worth anything more than the initial thrill of trying and hoping.

Eventually the penny dropped.
My point is precisely that, "tweaks" are deceptive often because there is a world difference between a minor improvement with a costly product, and an incremental improvement one step at a time always in the same direction because of our listenings experiments about each embeddings dimension....

A tweak is NOT a method nor a methodical set of experiments.... It is a very partial solution on a deeper problem, i call the problem an embedding....

By the way even the springs boxes i bought were unsufficient by themselves....It was necessary for me to double the 4 boxes and put an heavy load to compress asymmetrically the sets on top and under the speakers....( something the sellers will not reveal if even he know it because this solution is impractical for most anyway). Then springs are good but not sufficient used like most want to use them directly under the speakers only...They improve the isolation yes but dont solve all the problems linked to the isolation and to the internal resonance by themselves out of the box....


No ready made tweak is more than a beacon on the road we must take by ourselves to improve the embedding (mechanical,electrical or acoustical)

I dont trust now any product more than my own ears and it is my ears that guide me to correct sometimes the product .....

I pay only peanuts and after 2 years my system is now relatively at my saisfaction and i can listen to any music with a perfect details imaging and natural timbre....My system (500 hundred bucks in all) is a "mini" top of the world audio system, thanks to an incremental sets of improvements each weeks for the last 2 years....

No tweak for me thanks i prefer to improve them my own way or replicate them or create some new one at no cost.... I succeed....

Then dont upgrade before embedding what you already own if it is some already good components...

:)
Spikes under speakers and components. Never heard a difference, good or bad.
@jtcf  Extra points for brevity!
agree w input already given

footers and spikes on electrical components (i do feel they matter under speakers and racks, ground to concrete subfloor)

tube dampers, esp. those retarded metal spring loaded thingy’s - ugh

shun mook mpingo wood thingy’s and shakti stone - what a load of bs

cd demagnetizers, glow paint, poly edge rings - all useless

lots of expensive wire...


@cd318 
To get a real improvement it was better and more cost effective in the long run, to just buy better equipment
Bingo! - Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!

Better Equipment.....everything else is just icing on the cake.

I have been underwhelmed with most tweaks (many already listed here) with a few exceptions, which are listed below in the (approximate) order of the tangible benefit I perceived:
  • Decoupling/springs and/or Herbie's products below components, and especially beneath speakers
  • Stable, heavy, acoustically inert platforms/bases
  • Damping the room
  • Mass loading components and speakers to reduce cabinet resonances
  • Optically decoupling Ethernet connection to DAC
Because tweaks are not always major improvement, or even improvement at all for some ears , and sometimes costly, some conclude :"snake oil"...

The human mind is sometimes too swift to make a conclusion...

And some other advise to upgrade....But most people had already good components and the truth is that they never listen to them at their potential maximum level ever in the first place.... Because they are badly embed in the system, in the room, and in the house, mechanically, electrically and acoustically....

My friends the truth is not so simplistic at all....

The alternative is not this simplistic motto :

"snake oil" purchase or upgrading....

Some sheep buy "snake oil" and other sheeps upgrade....But we are no more sheeps if we wanted to....

Be creative....And think about the way any components must be EMBED rightfully to gives his utmost S.Q.



Are you able to think?
:)




To borrow a phrase from Antoine de Saint-Exupery, "A system is perfect not when nothing else can be added but when nothing else can be taken away."

I have gotten my best results, and only recently, with simplicity.  A Roon pi-based streamer; i2s to a non-oversampling DAC; XLR Mogami to a Class A amp.  The basics.  The music comes out of the wire just like it went in.  The only way to improve it would be better musicians or a better recording engineer.
@mahgister With all due respect, if you say the word "Embed" one more time, I'm going to send a trickster genie to your house to switch the polarity on your speakers. We get it man, we get it. 
:)

Oups! i am not sure that the polarity of my speakers has been change today by the way.... It is you?

:)
Post removed 
tourette's is such a debilitating affliction

:)
I had trouble with hdmi cables for home theater >Oppo bdp105 >TV.  kept buying better and better cables to overcome hum and glitchy connectivity issues.
matter finally solved when I tried the standard cable supplied by the cable company.
I never noticed differences between spikes or no spikes, not that I invested heavily in them.

IsoAcoustics Gaia footers under Totem Arro loudspeakers.
I returned them and bought adjustable outriggers instead. I suspect some of the Gaia rave reviews result simply from raising the height of the speakers a bit. But YMMV.
Almost all tweaks are snake oil and make no difference plus or minus.
Two that really work are room treatment, when applied effectively.  Dedicated rectangular listening room is much better but don't go too far towards anechoic just because you can.  I dreamt of one thru 40 years and four homes and got to build 4 years ago.  Immediately obvious black silence behind the music.  Really big deal, but I know not everyone has the space and there are usually...'issues'.

And mass loading particularly under turntables but also phono amps, pre-amps, power supplies.  Cutting vibration is important to stylus in groove and electronic components.  My set-up stands on thick marble and stone racking, all standing on a 300kg marble slab locked to by pointed cones to the concrete ground slab in the basement.  Effectively infinite mass loading incorporating the mass of the Earth.
Depends on the definition of tweak. To me a lot of amplifiers, DACs and to a lesser extent exotic speakers are tweaks. Once the components are transparent to human hearing and you get a good in room FR at a comfortable SPL the rest is jewelry. 
@djones51 As I'm intending it for the purposes of conversation, a "tweak" is something supplemental to the system, something which is not necessary to make it work.

For example, a speaker cable is not a tweak. A fancy speaker cable is. Etc.

An external DAC -- I see how that could be a grey area, if there's already another one in the system. So, for example, when I added an external DAC and bypassed the cheap DAC in my cheap CD player, and it made a big difference (that I could hear), that's an example of a "tweak that works." 

I just purchased some good stands for my speakers. They are made of solid steel, very rugged and are replacing some cheap MDF stands my wife picked up at a Good Will for $10. Does this tweak make a difference? Well, visually, they're much more attractive, so in that sense, "yes." Do they make a sonic difference? I have to spend time listening back and forth to decide. 
For example, a speaker cable is not a tweak. A fancy speaker cable is. Etc.

A DAC is not a tweak in a digital system. A fancy DAC is. Same with amps, streamers etc.. that’s what I meant when I said once it’s beyond audible it’s jewelry.  There's nothing wrong with jewelry or tweaks. I thought we were just voicing opinions. 

So this is not a thread about tweaks, but a thread about perceived value.

It's only a tweak if it costs more than the person opining wants to spend. Interesting thought.

So to me, maybe nothing in my system is a tweak, but to someone else everything in my system (turntable, DAC, even speakers) could be a tweak.
I probably got things off topic. What I consider jewelry would be different than tweaks. I've tried a lot of the mentioned tweaks never heard any quantifiable improvement. I've also tried what I call jewelry same deal never really heard any improvement once my biases were removed from the equation. 
$50 or so after market power cords
Not only we dont have a definition of what a "tweak" is, but it seems that we dont even have a clue about a simple fact:

how can anyone could be able to perceive some change and qualify it positive or negative change, with an audio system that is not mechanically controlled for resonance/vibrations, that is located in a house where the noise floor is high like most houses, and where the acoustic controls of the room is inexistant?

I will not even speak about regular uneducated ears who accept to live with such an audio system , i dont have any other word: a badly E.... system.....People then succumbs to temptation of a costly upgrade for solution to their deficient E....Or they buy a ready made costly "tweaks", nevermind the word definition....

I cannot use the word E....in this thread, the reader must read my past posts to guess it....

:)

A philosophical simple point: when we dont have an adequate CONCEPT for a reality or for a phenomenon, we cannot adequately PERCEIVE it...

This is epistemology for children.....

:)

A "tweak" is a ready made identical solution product for all audio system, room, and house ....

A control device for one of the 3 E... is a specific  partial solution inscribed in a set of step by step  listening experiments ....

Calling my devices homemade controls "tweaks" is simply  confuse an object with a concept and a method....

Is it not clear?


@djones51 -- Sure, just voicing opinions -- or rather, "facts," namely, facts about what did or didn’t make a difference for you, in your system, with your preferences, etc. The more clearly we describe the experiments we conducted, the more others can try them to see what they think.

@mahgister. Surely, from what is above, the term "tweak" has been adequately delimited. But, since you’re not clear yet:
  • Some things are necessary to make the system even work (make sounds!). They’re more than tweaks.
  • Some things are intended to improve the main function of the system, how it sounds.
  • Some things are intended to make a system look more attractive. I like djones’ term "jewelry" for that. ( Where "jewelry" indicates an aesthetic factor which does not bear on the sound but rather the overall experience of the system, which includes visual appeal. Nothing wrong with "jewelry" (visual improvement) unless it’s pretending to be a "tweak" (sonic improvement).
Finally, your epistemological point is, what? That unless people have an "adequate concept" for a phenomenon they cannot "perceive" it? I’m sorry, but that kind of intellectualism puts down the experience that so many careful listeners on this forum clearly have. They may have different ways of expressing their experience, and they may still be finding the words in which to express it, but the notion that if they don’t have a "concept" first they can’t perceive it? I cannot accept that.
Inert dead oak speaker stands. May have deadened vibration but also deadened sound.
If you dont have the concept of "electricity" how can you explain and perceive adequately the spontaneous dead frog legs movement?

It this intellectualism?

If so i apologize and will let the thread rest.... :)

Audio is not only and mainly about "tastes" there exist some simple facts and concepts...."tweaks" are not a matter of taste.... And the demarcation between what makes a system work and what improve it is NOT a clear line....

My E... concept adress elementarily what it is necessary to do for an audio system to work adequately at his utmost potential...

mahgister3,548 posts10-15-2020 6:21amNot only we dont have a definition of a what a "tweak" is, but it seems that we dont even have a clue about a simple fact:


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The facts are mahgister, YOUR ideas are based on a "philosophy, or ideology", that YOU have developed over the last two years or so.

I think with ALL the information you have provided, I have yet to read a single thing you’ve actually done, beginning to end, and how and what materials you used to do it.. I really don’t LIKE your embedding ideas, because you won’t explain it. Plane and simple as that.

You sir are learning... I admire your tenacity, but "Audiofiling" has no "isums" in it... You have WAY to much "ICING" and not near enough "CAKE"

I suggest before you go spouting how your 500.00 system is what it is because of "embeddings", your own private way of describing things that have been described for over 100 years by others, in other TERMS.

YOU learn what a "TWEAK" is, not me, or most of the others...

"A Tweak" is ANYTHING other than equipment or cabling.
It can also be a "WAY" of doing things. BTW a room is optional, where you place your equipment, is ALL "Tweak"

I say you have a NICE 500.00 dollar system..

When it all boils down to the last word.. BETTER EQUIPMENT,
AND "How it’s used" is the only answer to better Sound Quality.

"Tweaks" are icing on the cake, NOT "Embeddings’, what ever that is..

Respectfully, I really don’t need a philosophy lesson, from a "2 year old audiophiler", with a whole new way of doing things... It’s called "Tweaks"

If your nice, I’ll send you another 500.00 worth of equipment.. You keep saying how you have no money. I’ll pitch in.. What do ya need? I’ll pay the postage too.. What do you want?

Kinda like Bruce Lee's book, that no one could understand, BUT HIM...

Regards...
I made a thread about my simple homemade experiments... It is easy to find.... :)

Thanks for your offer for another system free of charge....

I think it is simple to understand that any part of an audio system vibrate and produce internal resonance... Any component at any price...

It is also simple to verify that ANY electrical grid in any house create a too high level of noise...

It is simple also to verify the impactful change that any materials can produce in a room acoustically...

Calling them " embeddings"  is a simple way to resume the 3 dimensions in a single concept or word...

My best regards to you.....I will stay silent for the rest of this thread....I hate to annoy people....


I can't describe hard-core pornography to you, but I know it when I see it...

Justice Potter Stewart

Regards,
barts

Took me a while to catch onto mahgister, but once I did my understanding of what he calls "embeddings" is correct and proven by being exactly what I have been doing because it works, for going on 3 decades now.

The things we’re talking about, we really only understand them well at a very simplistic level. No one really has hardly any idea why one thing makes the sound deep and wide and real while another is flat and lifeless. Anyone can hear the difference, its predictably explaining why and how to do it where we get hung up.

I have compared our current understanding of electricity to something like the way a cave man knows fire: fire hot. Fire burn. Fire cook food. Fire hot.

We know enough about electricity to put insulation around stuff to keep it from shorting out. That’s about what we know. Why do certain insulators sound better than others? We have some ideas. No one really knows.

What is really going on with all this constantly changing electric field, anyway? No one has a clue. If they did then it would be easy to see why painting some paste on the outside of a wire makes the sound so much better. Sorry, be nice to tell you all what I’m talking about, but the Hateful18 et al make that impossible. Just know there’s good reasons why people who have heard my system are so impressed. Its not the components. Its the tweaks. Like paint and paste on wires.

That’s just one aspect of "embeddings", electricity, electric fields, whatever you want to call it. Its for real, and anyone can test and demonstrate this reality with something as simple as suspending speaker cables above the floor with paper cups or rubber bands. That absolutely zero of the people who will argue this point will bother to try this simple experiment tells you everything you need to know about them.

Another "embedding" is acoustics. If someone said GIK everyone would race to see who could prostrate themselves and brag how great it is the fastest. But mahgister says "embeddings" and uses bottles and stuff and everyone rolls their eyes. This again tells us more about them than mahgister.

The third "embedding" is vibration. Everything vibrates. Everything. Run a signal through a wire, just a plain old wire, the wire vibrates. Has to. Because the signal is electric, it produces a magnetic field, it must therefore interact with all the rest of the world. All of which is covered in electrons. Your skin holds together because of electron shell bonds. Speakers and air move in waves because of electrons.

Its kind of arbitrary whether we call one of these acoustic and the other vibration, or the other way around, or lump them together. The point is the only way to know is to try, and that means listening and evaluating.

Mahgister seems to have done an awful lot of listening and evaluating. He’s actually tried a lot of this stuff others totally dismiss. I wouldn’t be too quick to disregard what he’s saying just because the language or concepts are unfamiliar and hard to follow.
Can't think of any.   

Some required further tweaking to get right, like IC changes, 

I don't tweak unless needed.  But when I do....... 
Describing the potential problems or issues that require tweaking is not so hard. Nor is coming up with generic terms for it.

What often is hard though is not only recommending specific tweaks because "they work" but explaining how they work and why so someone who cares might reasonably assess how well a specific solution may or may not work for them.

The devil is always in the details, including the how and why, even with "tweaks".

I’m not one to spend time and money on something unexplained just because some guy on the internet says it works and "sounds better", but that’s just me.
This is and will continue to be a great thread if people stick to tweaks they’ve actually had in their own system and then removed again, because of no or even deleterious effects.

I tried those clamp-on carbon ferrite filters/blocks and could hear no difference whatsoever.


For going on 30 years my reference standard for cones and footers was Black Diamond Racing. Still love the Shelf and Round Things, but almost all the Cones have been removed for Nobsound springs. 

The springs do require some adjustment. The sound varies a lot depending on the number of springs for the weight of the component. This is a drawback if you want something simple, but a big plus if you want to be able to tune the sort of sound you want.  

So BDR Cones out, Nobsound springs in.
@millerc and @twoleftears - thanks. I was really trying to avoid a much wider and contentious conversation by asking the question so narrowly,  and I appreciate the straightforwardness of those last two answers.
@mahgister,

Are you able to think?
:)


Good question, but a little naughty from someone with such a philosophical bent as yourself.


@oldhvymec,

Kinda like Bruce Lee’s book, that no one could understand, BUT HIM...


Isn’t that just one man’s journey into the unknown leaving behind a metaphysical mindmap for the benefit of not only those that may wish to follow but the author himself?

Of course, as usual, it’s a case of one person’s experiences and memories translated into words and then translated back again by another...

Things sometimes can and do get lost in translation just as often as at other times things may be found.


As for that question of whether a $500 system that’s been well set up and placed in a sympathetic room can sound as good as a $50,000 one that’s not - I think we all know the answer to that.

At least those of us who have been to as many shows as I have. Things may have improved lately with setup but cramped hotel rooms are usually not the best place to demo new products.

Hi-Fi equipment selection, setup and room interface matters - a lot.
My first reaction to, "embedment"  wasn't exactly positive.     Since; I've adjusted my thinking.      Some simply communicate their thoughts differently.      As many of us understand (sometimes, from decades of experience); what are being termed such, are prerequisites for any good music venue's viability.      In a properly, "embedded" home environment; the better the associated gear, the more obvious and efficacious any tweaks should become.     That's- IF, from the start, they are worth their weight in salt and compatible.    I'm referring to performance, since aural acuity varies greatly.     KUDOS, to those that experiment, regardless of result.      Also: Some seem to miss the fact, that improvements in sound are (or- should be) cumulative.       The only limit is one's own satisfaction (far as I can tell, anyway).     
cd318, surely you jest. I've heard some amazing looking systems at Hi Fi shows. 
Isn’t that just one man’s journey into the unknown leaving behind a metaphysical mindmap for the benefit of not only those that may wish to follow but the author himself?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

I don’t know what it was, to tell the truth. I read that book to the point of totally "NOT understanding it". Come to find out no one else could either..

In the audio world, terms get thrown around like they mean something..
They may to some folks.

Vibration, Harmonics, SOUND. IS 101 in a good mechanics learning.
Mechanics learn that FEELING, Hearing and knowing about sound, is WHY thing stay together, or FLY apart..

Feeling = 60 hz and below
Hearing = from 27.5 hz -19+ KHz
Knowing = sound above 21Khz

This is the reason for my position, most "Tweaks" work for the person doing it. Usually not me. WHY? Because I was the guy that had to go back to the tweak, and fix the real problem, AND pull the tweak out to get back to square one... REALLY..

Example: Two guys buy amps. One buys my cheap Class D. the other buy a top of the line Pass. Nothing left out... My amp requires everything under the sun to make it sound GOOD, PC, internal wire upgrade, fuse swap, Buffer board upgrades, EVEN complete Power Supply swaps. Still that Pass with a cheap PS cable, and some cheap zip cord, and cheap RCAs or even CHEAPER XLRs with good speakers and an OK source, will sound MUCH better.. NO TWEAKS..

Most don’t work because they don’t work.. I’ve found that routing cables, letting things settle, VERY minor speaker movements, and PUTTY pinching, are all the tweaks I usually need.. MOST of the other stuff, enjoy it... it’s fun, at least mahgister and millercarbon aren’t spending a fortune on it..

I know my rooms, I know my equipment.. I know my equipment will work in your rooms. WHY? the way the equipment is set up.. We start at the top and work down, not at the bottom and work our way up.. That was done a long time ago.. In my teens 15-16.. I’m 65 now.. NOT $$$ wise, but what I (ME) work with.. I like Mac.. I like VMPS, I like mine... SO I learned MY stuff... Don’t we all.

Back to the Shop, and Time to feed the chickens... I wish you guys could see the new planars from GSR. WOW... olay, amego...BOOM BOOM just around the corner..

I think I’m gonna name them "kenjit" Mini’s and Maxis. :-) Let you guys run with that...
What can I say he inspires me.. Mercy. lord love a duck...

Regards..
Just a remark about my 500 hundred audio system...

I never pretend that it will sound on par with a 50,000 dollars one...

I say that a 500 hundred dollars one rightly embed may sound so great that you will forget about the urge to buy a better one...Music in 3-d is music in 3-d with + or - details....

I also said give me the 50,000 dollars one and i will do the same creative embedding process with it.... Any system need to be in the conditions for his optimal working S.Q. And these conditions are not only sound electronical design to begin with, but necessary embeddings minimal controls installation...

Any system at any price must be put in a controlled mechanical dimension, in a controlled electrical field, and in a controlled acoustical environment... This is what i call an embedding... Tweaks are not an incremental listening set of experiments with appropriate creative adapted and suitable homemade devices... They are ready made costly products sold for profit and generically conceived for all....My embeddings devices are modified idea coming from others or my own ideas adapted for my specific need.... Branded costly products are not for me.... I succeeded my way....

And there is no placebo effect in an incremental process of improvement distributed in 2 years of listenings experiments... With a singular tweak in one listening trying a placebo effect is possible yes....


All my post are posts i would have love to read 7 years ago when Hi-Fi experience was for me inaccessible and costly... I want to give hope enthusiasm and impulse towars creativity to the beginners.... The supposed fact that hi-fi experience is very costly is false and it is a myth.... Any rightly embed system may be Hi-Fi experience at peanuts costs... That is not saying that there is no difference between cheap electronic components or design and great one.... I am nut perhaps but not stupid....

:)
From most of this discussion I gather that for many here a tweak is something other than source, control, amplification, speakers, and connecting wires. A second component of this discussion relates to ability to hear a difference which becomes the crux of retaining or eliminating the change item. I wear two very expensive hearing aids that almost completely correct my high frequency loss (too many Dead, Primus, etc concerts). Do they count as a tweak or as necessary equipment? I see (hear!) them as necessary. My VPI Scout rests on a Cloud 10 platform. I can hear the difference with the aids, I cannot without them. I have spent no money on special fuses, solutions, silver paste, wall attachments, wiggly wooden rods, dots, marking pens, etc, etc, etc, deciding instead to spend it on vinyl. I'm happy with my choices which seems to be a major point of this hobby for me. I hope that the "tweaks" that others hear as improvement make them as happy as I.
I worked with a guy that had 50 years of experience, everyone was different, every year. I worked with another guy that had 50 one (1) year experiences, all the same.. Who left, who stayed? A hint, everything is in order.. :-)


spencem
6 posts


That was an interesting post.. that is a "tweak’’ that works for you but probably not for me... I like the approach though, you actually repaired the problem with a proper fix, NOW keep what you have left. Take care of those puppies.. I’m OVERLY blessed, hyper sensitivity, my whole life.. ear plug for 50 years...ALL the time..


Regards