What Matters and What is Nonsense


I’ve been an audiophile for approximately 50 years. In my college days, I used to hang around the factory of a very well regarded speaker manufacturer where I learned a lot from the owners. When I started with audio it was a technical hobby. You were expected to know something about electronics and acoustics. Listening was important, but understanding why something sounded good or not so good was just as important. No one in 1968 would have known what you were talking about if you said you had tweaked your system and it sounded so much better. But if you talked about constant power output with frequency, or pleasing second-order harmonic distortion versus jarring odd-order harmonics in amplification, you were part of the tribe.

Starting in the 1980s, a lot of pseudo scientific nonsense started appearing. Power cords were important. One meter interconnects made a big difference. Using a green magic marker on the edge of a CD was amazing. Putting isolation dampers under a CD transport lifted the veil on the music. Ugh. This stuff still make my eyes roll, even after all these years.

So I have decided to impart years and years of hard won knowledge to today’s hobbists who might be interested in reality. This is my list of the steps in the audio reproduction chain, and the relative importance of each step. My ranking of relative importance includes a big dose of cost/benefit ratio. At this point in the evolution of audio, I am assuming digital recording and reproduction.

Item / Importance to the sound on a scale of 1-10 / Cost benefit ratio

  • The room the recording was made in / 8 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The microphones and setup used in the recording / 8 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The equalization and mixing of the recording / 10 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The technology used for the recording (analog, digital, sample rate, etc.) / 5 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The format of the consumer recording (vinyl, CD, DSD, etc.) 44.1 - 16 really is good enough / 3 / moderate CB ratio
  • The playback device i.e. cartridge or DAC / 5 / can be a horribe CB ratio - do this almost last
  • The electronics - preamp and amp / 4 / the amount of money wasted on $5,000 preamps and amps is amazing.
  • Low leve interconnects / 2 / save your money, folks
  • Speaker cables / 3 / another place to save your money
  • Speakers / 10 / very very high cost to benefit ratio. Spend your money here.
  • Listening room / 9 / an excellent place to put your money. DSPs have revolutionized audio reproduction
In summary, buy the best speakers you can afford, and invest in something like Dirac Live or learn how to use REW and buy a MiniDSP HD to implement the filters. Almost everything else is a gross waste of money.
128x128phomchick

amg56
I actually disagree that the introduction of a component that "structurally" changed the system you have is a "tweak". The Urban Dictionary defines tweaks "Tweak- to touch something up, fiddle with the finishing touches or make tiny little changes".

Additions of cables or regenerators or major room adjustments are not tweaks. These are major changes to the essence of the "HiFi" setup you have.

Moving a speaker a degree toe in, or a small adjustment to the stylus etc are to me tweaks. To me, major physical changes aren’t tweaks.

>>>>Not sure I go along with your detective work. Since when is The Urban Dictionary a reliable reference source for technical or audiophile jargon? The boundary line line between “major changes” and “tweaks” in this hobby has become rather blurred, you know, what with tiny little bowls, artificial atoms, fancy fuses, power cords that are controlled for directionality, vibration isolation, cryogenics, Graphene infused contact enhancers, and so on. When it comes to INFLUENCING THE SOUND it’s often unpredictable what sort of change to the system will produce the largest degree of change. A major component or physical change or some innocuous looking tweak. One should probably strive to keep an open mind these days.
I find that tuning my room with Cathedral Panel help to have a better focus sound.
Here is an interesting 10 year old article on active room correction:

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/108tech/index.html

This is the kind of technology that can make a big difference in an audio system. I know that Meyer Sound is doing this for commercial spaces. Does anyone know of a firm working on similar technolgy for the home? If it isn’t out there yet, it eventually will be.

(Dirac and similar systems employ static correction filters using the main audio system. I’m talking about a separate active room tailoring system using microphones, DSP and speakers).

@geoffkait I have no problem with your statement. However Tweaks are still referred to as small changes.

However I absolutely agree that an unpredictable change may produce a large influence in the way we appreciate the sound (in this forum's case) of audio/music. That in essence is what tweaks in this forum are about. And it is my hope that readers and writers in this forum will share them with explanation.

I am not sure what your are referring to regarding as an "artificial atom"?

Graphene is a new phenomena that pushes the boundaries of known physics. A 2D slice acting as a 3D wave in perpetual motion. Along with advances with cancer detection and treatments, knowledge of the universe via Hubble and it's successor (the name of which escapes me for the moment).

It makes my world seem humble, but I love learning.

Excellent thread, I am of a similar vintage putting my hifi together during uni in the early 70's. There are two things other than speaker upgrades that have startled me in my long Hifi career, 1. With no other change in any components including cartridge, going from a Rega Planar 3 to a Linn Sondek was a stunning upgrade 2. mounting my CD player on a rigid tower was less stunning but still very noticeable.