Tweaks - An Honest Discussion

I've tried a fair few tweaks, I include the free stuff like speaker positioning in there too and I'm also in the camp that everything matters to some degree. How much difference is going to be tweak and system dependant.

Some tweaks can deliver huge benefits for relatively low cost and some are punching about their weight, there are others which deliver much less bang for the buck.

The value proposition is always a personal one. 

Equipment manufacturers always offer a range of gear , they manufacture to a price and they want to have a clearly audible difference between their entry level, thier 2nd tier and subsequent tiers (if they go that far).

In my opinion some tweaks can close the gap in equipment tiers and in some cases eliminate that gap totally.

If your total system budget is tight there are still loads of low cost/free tweaks you can do that will deliver bang for your buck. See Mahgister's system.

If your happy spending many 10s of thousands of dollars for you system then many more of those tweaks become cost effective, but for some folks they will never be happy until have the top tier equipment in their system (and in many cases that means they are paying a premium in my opinion).

Personally I really enjoyed fine tuning my system with tweaks. My system is low resolution source material but it sounds incredible (3D soundstage, PRaT, microdynamics, accurate tonality)

For reference my total system cost is about £10500 ($13000).

Cabling, fuses, clean power, and resonance control £3500.

Speakers £2000.

Amplifier and source (mine is 1 box streaming amp and it takes care of my room to boot with dsp) £4250

Source Apple TV 4th gen £160

Etherregen (audiophile network switch) £660

Enjoy the music everyone.

+ebanksms
Ear/brain systems differ and while technical measurements may be identical, experiences often are not. I’ll try to contribute a little to what millercarbon is saying. Imagine a system that has three removable or tweakable components that add similar noise and/or distortion to an underlying ‘true’ audio signal. Remove component #1 and listen. Hear no difference? Not surprising because the effect is masked by the additional garbage introduced by components #2 and #3. The overall signal/noise ratio hasn’t changed. Add #1 back in and remove #2 – same result. Now change all three components together and wow! All the garbage is gone because the overall signal/noise ratio has increased.


In my case it was going from no chassis damping, a good but inexpensive Sch**t DAC, Amazon RCA cables, and a garden variety Furman power conditioner. Added a steel and Sorbothane platform and cones – no change. Removed the cones and switched to a Berkeley Alpha DAC, definitely some change but for a high cost (plus it’s really a component, not a tweak). Changed back to the Sch**t and switched out the RCA for a balanced Synergistic Research active-shielding cable, no change. Went back to the Amazon RCA cable and switched the Furman out for a popular AC regenerator, no change. Very disappointing; nothing worked.


But then I decided to put in all of the new stuff and live with it for a while before selling it all as useless. I was puttering around a day or so later looking for a new novel to read and I had some background music on. Suddenly the music reached out and gripped me! It was [insert glowing audio jargon here] shockingly different and so much better, visceral. Every component mattered; no single change made the difference.


Aside: My example above is also an illustration of why I believe that as we get closer to the bleeding edge of system performance improvements, A/B testing becomes increasingly less reliable and essentially meaningless because of masking effects. The stimulus response function is just too weak. Double-blind testing with a small sample size of untrained subjects and a weak stimulus response function is the quickest way I know of to produce a false negative. But that discussion belongs in a different thread.

@discopants

My system is low resolution source material but it sounds incredible (3D soundstage, PRaT, microdynamics, accurate tonality)

Accurate tonality & dynamics from low res source matl -- that is exceptional performance indeed!


Back to tweaks: how about a 200euro ($230) one that yields multiples? DIY sound absorption panels to bring the low frequencies back into the sonic picture?

Everything must be tweaked. You know, if you’re interested in high performance. If you’re not interested in high performance that’s OK too. There is room for all kinds in this hobby. 🤗

“When Bob Gilliland made the first flight of the SR-71 on December 22, 1964, engineers were still tweaking 379 items on the aircraft. That didn’t deter Gilliland, who took the airplane to 50,000 feet and Mach 1.5. At a 2010 talk in Ridgecrest, California, Gilliland recounted that he ignored the one error message he saw in the cockpit that day: “Canopy Unsafe.””

https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/blackbird-diaries-180953373/

I would argue that the valid approach is: build your "perfect" system and THEN optimise it by any number of tweaks. The snake oils are not meant to replace a component upgrade but to complement a keeper. If one still contemplates a component upgrade, the tweaks, since most of them are system dependant, are money / time wasted.  

But once everything is in place and the big job is done, I see no harm in trying lifting cables, controlling vibration, trialing different cables and any other number of "tweaks".

I am in such a place. I could afford to go further but I can only have so much in a small room. A decent integrated, a decent DAC, a decent pair of bookshelf speakers. It's not the "ultimate" system but one I am happy to live with and I have no need / desire to upgrade any of the components in the near future.

I am now playing with Stillpoint racks, power cables, network switches and other snake oils not to "upgrade" or "improve" my sound but to OPTIMISE my system, to allow it to perform at its best, unhindered by a number of known issues.

And yes, all of the above make a difference. Good, bad, worthy or not worthy of your money - only one way to find out. Most of these things can be trialled and dealers are more than accommodating, particularly now.

In my book, since this IS my system, anything that makes a positive difference is a keeper and money well spent. And "positive" can be a very subtle thing. People argue about speaker cabinet resonance but the more educated ears can actually hear the rack resonance and, while dealing with that can costs ridiculous amounts of money and the difference is not night and day, I would argue that removing that subtle distortion, wherever it strikes, bass, midrange, treble - depending on shelf material / build, is worth my money, even if it costs as much as my amp.

And that is the point of tweaks. Your system performance is negatively affected by a number of issues - physics, your room, your mains etc. The added benefits of dealing with vibration, bad power, EMI etc can be a cleaner, clearer, undistorted sound, better tonal balance, a lower noise floor, a sound that flows better, more like the real deal and less like a stereo system and which can be enjoyed equally at any volume. Not extra power, not hearing more. Not transforming a NAD into a DD or a Benchmark into a dCS. 

Some of the better (read expensive) components deal with these issues directly because high end manufacturers have the budget for better, heftier cases, better isolation, better power supplies (those amps you can't lift with massive transformers / capacitors etc) so I would say that in fact many of these tweaks benefit cheaper components more.