Tweaks : A sensible investment or a waste of money?
- Thread starter Barry2013
- Start date
Since every piece of electronics on the planet deviates from this definition I think it is therefore a LITTLE bit too broad.
Additionally, everything that is not directly in the signal path would not then be considered at tweak simply because it is not technically active and therefore cannot even discussed in the framework of "wire with gain".
I would put forward a definition of a tweak as follows:
It is not essential to the function of the system. This means in principle cables and various electronics, sources, speakers etc. are not tweaks. Non-essential items that make a MEASURABLE difference on the system, such as room acoustic tuning, equalizers etc. are also not tweaks. Based on this definition, upgrading cables and electronics in a system are not considered tweaks as these are essential items that are being improved. The change in cables is probably the most controversial here and I would say that there are likely measurable differences in cable performance even though it might be slight. A good power cable can audibly lower the noise floor and I wouldn't be surprised to see a measurement that could support this if the equipment is sensitive enough...anyone done this?
This means that most filtering (here is where power cables and power regeneration fall into a bit of a gray area), quantum this or that, brain wave harmonizers (made that up...kind of), vibration control, platforms, cable risers etc. fall under tweaks. They may very well work and they may very well even have a good physical explanation (or not) but they are not essential to the function of a system. The effect from a tweak can be large or small that is not relevant to it being a tweak or not. The main point is that it is added to an already functioning system to "enhance" that systems performance due to largely unmeasurable small changes in that system. Since psychoacoutic response is likely quite non-linear it is usually unknown in advance what the impact will be from a tweak.
It is not essential to the function of the system. This means in principle cables and various electronics, sources, speakers etc. are not tweaks. Non-essential items that make a MEASURABLE difference on the system, such as room acoustic tuning, equalizers etc. are also not tweaks. Based on this definition, upgrading cables and electronics in a system are not considered tweaks as these are essential items that are being improved. The change in cables is probably the most controversial here and I would say that there are likely measurable differences in cable performance even though it might be slight. A good power cable can audibly lower the noise floor and I wouldn't be surprised to see a measurement that could support this if the equipment is sensitive enough...anyone done this?
This means that most filtering (here is where power cables and power regeneration fall into a bit of a gray area), quantum this or that, brain wave harmonizers (made that up...kind of), vibration control, platforms, cable risers etc. fall under tweaks. They may very well work and they may very well even have a good physical explanation (or not) but they are not essential to the function of a system. The effect from a tweak can be large or small that is not relevant to it being a tweak or not. The main point is that it is added to an already functioning system to "enhance" that systems performance due to largely unmeasurable small changes in that system. Since psychoacoutic response is likely quite non-linear it is usually unknown in advance what the impact will be from a tweak.
Dave, that is certainly true. A power cord is easier to switch out. And everything we do can potentially change the sound of our systems. The point that I am trying to make is that electronics usually come with power cords. They also come with footers. I would argue that footers and power cords are tweaks, because we can choose to alter the sound of the component we have bought by changing parts of that component that were supplied with it when we bought it. Tubes are similar.
Somehow, speakers, electronics, sources, and signal cables seem different to me. They comprise the fundamental components of an audio system and are all required for the system to function. The system will function without the need to buy aftermarket power cords and footers.
Hi Peter,
All of my components have factory installed grounding terminals, I bought the grounding cables and added them. Is this a tweak? The sound did change but is it different than adding dedicated lines or furutech outlets?
Dave
I would say "yes". It's a tweak, or a modification from what the factory supplied. In some cases it could be a factory option/upgrade. It doesn't really matter what you call it, IMO. What matters is that you prefer the change. That seems like good news and cause for joy.
We could also start to discuss routine maintenance like replacing tubes, turntable belts, contact cleaners, etc. At some point, we get lost in semantics and definitions.
I think this endless debate about what is defined as a tweak is a bit of a waste of bandwidth. The point is that you need a foundation and a foundation includes all sorts of things including room treatments. Sure room treatments are important but so is isolation, grounding, power conditioning, etc.
I beg to differ. Then again, I put zero value and dollars into room acoustic treatments as I consider room treatments as little more than a perceived value to some and really not much more than a band-aid. GASP!!!
For example. Some room treatments are intended solely to control/manage the bass regions in a given room. Now I'm fairly confident that for perhaps every reasonable room/speaker combination there is an optimal location for speaker placement even if it's never discovered. And if per chance you've ever encountered a full range speaker's bass where perhaps it took weeks, months, or even years to find THE optimal speaker placement position, you should instantly conclude that there is little or no need for any room treatments at least for the bass regions. That alone eliminates the need for certain room treatements.
Another example. If (and it is so) that poorly managed electrical and mechanical energies grossly impact all / nearly all aspects of the entire playback system, that induces a much-raised noise floor such that a good percentage of the music info (though read and processed) is corrupted to the point where it remains inaudible at the speaker.
Most of us have heard about the "me too hi-fi" sound that's all too common in high-end audio. For argument's sake, let's say of the average playback system and due to universal distortions only 50% of the music info embedded in a given recording, though read and processed, remains audible at the speaker and of that 50% that does remain audible also contains some audible distortions. If you knew you were only hearing maybe 50% of the music info at the speaker, would you want to start applying room treatments at that time?
Now say you do something at the system so that magically you're now hearing maybe 90% of music info of a given recording at the speaker. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply room treatments when the system is performing at that level?
But if before you were only hearing say 50% of the music info and per chance you now are hearing 90% of the music info of a given recording, how much of that additional 40% of music info do you suppose contains the ever evasive and highly desired ambient information of the recording hall? I attest that quite possibly 90% of the recording hall's ambient info is discovered in that newly revealed/audible 40%.
What if at least in theory I'm correct that much of that ambient info previously buried beneath the noise floor now becomes audible at the speaker, so much so that the recording hall's ambient info overwhelmingly squashes, overrides, and/or supercedes most / all room acoustic anomalies?
Not only would I have perhaps zero need for room acoustic treatments, but at the same time my listening perspective has just instantly transformed from the listening room to somewhere in the recording hall. At this juncture, the listening room and all it's potential anomoalies have essentially vanished or greatly diminished. Even if my new listening perspective is somewhere near the recording hall's lobby or even the restrooms, it has to be significantly better than hearing from my listening room's perspective.
On the other hand, if there was no magic and only say 50% of a given recording's music info remained audible at the speaker (again think hi-fi sound), then I suppose it could be a real battle between what little ambient info remaining audible from the recording vs the room's acoustic anomalies.
In summary, the way I see it is, there are severe distortions induced at the playback system that CAUSE only a small percentage of the music info to remain audible at the speaker. To deal with room acoustic anomalies at this level can only imply we are addressing the EFFECTS rather than the cause. And that strategy is always a never-ending rabbit hole. At the very least, there is nothing foundational about it.
Last edited:
I can send you a Tripple Crown and a Ching Cheng to a/b for fun my friend.
Kind regards,
Tang
Thank you Peter for such a thoughtful contribution.
Very recently I bought a new Oppo 203. Initially, I was thinking of a 205 but concluded that a 203 was entirely adequate for my needs and experience has borne that out.I bought a bluray audio disc Credo featuring Helene Grimaud and it sounds very good through the 203.
Buying the Oppo prompted me to review my footer placements of Stillpoint Ultra 5s ,SSs and Wave Kinetics A10s. A few weeks previously I had removed the Ultra 5s from my YG Kipod Signature passives and gone back to the stock YG footers and also moved them back by an inch. That seemed to have worked with better bass and a slightly darker sound. The Oppo purchase motivated me to change things around so that the WVs were removed from my three box Scarlatti DCS and MD 109 FM tuner. Three Ultra 5s went under the transport and SSs went under the the dac, clock and tuner. The WVs went under the Oppo and Denon AVR. The previous use of the WVs had been partly because of cosmetic considerations.
The revised configuration restored the air and clarity to the sound that I had been missing. The improved bass from the speakers remained and the channel separation was noticeably better.
In retrospect I suspect I had convinced myself that the WVs were better than the Stillpoints against the evidence.
I am sure that is a common failing and that you are absolutely right to re-evaluate your "tweaks"
The conclusion I have drawn is that when you try or make these sort of changes you really do have to be ruthless in evaluating their effects and not to spend too long on that for otherwise we run the danger of acclimatising to the different sound and persuading ourselves of what a good buy we have made.
I will therefore be very interested to read your conclusions on your present exercise.
I still contend that grounding is not a tweak. It is a improvement for the short comings of IC's and internal grounding schemes in electronics. Some might consider it a tweak because the improvements are incremental. But once you notice that sufficient grounding will reset your cables and internal grounding schemes then you began to realize that grounding is foundational to the system.
Now Peter that is a challenge which I hadn't even considered.
I need to think about that such is my faith and widely considered opinion about the benefits of aftermarket footers.
Have you tried it?
Similar threads
