why tweak?

[DaveC]

I had the crown class D amp at home on temporary basis. It sounded bad. I put stillpoints under it, sounded worse

I put Shun Mook resonators under it, it sounded better than my AR ref 110 (the added power really helped the analysis omega I had on demo then)

The Crown D amps are some of the best I've heard... better in many ways vs my Hypex NCore NC500s. They do need some tweaks though, the i/o connectors are pretty bad, especially the binding posts.

I use the Crown or Hypex amps to power my woofers, imo they are ideal for this and better vs any other type of amp I've ever tried, especially the NC500s, they have an iron grip on the woofers and are amazingly clean. OTOH, most other amps beat them in the mids and highs.

 

[DaveC]

I think putting % improvements on things is just confusing because we all have our own scale.

Sometimes improvements are breakthroughs, such as a very good system that has average interconnect cables. In this case the IC cables can make the difference between an ordinary system and an excellent system, it's hard to put a % on that. Most of the time we realize an incremental advance in resolution from many things but taken as a whole the effect is much more significant. I also think a lot of people want to hear these kind of breakthrough effects from every tweak they use, of course this isn't possible or reasonable. And a tweak that might be a small improvement in one system could be a breakthrough in another, so the saying ymmv applies to the highest extent possible and makes it even more difficult to communicate effects or set reasonable expectations.

 

[Ron Resnick]

thanks Ron. this morning again i'm feeling that same magic.

as far as looking objectively at the effect of tweaks, I can take a stab at that this morning. but with the caution that after more reflection my view on this might modify. or maybe after the Taiko Tana arrives that might shake me up too.

and my comments are not meant to be applied to other rooms or systems.

I would view speaker set-up and acoustic room treatment as quite a profound level of effect, maybe up to 25-30% or even more in terms of musical involvement. at least for me with dynamic speakers, twin towers, and a large room. maybe dipoles or horns are less dependent on room acoustics than my set-up wanting all types of music, at all frequencies, to be optimized. and that this fundamental room-speaker synergy aspect is the foundation for tweaks. to me it's critical that the macro moves are done so the micro moves of tweaks can take things that last little bit. if the system does not allow for small changes to be evident then those small changes will not yield good ROI. the level of maturity of a system will determine tweak effectiveness. tweaks are not be what is done first. it's the cherry on top.

all that said, i'd say that tweaks I've done are in the 1%-4% realm in terms of added musical value. and as I alluded to above, that tweaks tend to magnify each other......like opening multiple doors in a wall.......each opening geometrically adds to the flow of reality.

but if you look at the law of diminishing returns for gear; it's normal for improvements of that 1-4% degree to double the cost of an amp, or speakers, or a dac or preamp.

so if every piece of gear in my system is 1-4% better, then my ROI on tweaks is very profound. and if i'm already at the top gear level, then tweaks are my only current access to that level. and finally; tweaks tend to take things into a realm beyond concepts of particular biases and gear preferences. tubes? horns? analog? we stop thinking about that to some degree.

that's my stream of consciousness for this morning.

YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that stuff.

so if i'm sitting here thinking I might be able to add more tweaks that push the whole system performance, or maybe buy another cartridge, or arm, or tt, or maybe more tapes.......here is where one's priorities get challenged. there is no right answer to that. I guess if your system responds to tweaks effectively, then it's a table you tend to want to eat at.

Thank you, Mike, for what I think is an introspective, careful and very thoughtful reply! A 1% to 4% increase in musical value from tweaks, yet with a multiplier effect in listening pleasure, are magnitudes which make sense to me both numerically and conceptually.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It’s harder to do this than you might imagine, Ron.
For instance, on setting up in the new room, things sounded great prior to any maxxing out w tweaks, including stock power cords out of the domestic sockets.
Fast fwd balanced power, dedicated lines, audiophile power cords and fuses, pneumatic isolation, and the sound is transformed.
Recently going back to try just the stock cords, no transformer, no platforms etc, and the drop in pleasure was palpable. Maybe 50% worse.

50%?

I think you are confusing increase in musical value and increase in musical pleasure, a distinction of which I think it was accurate and brilliant of Mike to make (or at least imply, and I am defining Mike's "multiplier" concept in terms of increased musical pleasure).

 

[spiritofmusic]

I’m not getting your distinction, it feels like a false one Ron.
Next you’ll be asking if tweaks are more “faithful to source” or other such dichotomies.
Surely it’s all about the pleasure, and my cumulative tweaks give me a king size improvement in pleasure than without.
This is on top of beyond significant impvts from the room itself.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Also Ron, Mike has nowhere to go with components upgrades.
He’s not getting better than Msb 3 box, AS tt, Dart monos or EA 4 tower spkrs in a hurry.
Maybe $350k AF Zero Premium, $220k Aries Cerat Reference dac and LessLoss Laminar streamer, $300k Wacac tubes and $750k Cessaro Omegas would get him more, but his point is that spend on Herzan and Tana, Troy Elite etc bridge any quality gap for a whole lot less, and if he truly feels he’s done on components upgrades, why not in effect “hot rod” his sound.
I’m pretty certain I’d have to go SME 30, SGM/Aqua Formula, Gryphon and Apogee, or Koda and Cessaro Liszt/AG Trio, or Gryphon and Rockport, to seriously outclass my sound, I’d rather spend a fraction of this budget on tweaks that will max out the value of what I have invested in, and the sound I’ve proudly achieved.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Why tweak? Cos there is always an itch to scratch...

 

[rockitman]

I have been de-tweaking. A system reset w/o tweaks allows one to re-evaluate various tweaks in a more selective and systematic manner.
My major tweaks have been....Isolation Transformers, AC regenerators, active isolation, footers and ground boxes. The most dramatic effect has been the Torus Isolation transformers for the power amps followed by AC regenerators for source components, active isolation for non suspended turntables, footers and lastly Entreq signal ground boxes. Of all the tweaks...the weakest is Entreq....still not sure of their effect since buying them 3 years ago.(Expectation Bias gone ???).

 

[Empirical Audio]

Why tweak? Same reason you put high-performance tires on your Porsche. Performance. More fun.

I personally don't mess with footers and vibration control much, because my rack is pretty good. I do move my speakers a lot to get them just right. I like tweaks that make a BIG improvement, like power or eliminating ground-loops, or proper grounding.

The one difficulty with tweaks is they can take you down the garden path. It seems to be better, but it's just different and not better, maybe worse. Cables can do this too. I have helped many audiophile friends "undo" what they thought were good changes to their systems, making more effective changes instead. Determining what is a good tweak and what is the garden path takes a lot of experience and knowledge IMO.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with well-recorded redbook. Can sound amazing. 24/96 will sound slightly better, but if you have not heard it, the redbook is good enough.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think you are entering a dangerous game that can be easily misunderstood. Using the Darts to show an example of tweak scaling can be understood as if the difference between them can be recoverable with tweaks, and IMHO underestimates the real differences between both units.

+1.

I agree that tweaking a lower model to a certain degree is unrelated to whether it might capture the magic of the upper model. one does not follow the other. and that is a valuable distinction to make Micro, thanks. in the case of the dart monos <-> 108 stereo the mono's will always do things uniquely.

it depends on what is constituting the performance margin gain of the upper model. a tweak might get it closer, but then again it might just make it better in different ways. that upper model nuance might be inaccessible to that lower one no matter what.

 

[jazdoc]

Good thread!

I would add that some of the best tweaks are free, i.e. optimizing your analog set up, proper cable layout, making sure all connections are tight, speaker positioning optimization (IMO, Mike L's biggest upgrade in the past few years), etc.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Just that I understand you correctly Mike: are you saying that adding inter alia the Tripoint components - including the Troy Elite - in your system falls also in your 1%--4% range? If that would indeed be the case, we experience the additional benefits of the Tripoint components very differently. As a matter of fact, I do not consider the Tripoint components as tweaks but as 'regular' audio devices that are crucial to get the best out of the audio system.

Rudolf, on one level I agree with you 100%. the Tripoint products for me are the 'heavy lifters' among my tweaks pushing things into a more dimensional and micro-dynamically alive realm. but listening to a before and after it's not 20-25% in performance difference, it's maybe 4-5% difference.

but the experiential consequences of this difference is monumental. so how we value the differences are a different question than objectively what they are.

we face this with every compare we do. and many times I'm the king of hyperbole. yet when faced with objective situations we have to get real. we are comparing the perception of art here. and I'm just a guy with an opinion. and likely I'm second only to you in tweak investments here, and then not by much.

and I've done more with acoustics and room development than you, so that changes the equation for me.

 

[Audiocrack]

Rudolf, on one level I agree with you 100%. the Tripoint products for me are the 'heavy lifters' among my tweaks pushing things into a more dimensional and micro-dynamically alive realm. but listening to a before and after it's not 20-25% in performance difference, it's maybe 4-5% difference.

but the experiential consequences of this difference is monumental. so how we value the differences are a different question than objectively what they are.

we face this with every compare we do. and many times I'm the king of hyperbole. yet when faced with objective situations we have to get real. we are comparing the perception of art here. and I'm just a guy with an opinion. and likely I'm second only to you in tweak investments here, and then not by much.

and I've done more with acoustics and room development than you, so that changes the equation for me.

Mike, you are a gentleman as well as an ‘audio politician’, that is you always try to choose your words in such a careful way that none of the people/masterminds behind the various audio components can feel offended while at the same time keeping all of them at the same - arm’s length - distance. That is fine of course. But I am less of an ‘audio politician’ than you and can only conclude that apparently we see things quite differently as regards the role and impact of the various Tripoint components, in particular the ones that employ the new Elite technique.

Putting percentages on the improvement that certain audio components bring to the table is of course always (to a certain extent) subjective. However your 4-5% rating of overall improvement for all your tweaks - in which category you place inter alia the various Tripoint components - and the magnitude of improvement Miguel’s products brought to my LA system are not even close.

As possible explanation for this difference you mention acoustics and room development. Because we have not visited each other listening rooms it is impossible for us to establish whether this explanation is valid or not. Other possible - and I emphasize: (only) possible - explanations are that my Emperor mk ii is a much better device than your Troy Elite, our complete audio systems react quite differently to adding the Tripoint products, my LA’s are (much?) more transparent transducers than your loudspeakers, my tube power amps with (‘simple’) single ended topology let you hear the benefits of the Tripoint devices more clearly than your (more ‘complicated’) power amps with solid state topology, etc, etc.

Whatever the explanation may be, on the importance and magnitude of the effects of proper grounding we (clearly) disagree.

What really puzzles me is why you qualify the aspect of grounding as a (mere) tweak while labeling for example room acoustics and proper power not as such. For me aspects like acoustics, power, isolation and grounding are all crucial in letting an audio system really sing and therefore I consider them as fundamental and not as (mere) tweaks.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you are a gentleman as well as an ‘audio politician’, that is you always try to choose your words in such a careful way that none of the people/masterminds behind the various audio components can feel offended while at the same time keeping all of them at the same - arm’s length - distance. That is fine of course. But I am less of an ‘audio politician’ than you and can only conclude that apparently we see things quite differently as regards the role and impact of the various Tripoint components, in particular the ones that employ the new Elite technique.

Putting percentages on the improvement that certain audio components bring to the table is of course always (to a certain extent) subjective. However your 4-5% rating of overall improvement for all your tweaks - in which category you place inter alia the various Tripoint components - and the magnitude of improvement Miguel’s products brought to my LA system are not even close.

yes; I do refuse conflict in my hobby. not worth it for me. and that is my way. I get plenty of angst at work.

there is no doubt you have many more, and higher level, Tripoint components than I do. so my 'Tripoint factor' is different than yours. agree wholeheartedly. and our view on the degree of influence may be different too, even separate from those differences. likely I feel my whole room/system has a higher degree of influence in a relative sense compared to the Tripoint factor.

As possible explanation for this difference you mention acoustics and room development. Because we have not visited each other listening rooms it is impossible for us to establish whether this explanation is valid or not. Other possible - and I emphasize: (only) possible - explanations are that my Emperor mk ii is a much better device than your Troy Elite, our complete audio systems react quite differently to adding the Tripoint products, my LA’s are (much?) more transparent transducers than your loudspeakers, my tube power amps with (‘simple’) single ended topology let you hear the benefits of the Tripoint devices more clearly than your (more ‘complicated’) power amps with solid state topology, etc, etc.

I was very impressed and wrote about my Tidal exposure at RMAF, and have no doubt that your speakers are ultra transducers. if I was guessing about how our speakers compare in terms of transparency, I would maybe give yours the nod too, but it would only be a guess. might my whole uncompromised room tip the performance balance back my way? maybe, but that too would be a guess. might your additional Tripoint presence tip the balance back in your favor? maybe.

we are both super lucky to enjoy our wonderful systems and should both be feeling confident. GAME ON!!!!

Whatever the explanation may be, on the importance and magnitude of the effects of proper grounding we (clearly) disagree.

What really puzzles me is why you qualify the aspect of grounding as a (mere) tweak while labeling for example room acoustics and proper power not as such. For me aspects like acoustics, power, isolation and grounding are all crucial in letting an audio system really sing and therefore I consider them as fundamental and not as (mere) tweaks.

to me there are signal path components (sources, amps, preamps), speakers, interconnects/speaker cables, power grid/power cables, ..............and tweaks.

a tweak is something that if taken away the music does not stop. but you like it not to be taken away. all those others are needed to hear the music. my perspective is that those other things need to be right along with the speaker-room interface and acoustics for tweaks to show their best. first things first.

just because that is how it looks to me, does not mean everyone agrees.

 

[Esotar]

I have tested almost grounding boxes.

Though I choose Entreq, its grounding box's reducing noise efficiency is less than others.

Entreq grounding products make HI FI system sound quality class-up. (dynamics, texture, analogue sound, etc.)

If someone wants to reduce noise, I think that he never choices Entreq grounding products.



I'm very interested with Tripoint.

Tripoint is only one I have not tested since Tripoint doesn't have Korean distributor.

I want to know the result of comparison between Olympus Tellus and Troy Signature.

 

[KeithR]

I have been de-tweaking. A system reset w/o tweaks allows one to re-evaluate various tweaks in a more selective and systematic manner.
My major tweaks have been....Isolation Transformers, AC regenerators, active isolation, footers and ground boxes. The most dramatic effect has been the Torus Isolation transformers for the power amps followed by AC regenerators for source components, active isolation for non suspended turntables, footers and lastly Entreq signal ground boxes. Of all the tweaks...the weakest is Entreq....still not sure of their effect since buying them 3 years ago.(Expectation Bias gone ???).

+1. This. In fact, I removed my Wave Kinetics footers under my TT recently, just grounding it to my Box Furniture rack and it sounded dramatically better. I moved them under my TVC for now.

and I believe if MikeL did this, the results might surprise some. Most tweaks I find various forms of different, not better.

I also believe most "noise reducing" tweaks take away harmonics in exchange for the fake "black background" a lot of 'philes crave

 

[jeromelang]

Knn, i deleted my post accidentally...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

+1. This. In fact, I removed my Wave Kinetics footers under my TT recently, just grounding it to my Box Furniture rack and it sounded dramatically better. I moved them under my TVC for now.

and I believe if MikeL did this, the results might surprise some. Most tweaks I find various forms of different, not better.

I also believe most "noise reducing" tweaks take away harmonics in exchange for the fake "black background" a lot of 'philes crave

I move my footers around from time to time to see what's up. I had Wave Kinetics 2NS footers underneath my Box Furniture amp stands (w/dart 458's); then removed them and now go 'nude' with just discs for the spikes. the dart 458's have their own passive de-coupling inside (the transformer is suspended). so throwing passive tweaks blindly at any gear is wrong.

but.......any generalization dismissing tweaks as placebo is also missing the point, which is to listen and not pre-judge. just follow your ears and make your own calls.

the issue is a reference you are after and knowing what gets closer or farther away, and what is merely different.

 

[jeromelang]

i, for one, have been implementing the "back-to-basics" tweak for the last decade.
a so-called tweaking of untweakings, since any removal of previously installed tweaks is also - a form of tweaks!

yes, going back to using factory supplied power-cords (specially selected after painstaking long listening sessions, mind you), plugging direct to wall mains, removal of ac power supply tweaks, removal of after-market isolation feet and going back to original equipment' feet, removal of isolation platforms (especially those that contain metallic materials in them), removal of any extraneous metallic from around the listening room (including equipment stands made of metal), placing audio components at some distances from one and another to reduce the effects of eddy current on equipment and cabling.

not forgetting - grounding of audio components - internally (and making sure directionality of grounding cables are correctly determined).

setting up 2 separate systems - 1 for digital, the other for analogue.
(reducing equipment count in each system to reduce magnetic field interference)

for digital only - washing with tap water, flick off excess water before playing.

for analogue - spray tap water, spin dry and play. totally contactless cleaning and drying.

and, quite importantly, (for both digital, and analogue playback devices) refreshing their power supply prior to playing discs.

oh, yes, and i also unplugged and threw away my fridge....

 

[Tango]

Mike, you are a gentleman as well as an ‘audio politician’, that is you always try to choose your words in such a careful way that none of the people/masterminds behind the various audio components can feel offended while at the same time keeping all of them at the same - arm’s length - distance.

That is a wise man. It also shows that he puts values on friendship.