Audiophiles really need to grow up and stop regurgitating this unproven nonsense. Blind testing is the bare minimum. There is absolutely nothing, nada, zip that can be stated as a negative to blind testing.
it never occur to you that what is asked by "testing for" by some companies and engineers cannot be the same that is asked for by a listener implementing controls and installing his audio system in his three working dimensions in a long period of time?
Yesterday i post to you a research article by 3 japanese scientists about the law of the first wavefront... I dont know if you even read my citation and probably not the article...
This reading inspired to me a simple experiment this evening with small Helmholtz devices that improve extraordinarily the sound effect in my room which was already good ....The important fact for my discovery was the precise location of this 3 small devices... I will let you guess where i place them and will say it to you if you read the article....
Question: do you think i need a blind test? or an AB test? to verify my discovery and listening experience... Answer is no....
What is useful for market science, or what can be a tool for engineers working on a simple task is not necessary very useful or always useful for a listener experimenting in a continuous set of experiments for months to improve his system...
I dont know if you understand the timbre or the imaging concept....But my own understanding of the imaging concept is better after reading this article of the three japanese physicists and after that i just created a new device improving soundstage and imaging for my speakers...Perhaps it is a proof i read and understand the article, no?
Am I deluded? Did i need a blind test? Or a psychiatric test?
Or perhaps i am right and you will thanks me to point this article to you if you dare to read it ?
By the way i know perfectly well that you know way better than me about all aspect of audio, after all it was your job....But knowing thousand of facts or equations dont replace understanding.... They are plenty of things in audio you dont understand well even if you understand much more than me, it is just not the same things....Be less arrogant about "audiophiles" i will be less arrogant with you....We are all different, and we must listen each others not insulting groups of people, "audiophiles" also must be respected....And all people testing Schuman generators at 10 bucks are not necessarily idiots...
Blind test are useful to test ONE small change.... Not an incremental series of changes or big changes....By the way....I dont need blindtest to "see" through my own improving sets of experiments....Someone insisting on blindtest prove to me that he NEVER install rightfully his system and never improve it by himself....Period...
Controlling the 3 dimensions of his audio system is not, BOUGHT ,PLUG and PLAY......The customers could be reassured by blindtest, the company too, but i dont need to be reassured , i was experimenting with my system for 2 years to install it...
Is it difficult to understand?
Or like someone else you know, call me "placebo" plagued and completely in delusion... Who knows ? The world is full of "nuts" after all....
By Helmholtz acoustical science which he contributed greatly to found , only a few inches straw can transform a room in an acoustic paradise or in an acoustic hell... A single straw can make a costly amplifier sound bad and a bad one give a better result... Did you know that after installing hundred of systems?
I installed only mine and i learned that.... Do you know the cost of a straw? Peanuts.....Sometimes what is important is not the branded name of the amplifier and his price, but the precise lenght and location of the straw....This is my first lesson in acoustic....It is free😁😊😎
What you call useless "tweaks", useless costly secondary addition to a system are in fact SOMETIMES essential devices making the system able to work at his optimal peak... The only problem is that many are too costly for me... I decided to create mine.... I called them controls over the 3 working embeddings dimensions of a system... I never bought anything, i sell nothing, i created all my devices homemade at no cost...My 500 hundred bucks system fill my room 3-d with imaging, encompassing listener soundstage, natural timbre perception, in 2 main listening positions...Is there better one? Yes, but i will let you guess their price....It is not 500 bucks....It is the embeddings controls not costly electrical design ONLY and MAINLY the road to a good sound....
Am i hallucinated? Am i a liar? For some here deluded by dogmas probably... It is not the PRICE paid who give us good sound , it is the way we are able to control our system, the electrical grid, the vibrations and resonances, and tune the room...
Some people are incredible and even repeat here that our ears must subordinate their power to any objective number they will see on a dial....If they are doctor they call ears impressions " illusions".... And incredibly they listen to their system and call what they hear "good" because the equalizer said so.....
I will mute myself astonished by human voluntary blindness because of sheep walking.....
Dont buy and dont plug and play no more, be creative think and listen .....
Dont upgrade anything before everything is rightfully embedded in his 3 working dimensions and under controls...
Douglas is right about switching phase in a system. I am not sure though what would happen if you ran 180 degree out of phase channels into an oscilloscope. Interesting to try. @russ69, I hate to tell you this but the last thing you want to trust is your ears. Human ears and perception are not trustworthy in this regard. None of us can make the claim of having trustworthy ears. This is exactly why more rigorous testing methods are required to come to any reasonable conclusion. It is also the reason for the popularity of "Tweaks" It is also the reason many of us do not have to hear an item to know the claims are false such as the cable cooking thingy Douglas mentioned. The claims made for it are downright stupid. They embarrass themselves with such rhetoric demonstrating that they have no idea what they are taking about. Don't be shy. Call things out for what they are. I want my system to sound it's best like anyone else but I refuse to spend money on silliness when there are so many things to buy that might or will make a meaningful improvement. In evaluating equipment never trust your first impression. repeat the comparison over and over until you are sure. When you are not sure of a difference assume there is not any. If you can set up an AB comparison then by all means. I have several ABX boxes that I made in the early 80's that run on 12 volt relays and a push button switch that is not marked in any way. I have no way of knowing what side is on.
You can call it science or psychoacoustics the truth is that there is very little in terms of scientific proof to support either side. The problems with blind tests are well known as are the manufacturers that make wild claims. Listen, decide for yourself and dont listen to any of the "experts". All of the inclinations conscience or not are just as present among the experts as they are among the hobbyist. But once you voice your opinion as an expert it is doubly difficult to go back and admit you were wrong.
bluemoodriver, while not an authority, I do not believe the presumption that flooding a room with two channels with opposing polarity will result in cancellation. Audiophiles have many times mistakenly played speakers that have one channel out of phase, and the result is not cancellation. I do not see how switching to mono will cause the sound to disappear, cancelling as with matter/antimatter.
Perhaps my understanding is not nuanced, but I suspect this test will not do what is suggested. Those more knowledgeable than me may disagree and instruct.
Doug - (or anyone) would you do an experiment? Run “burned in” cable to one speaker, and a brand new version of the exact same cable to the other. Invert the phase of one channel. Play a track in mono. In theory, shouldn’t there be silence?
if there isn’t silence, an explanation could be that the sounds from each speaker are different and therefore don’t cancel, therefore the cable differences are real. But, there are other explanations to discount. Maybe the reflection in the room are not perfectly symmetrical. So we can discount that by putting new cables to both speakers (or similarly burned in ones). Play mono out of phase again, and do we get silence now?
If we do get silence, then there is evidence that the lack of silence before was due to differences in the cables. If we don’t get silence, then we know any differences actually due to cables will need to be unpicked from differences due to the room. The noise in the room in the two scenarios can be measured (and listened to) and compared. We will then get an estimate of the relative effect of room reflection asymmetry as compared to cable asymmetry. Thoughts? Mine are that in any home listening environment, the room reflection effect (and tiny variations in speaker build, etc) will completely dwarf any differences arising from cable burn in. It would be nice to know though. First issue - am I right about inverting one channel of a mono sound resulting in noise cancellation?
Just as I thought. Remember that I am presenting my points as opinions and possibilities not as scientific facts established through some sort of methodology. I never placed myself in a position of authority just as an experienced listener with valid opinions. BTW I have a friend with this Peachtree component as well as the D-5 (I think) speakers, I got them for his college-bound son.
This comment. "I should not have gone back to your original article. Really a Peachtree component," and the repeated appeal to analog, confirms what I suspected initially.
Doug, Just a few things and then I think we have discussed this enough
If you can honestly say you use digital because you think it sounds better this will never been discussed again. But be honest enough to list any reasons other than sonics that you prefer digital to analog. My guess is ease, speed and time have a huge part in this.
You references to Frank V. dont move me. Did you you ever think he added IECs after the realization that this was a good business decision. His incorporation of IECs speaks nothing to his belief in cables and to imply that he incorporated this item after visiting you is a bit much.
Regarding ABX did you ever think he designed this to substantiate his previously held beliefs about cables and perhaps burn in. I dont think your inability or willingness to hear a difference exceeds mine to deny that there is none.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing to me is your ongoing references to your work being gratis as if this adds anything to its legitimacy and more importantly to your objectivity. You probably do what you do for the same reasons I started selling vacuum tubes over 20 years ago. Shows, knowledge, industry accommodations, etc. I dont buy this martyr stuff.
I should not have gone back to your original article. Really a Peachtree component?
Apologies in advance as this all was written and is a first draft with no checking.
mijostyn, ssjj49 and russ69 all make some pertinent, salient points. Thank you. I appreciate such contributions, even when they do not fully agree with me.
Russ is correct. Neither he, nor Doug can speak to each individual experience. Not hearing a difference isnt proof of anything. If Doug cant hear a difference I wouldnt expect him to buy into the whole burn in thing. However you cant blame people on this forum to comment and if Doug cant handle criticism he should not bring attention to his musings.
audio2 Well if you could create a blind test that wasnt perceived as a test this would be a start. I really dont feel the need for any type of test. I trust my personal judgement and my experiences. I would gladly participate in any blind test out of curiosity but I just dont think the results prove anything and it seems completely unnecessary.
I once had a pretty good ear. I have been a practicing audioguy for many decades now. In all my years I have only had two occasions where break-in and warm-up was audible to me. One was a pair of Klipsch loudspeakers that on startup were near reference sounding loudspeakers and 24 hours later they had declined to just decent sounding loudspeakers. The other was a tube amp that needed 20 minutes to get to top performance. Changes in cables, powercords, and other gear over time have not shown themselves to me. On the otherhand I seldom argue with what others have experienced, it's possible that they have had a different experience than me. I can't say with certainty what they have experienced, I can only trust what I have experienced. Good articles, though.
No the abx is not a truth teller. Check out all of the possible problems most if not all of them arise from the psychological phenomena of being tested. You either allow for any number of subconscious psychological influences on both sides or you dont get any.
which of course, has not been demonstrated, but has been shown not to occur via my informal testing, they will get much more of nothing done.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Douglas the point I was trying to make, is you have a view that is based on minutes, not hours, days, Weeks and MONTHS .. Do you understand? You said hundreds (100s) of systems. With minutes each.. That is NOT critical listening.. That is passive at best "a quickie".. PLAIN and SIMPLE..
Taking the time on just ONE complete system 1-400 hours. That is why manufactures have help lines.. You summed up your "DATA" in a nutshell, "more of nothing done".
The race is a mile long you quit at 50 yards pretty tough to say how you trained for a mile, but stopped at 50 yards..AND go on to tell others how hard that mile really is.
You can't talk about braking in something if you don't actually do it. Let alone assign 100s to the same analogy, it's just not good data. You literally haven't done your homework...
random thoughts reading the funny exchanges in this thread...
mc & audition audio -- pots calling kettle black... 🤣
doug writes here and elsewhere as his contribution... his beliefs his findings - yes he talks down to people, everybody gets irritated and gets short and rude, sometimes hard to avoid - lotta anonymous keyboard jockeying happens here from people who have shown less in experience and 'who are you' qualifications than doug
frank v a's abx unit is indeed a truth teller
bottom line, if you are curious enough about anything hifi - gotta find out by yourself, be rigorous with the methodology
I have made no reference to time frame; the hundreds of hours are over the course of the 14 years of reviewing. Obviously, when a person waits for "settling", which of course, has not been demonstrated, but has been shown not to occur via my informal testing, they will get much more of nothing done.
I expected that at some point the straw man argument of appeal to analogue might arise. ".. polishing a turd." Beautiful; I'm being called out for condescension by my opponents here, and then that kind of comment is made. An appeal to analog versus digital is a weak argument, a straw man, that has zero impact on the testing.
This paragraph is evidentially wrong, "
I might be willing to send you my Audio Dharma cooker but I dont [sic] think from this whole exchange you have indicated that you would be willing to admit any error. Kind of like sending a cable to Frank Van Alstine for review."
When Frank was visiting my home, I specifically demonstrated detachable power cords to show him the efficacy of using different aftermarket PCs, and encouraged him to put IECs on his equipment. At the next show, when I entered his room he called me over and had me look behind his component. There was an IEC!
Further, Frank made a component called the ABX Comparator, that was designed to do the same kind of testing as I did, but with more rigor. Does that sound like a man who prejudges, who shouldn't be trusted in evaluating things? BTW, I did a review of the ABX Comparator. Guess why? I wanted to see if all the talk about cables and ABX was true, and whether I could distinguish between cables in a blind/random testing environment.
Now, I just finished the article returning to further assessment of tweaks and methods such as burn in and break in. I'm doing all this voluntarily, and my judgment is not to be trusted? I revisited the topic to see if further testing would confirm or falsify, and I'm not able to have a balanced perspective? I am not interested in an ongoing defense of myself for you in the face of that heavy of skepticism. Take it or leave it, so be it.
I would appreciate it if you tried to rein in your wild, unsubstantiated judgments of me. I appreciate the thought of loaning the cooker, but if I work with one, I will source it elsewhere. :)
Thank you for your prolonged reply Doug. Again, no argument from me. I look at the manufacturers of such things as scam artists even if they believe in what they are doing.
Cable Cooker? I just returned from Audio Excellence's web site. Everything they make can be done in a home workshop with simple tools. None of it requires an education. None of it has a sound basis for operating as advertised. I think you should review the Audiodharma. Who buy's the equipment you review? Hopefully not you!
Every human ear has a mechanism of accommodation. A tiny muscle, the stapedius, tightens up the ossicles in response to louder sound. The reflex is rather slow. It can not respond to impulse noises like gun shots. As it responds to louder music the sensitivity of the ear decreases but this varies with frequency. The end result is that treble and bass increase disproportionally to midrange at louder volumes. Add to this our poor audio memory, perceptual changes that occur with mood and other psychological factors and you have...a mess. Humans in general are very poor at analyzing the quality of audio information. They can tell you what they listened too and in gross terms tell you what it sounded like but they can not remember in fine detail what they heard. They can not reliably identify a single system out of a group of systems. What they hear changes with too many variables to be able to predict. In order to be remotely reliable comparisons have to be made in rapid succession and repeated multiple times. Evaluations are relative. If a person's system is bright a system that is neutral will sound dull and so forth. What is normal for one person may not be to another. No method of calibration is used so you have no idea where a person is coming from.
"I seem to occupy a position in the industry and community that is fairly vacant, that of eschewing most forms of system enhancements/methods called "tweaks", and endorsing other methods that some ridicule. It all comes out of building hundreds of systems, not theory".
DS: Eschew. MC: Gesundheit.
And that is more respect than this pompous and bass ackward comment deserves.
I respect Doug for writing the article but this was no act or bravery, perhaps a small act of bravado but I dont doubt he is trying to help so we should only admonish for his hubris and incomplete methodology. I mean truly it takes hubris to believe that your opinions matter enough to publish.
I doesnt help that he only uses digital. After I got my vinyl rig to an acceptable point, I cant hear anything of consequence with digital these days. And yes I have used some very good digital. Not matter how good, at least in experience, it is just like polishing a turd. Dont be haters...just my experience.
I might be willing to send you my Audio Dharma cooker but I dont think from this whole exchange you have indicated that you would be willing to admit any error. Kind of like sending a cable to Frank Van Alstine for review.
The one lesson learned is to not let your mouth write a check that your ass cant cash. I think we have dog piled him enough and lets just give him the benefit of the doubt because he published with good intentions.
@douglas_schroeder interesting article (with due respect to other, somewhat critical, responders above). Going slightly against the grain, I have experienced change in the sound of cables on one -- unique -- instance: when a cable is newly produced, i.e. has not been put under load after having been put together (soldered): I have found empirically that it takes about 10-15mins for the frequency response to extend on both extremes. Of course this is anecdotal, but I thought the experience might add to the communal fun! Regards
After reading everything I could find on your writing, Douglas, I’ve come to conclusion that you would make a good Grief Counselor. The "poor me" don’t work Kiddo, please read on...
I’m going to quote YOU and how you evaluate a system in comparison.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I seem to occupy a position in the industry and community that is fairly vacant, that of eschewing most forms of system enhancements/methods called "tweaks", and endorsing other methods that some ridicule. It all comes out of building hundreds of systems, not theory".
Here is the thing Douglas, "hundreds of systems", I have a BIG problem with what you imply. It takes me a couple of days to set up and at least a week for things to settle. To hit 100 hours, on 100 systems, I’ll let you do the math, let alone (S) HUNDREDS, and 2-400 hours for "Break in" to complete.
By your own admission you either didn’t spend much time with the systems you built, OR you spent the last 12-14 year at and 8 + hour a day job just listening. That’s a 2080 hour 40 x 52 year.
I’ll leave your testing procedure alone now, but it’s really BROKE, and your psiphon is just, atrocious. That’s county talk from a Common Man.
Douglas, the numbers just don’t jive buddy.. What’s up? Where do you find time to make a living, listen, evaluate and write your reviews?
Coffee LOL those hours approach pure meth numbers and immortality. Just sayin’
Just wonderin’..
It took me 10 years to find out about ONE pair of 10 foot cables, your and extraordinary fella indeed..
From the age of 6 - 15 I was taught HOW to listen by a Master Jet Mechanic.. 9 years of being TAUGHT, then I got to listen.... for 50 more...
Caps and tubes are covered in component assessment between the two articles. Evidently you did not read the first article. I have a digital source, so someone else, maybe you, can test cartridges. Have fun with that one.. Speakers I have not compared yet, but have considered.
The topic is clearly the tweaks and methods discussed in the articles. I'm not interested in off topic discussion here.
Here is one thing that I noticed about certain materials. Silver and silver clad are a real bummer to get broke in, plain and simple. I just thought silver cable was an expensive toy. I had 100 feet of pure silver # 12 with teflon covers. USAF surplus. Its 60 years old now. That cable took YEARS to break in. I’d use it, get pissed, and toss it in the cable box. This went on for 8 or 9 years, on 2 10 foot pieces.
The cable wars lit up.. EVERYONE was talking cables.. Me I used SC copper then, for the bass and a SC stinger wire (Cable wire RG56 stripped, no shielding just the stinger and the white cover for mids). It worked GREAT and still does. BTW.
My rich buddy brings over some pure silver stinger cable, silicone and cotton. I was floored.. That was a game changer for me...
I get the silver cable I had out and used it for extension cord for two months on my well pumps. They broke in to the point I could hear a good change. I was getting into ribbons at the time Infinity, Apogee, and VMPS.
That is when I learned, some things take a long long time to SETTLE, and to break in. The user needs to learn a LOT of patience.. Those cables took close to 10 years before they sounded GREAT and are actually my reference set of cables, to compare against. The funny part is a good hard run for 200 - 300 hours would have taught me a good lesson way back when.
This is a fun way and a good way to test cables. Just hook up one cable. I always hook up the left. 2 week at least, then the right two week later. IF you can’t hear the difference. TRUST me it’s not the cable.. LOL
BUT it will show you what I’m talking about.. Some folks don’t need to do that.. BUT I like to do it that way.. It’s a fun way....
I have sent a review request to audioexcellence in AZ, laying out clearly my intent to test the cooker in regards to cooked vs. uncooked cables in direct listening comparison. I shared the link to my article, as I wish to respect the company and not attempt to spring a surprise article on them. That would be duplicitous and in conflict with my principles.
I pointed out to the company that this is an opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of the product, and that there is a possibility I would be embarrassed publicly in having to declare its efficacy. I am open to that possibility, as I cannot state definitively that cookers cannot change the cable; I have not used one. Now, I intend on doing so.
A while back, when I last visited the topic of burn in of cables, I contacted the company that makes the Audio Dharma cable cooker and requested a demo. I tried to get a reply several times, and never heard back from the company. Perhaps the company would wish for a commitment to a review, and I could do that in order to procure a unit.
If the company would be wiling to send me a unit, I will conduct a straight comparison, similar to the one that I did for the recent article, and will do a proper article on it. If the unit works as advertised, and cables really can be "cooked" so as to cause a different sonic signature, then I wish to assess this through my direct comparison evaluation. I think I am on solid ground with the presumption that if the cooked cables have efficacy, then they should sound discernibly different from the uncooked ones. If they do not, then it would be strong evidence that cooking cables is not efficacious and does not result in a change in sound.
I would like to hear from the company in this regard. I will attempt to contact the company once again, and if anyone has connections with the company, tell them that I am seeking an evaluation of one of their units. I could do XLR or RCA. One would think that if there is easily identifiable change to the sonic character of a cable through use of this device, then the company should be happy to allow me to conduct such a review. I have enough equipment to conduct a comparison with identical amps and cables.
Cartridges and caps (Mundorf anyone?) are the devices most obviously in need of breaking in, the same does though apply to cables (cooker, anyone?), tubes and loudspeakers. To deny it is at a minimum peculiar. Equating breaking in and tweaks is semantically aberrant and factually wrong.
What can I say Douglas, "You’re a Peach". Not quite ripe yet, but a peach none the less.. :-) This is a complement. BTW
I’ll offer this, I installed teflon caps in a passive external crossover.
Sounds simple. It was. It was so harsh for the first 100 hours NO ONE could listen to them. The sound was being thrown all over the place, the highs were thin and BOILED your ears. EVEN my deaf neighbor was impressed, he could hear something.. I thought I had messed up.. Well I did sort of... 250 hours it took to sound correct and sound correct they did.. Just wonderful. Two speakers face to face covered with moving blankets, 24/7 for 10 full days..
We uncovered the speakers (RM40s) and were amazed when they were moved back into position, all except the deaf neighbor..
You know how I test cables? ONE at a time always on my left ear, first for a whole week.. NEVER two at a time.. Mechanics 101, Scotty style..
Break them in the way you listen. BUT change the volume...
THEN add the right cable.. If you can’t hear a difference.. Something is wrong... REALLY wrong... It’s not the cable.. :-)
mijostyn, thank you for posting our thoughts. I suggest that what the supporters of tweaks/methods I compared preset anecdotal evidence and opinion. I did informal testing, which is entirely different. I agree that if conducted in the industry, it would be a much more tight study. Yes, the numbers could be bolstered by further study, but the grouping of the tweaks/methods is far stronger evidence and cannot be easily dismissed. It does support the contention that a far larger number of tweaks are also likely ineffectual.
I am not concerned about explaining the "why" of the phenomenon involving perception that equipment seems to change performance. As I said, I also experience it and believe it is universal. Studies have been conducted often in regard to adaptation to stimuli, but in this regard audiophiles's egos seem unwilling to accept that their impressions can change over time and that might be the experience, versus the equipment changing.
Will the industry jump on board with this? I doubt it; too much money in sales/reputation riding on the perception that there is audible "profound", "huge" etc. change over time. Many of the industry members believe it themselves to the degree that they wouldn't question their own experience. There is little hope of changing the opinion of someone so overconfident - even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. It is simply too painful for most audiophiles to consider that they really can't accurately tell whether there has been a change in sound quality over time.
An interesting read, Doug. I don’t doubt your observations but with a sample set of 1 (or 2 counting the 2010 "burn in" article) question the validity of your conclusion(s) as general truth applicable to all systems/listeners. I do admire your courage though!
Note - My (now somewhat redundant) comment made before reading mijostyn’s response. Pretty much in agreement with him...and in particular the closing, "You Only Think You Are Hearing What You Hear." Absolutely! Ultimately, what else matters?
Thank you Douglas, very daring of you to publish that here. I like people who are willing to expose themselves to ridicule. My experience agrees with you whole heartedly however, there is one problem. An anecdote does not a study make. This is an opinion piece. I believe your opinion is correct but that is only my opinion. The "numbers" are not large enough to be able to draw a conclusion with certainty. It is a start for those with influence to come forward with these opinions. The manufacturers are loath to do it out of fear they might scare away market share. They tend to support the mythology.
There are people who sincerely believe they hear improvements in sound quality coming from various tweaks and break-in. They deserve a solid explanation for this result but, when you try to explain the plasticity of human hearing and audio interpretation you lose them or I lose them. I am not the best at explaining these things. Perhaps you could do an article entitled "You Only Think You Are Hearing What You Hear."
I missed the post about the stinky cables. I cant imagine having to go through something so terrible. Did you experience any long term psychological problems?
In which case Doug has it right. The reader inferred something from Doug’s post. (I doubt Doug implied he had nothing more to offer than the average hobbyist, so the reader must have inferred that. Or so Doug implies, anyway). You are implying Doug doesn’t know the difference between infer and imply. Doug can infer from your post that he does, and you don’t.
Clearly, the article shows that I am not simply dismissing opinions, even going to the point of saying sincerely that if the results contradicted those of the first test, I would have to reevaluate. Is that dismissing opinions? I am respecting the opinion of those who insist tweaks have efficacy when I am wiling to humble myself enough to set up a test, rather than laugh at them and ignore putting it to the test.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
