Tweaks, money pit or real value?

Minor tweaks are just what they are, minor. Over the years I have found that I do better if I just concentrate on a simple system without too many add-ons. YMMV. 

But isn’t it fun to chase something once in a while? 

True that. Some calls it expectation bias. It’s a real thing. That’s why I always subtract the tweak after a while to confirm that it was really doing something. At the end, one realizes that few tweaks actually work. My experience is that those with no basis in science and those based on quantum physics and nanotechnology rarely translate into palpable improvements, at least in my system. 

I have been pursuing the high end for fifty years. Tweaks are critical in getting the most out of an audio system… period, no question. I go through a component upgrade, then upgrade / choose interconnects, then power cords, and isolation. Then I enjoy the system for seven years or so. Then, upgrade again.

Each of these steps provide greater performance. Each disproportionally improves the sound quality.

One of the great reviewers from The Absolute Sound once said something to the effect that he had heard good sound systems but never a truly great sound system without all the tweaks… cable elevators, carefully chosen interconnects, power cords, isolation devices. My experience as well. You want great sound you have to put in the effort to achieve it.

+1 spenav

Of course, it’s a contentious issue. My experience over 50 yrs has been that most tweaks are a waste of money, as are cables beyond a good professional grade (e.g., Mogami/Neutrik).

What does pay off the most: Better speakers, acoustic treatments, subs if integrated properly.

@hiendmmoe "The thing that seems to always follow them is how soon I seem to not recognize the improvement anymore."

Are you saying that the sound has regressed back to where it was prior to the insertion of the tweak? Are you expecting continual incremental improvement even after some reasonable period of tweak break-in? Could it be that what you are experiencing is simply a matter of having become accustomed to the sound post tweak "break-in" and there are no further incremental benefits of said tweak?

 

Some of you guys have 20 or more tweaks. You would think that if you added them all together some unsuspecting person would hear your system and get their head knocked off because it would be so good. I’m curious why that never happens and that tweaks don’t add up that way. I think the author is saying he feels that there’s more subtraction going on than addition.

Why not experiment yourself and created your own devices at low cost inspired by others journey?

 

If i could anybody could....

Most gear upgrade move and no tweaks addition  will compete with acoustic treatment but especially with acoustic mechanical control with Helmhotz method...

Then before eupgrading there is plenty of thing to do if what we own is relatively good to begin with for sure...

 

I have plenty of tweaks.

As with anything, the additions blend into a new normal. Some changes build on one another.

What I do notice is my enjoyment when listening has steadily increased with most of the additions.

I have many tweaks in my system and the one that never has become the new norm is the Gaia isolators on my Focal Aria 936s . I still hear what they do for my system and I am happy that I bought them. It’s been two years of great listening!

What I've experienced experimenting with footers is that they typically make the system sound different but not better. At first, the novelty of a change leads me to conclude there's been a net improvement but with time I realize I've merely exchanged one shortcoming for another. I eventually happened upon a line of products that, to my ears, improved resolution and imparted an overall sense of ease and this brought my experimenting to an end. I could envision trying a higher level within this company's products to see whether the benefits were worth the added cost, but I don"t feel compelled or driven to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money pit but it's your money spend the way you want. 

Out with all the 'tweaks,' no more audio rack, footers, dedicated AC lines, AC power conditioners, room treatments, back to generic power cords, IC's, speaker cables, digital cables, streaming out of general service computers and no cares about streaming network, linear and internal power supplies, capacitors, resistors, transformers, etc., all manner of vinyl setup tweaks, all don't matter. Man, I can't wait to hear my new 'improved' system.

 

And since this all doesn't matter, how bout just getting rid of any equipment considered audiophile as it's essentially tweaked generic equipment.

 

So, tell me exactly what is considered tweaks? One person's tweaks are another's essentials. Throwing out the baby with the bath water may be problematic.

Some tweaks work better than others in my system.

If it doesn't work for me, I return it for a refund or sell it off.

 

When you look at the cost of a lot of so-called tweaks these days, better to deny yourself three or four of those, save the $$ you would have spent, and then treat yourself to a nice new component, which won't cost any more than that.

@hiendmmoe 

The thing that seems to always follow them is how soon I seem to not recognize the improvement anymore. Initially wow that sounds incredible and then after awhile acclimation sets in and here we go again.

Isn't that just human nature? Once acclimation takes place we generally want more of no matter what that is. In the car world, 450HP is pretty good. Yet its not long before we are looking for 500HP. So the question has to be asked, Did the tweaks work?  OR, did  you just take them for granted and now  want more?

I agree with the poster who said he takes them out to see if there is a difference. This is the way I assess any equipment change. I am a believer in tweaks because I know they have brought my system to a better level. But tweaks do not change the sound characteristics of the system like a change of preamp or Dac might do. Instead, they enhance the goodness of the system's sonic signature.  Many times the sound stage  grows larger, the instruments easier to place on that stage and micro details that become evident. I wonder if this is why some do not recognize. these changes because they may have a preconceived idea that the sonic signature  will change. And when they don't hear that change, they dismiss it as a failure. Then, there are also those high $$$ tweaks which will give you $50 worth of change  for the price of $400. I don't want tweaks like that. That is called over payment.which will often present the black cloud of a bad decision which overshadows any improvement it may have made.

Tweaks are the greatest assets that high end audio manufacturers have.

Above and beyond the idea of real circuit changes, or real major parts changes..tweaks create or make for better sounding gear.

Critics, and forum posts about tweaks and tweaking’s lack of efficacy (in their mind) be dammed. Go ahead, be wrong, and leave it to those who know it makes differences, real differences.

Leave manufacturing a mystery so more product can be sold to people who can’t look beyond the surface of things. ’Those guys are like gods!’ the buyer said...

Manufacturers will do what works for making better gear, with the highest levels of advantage possible, at the lowest cost.

And that...is tweaks.

"intelligence --- is applied laziness"

If one’s bent is toward ground-pounding and anti-deductive reasoning to a very dangerous level of dogmatic fault, ie only looking at things are are in the text/bible or lexicon of the known, you’ll be forever doomed to be as the fish on the hook (though the gills), on the chain, trailing behind the boat, barely alive.

Waiting to be eaten by the more forward looking and properly scientifically investigative among us.

The reactionary unthinking dogmatic herd mind. It glues humanity together. Sometimes into a non functioning lump. That’s the thing about herds, though..they are easily manipulated.

The job of the folks on the edge of the herd, the thinkers, the innovators, the bringer of new ideas that need be integrated... they make sure, though will and work, that humanity does not decay into a seized lump of dead repetitive nothingness that seeks not it’s own future.

To keep dogma and it’s pronouncements out of scientific investigation, methodology, and mind. That was and is an integral part the enlightenment, and it’s humanitarian message.

IMO and IME, those against tweaks are into scientism, the dogma of the weak of mind as it seeks safety in it’s little box of ’knowing’.. Which is Anti-enlightenment, anti-science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for wanting more when the tweaks work. Yes, we all want the high of the new. Always, in all things, every day, more more highs. Even if it is not possible.

25 floors  -- and I need more

The behavior I see with these tweaks is more more and more give me more. It sounds in a way like a junkie it’s just never enough. They’re always chasing that first big high. When I left audio in the 1980s monster cable just started out. My buddies couldn’t wait to get some of that big fat wire because it was gonna pump more sound to their speakers. They all knew better and learned it in science class in the sixth grade. But who cares it was only a few bucks nobody really knew if it worked or not. Over the past 30 years different people have a plied the same principle to every possible part they can be replaced by the consumer . It started with speakers let’s replace the speaker wire, then the connectors. Next let’s come up with better interconnects oh wait let’s sell them a better power cord. Now you can’t just have the better cord you have to have the right prongs the right outlet the right wire running from the fuse box  to the outlet. I have no doubt if audio files were allowed to climb the electric pole they would replace the wire that comes from the pole to the house. It seems like we’re finally nearing the end. We’re fighting over fuses and there’s new goop that nobody knows what it’s made of. Let’s take this goop and spread it all over our $25,000 system because some dingbat from Texas says that it’s going to make your system sound better. Does anybody see how ridiculous this is? Don’t you think that the professionals that build this equipment would have made these changes years ago if they really worked and were that simple? I’ve tried a few of these products and I’ve been let down. Sam got returned and some I just threw in the garbage. I have all of my Macintosh gear connected with normal decent average every day stuff that can be bought on the Internet. If I had a local shop I would buy it from them.

What bothers me the most is when somebody who is new to audio asked me if this stuff really works and if I believe it. I very nicely try to explain to them that I’ve met some really nice people in this hobby and I honestly can’t figure out why people fall for this stuff. my other hobby is cycling. We don’t have these kinds of products in cycling. The product either works or it doesn’t. There’s no in between. I can’t honestly think of any other hobbies that have people selling “TWEEKS’ or magical stuff like audio has. This hobby has really nice people that in my opinion other people take advantage of. Our hobby doesn’t need this kind of stuff and can do better.

Personally, I have always hoped tweaks would not work. I love the idea of buying a new better component plunking it down and getting the best sound out of it. I did many changes just to prove “this couldn’t possibly make a difference”. Like my fist digital interconnect… that failed… it was a component level increase in sound quality. I keep hoping, getting lazier, but they keep proving themselves. I had really hoped that the $3,000 SRA isolation platform would prove not worth the money… damn, once again. 

No tweaks will replace a method to adress embbedings control in the three working dimensions for any audio system : mechanical (vibrations/resonance control) electrical (noise floor level of the house and EMI and RFI ) and especially acoustical ( passive acoustic treatment+mechanical Helmholtz control)...

That being said some "tweaks" like Schumann generators (S.G.) and ionizers add something no other device will add to the acoustic impression, but the level of audible improvement will be function of your acoustic room quality to begin with ... Some will hear no improvement and no change, not because there exist none but because their system is too noisy and their room untreated and uncontrolled... the same people will laugh at "tweakers"....

No one must begin embeddings controls with "tweaks" even surprizing one like S.G. or ionizers...

ACOUSTIC is most important  key.... Nothing else....

Listening a speakers/room relation has nothing to do with cycling analogy...

I honestly can’t figure out why people fall for this stuff. my other hobby is cycling. We don’t have these kinds of products in cycling. The product either works or it doesn’t. There’s no in between.

Are you a cyclist?

some tweaks work great, and well worth the time and tiny expense...others are expensive and very system dependent..many you can share with friends, like the CD system discs, and many can be sold for little loss if you do not like...having fun with my Herbies Super Mat this week...if it's fun it's worth it

I am a cyclist… 4,000 miles per year. 

yes...

Are you a cyclist?

Absolutely my own experience and the same results here after my listening room experiments...

Thanks steakster...

- Optimal vs Nominal

Even though an audio system might be expensive, that doesn’t mean it is optimized. A well-set up system should readily demonstrate if a tweak is a step up, a step down or a lateral move. Most systems are nominal due to any number of factors. As long as the music is enjoyed, then all is copacetic.

- When you hear a truly optimized system, it’s an a-ha moment. It doesn’t sound excellent. It seduces you.

- Years ago, I lived near a professional audio reviewer. His room was phenomenal. One time over a weekend, we deconstructed his entire system - every tweak was removed. There were a lot. With all gone, the music became - just okay. It sounded like a very nice hifi. After dusting and cleaning, we rebuilt it. It was a lot of work, But, the magic returned. The music was mesmerizing. The effect was cumulative due to the aggregation of the tweaks.

- If somebody can’t hear the difference between two different designs of power cords, then that is an indicator that something is amiss.

Nearly all money pits.  Not necessarily in principle.  It's just that suppliers mostly rip over gullible customers off.  $2500 for a mains cable, $250 for a fuse etc etc.

I can buy a nice amp, or a turntable or.... for $2500.  Or do a meaningful upgrade of an active component.  Apart possibly from room tuning, no passive upgrade will ever effect the change an active upgrade can.

There is only so much all these tweaks can do. Yes, there will be some perceptable improvement with some of them, others not so much. It is my opinion that you should just concentrate on the basics. Maybe the basics are more set up than so called tweaks. Anyhow, first (1) be sure to set up your speakers properly, ie stand mounts on solid stands well anchored to floor, ie spikes. Stands filled with Atabites or shot. Proper toe in and listening position, and of course treat the room accordingly, whether using furnishings or acoustic panels. Second (2), properly isolate all source components, ie turntable on a wall shelf away from speakers. Third (3), proper alignment of your phono cartridge, azimuth, VTA, VTF, level, etc...fourth (4), proper synergy when using cables. Strive for neutrality in cables and not those that add or subtract. Yes, not always easy, trial and error sometimes, but reading lots of reviews of the cable can help narrow down the ones that may work well. Fifth (5), clean power by use of quality power conditioners and power cables. These should connect preferably to a dedicated circuit. Also the use of a audiophile grade receptacle that will tightly grip the power cord prongs. Sixth (6), and probably a often overlooked point, listen to quality recorded material. You would be amazed how some pressings of an Lp for instance can sound drastically different from another.

Some of the tweaks that I personally think are bs are raising cables off floor. All that needs to be done is to properly route them. Signal cables should be separated from power cables or at least cross at 90 degrees etc...also, the springs under speaker thing...my belief is a speaker should not move, period. Some say the speaker is moving all the time due to seismic movement of the earth...well maybe in California, not where I live. I Could go on and on.....

@steakster

 

+1. No question the tweaks take a good sounding system and improve performance, typically that level can be magical. I have never heard a magical system that was not tweaked to get the most out of the basic components… ever $1M one’s. Although to be fair, I have never heard an untweaked million dollar system… who would do that?

@steakster 

 

My golf game was never good. My job required circling the globe a lot. I loved mountaineering, but feeling lazier in my old age. Four of my seven bikes are custom made with a strong slant towards long distance. I started tweaking over forty years ago before I could afford decent equipment. You have clearly found some good equipment and pulled technology (your profession?) into your system. 

When I think of crazy tweaks I always think of “The Crazy Little Clock”.

I think the company that made that is still up to no good.

However, these days, I have been turned on to super valuable tweaks by participating in this Forum. All have turned out to give major and significant improvements to my system. Most have proven to be transformative.

QSA Yellow fuses, SRA platforms, NPS 1260, and most of all, Townshend Podiums. I can honestly say that the improvement with the Podiums is as significant or more than any component upgrade. Perhaps only surpassed by my speaker upgrade itself.

 

Tweaks work well when they are used as tweaks. They are literally the icing on the cake, and for that approach to work (the icing to do its job), you need a darn good cake for starters. Icing will not do any good to an inedible cake...

That is: Put the system together right, then the tweaks will help to fine-tune the sound. The money spent on tweaks, when spent right, is about 1-2% of the total system cost. That is, the tweaks can add up to a serious amount when the total system budget is 1M$, but they should be modest in price for a 10K$ system, and should be next-to-free tweaks for a low budget system.  Big mistake is to get the tweaks intended for a 1m$ system for a 1K$ total system... that's when snake-oil priests come and eat ya. ;

Now, cheaping out on a component and hoping for a tweak to replace a major 10K$ components with a basic one, adding a $300 tweak on it - that will not work at all.

Can't replace cake with icing....

Good tweaks are cheap and effective. Bad tweaks are expensive compared to the alternatives and some do little or nothing. 

Tweaks work well when they are used as tweaks. They are literally the icing on the cake, and for that approach to work (the icing to do its job), you need a darn good cake for starters. Icing will not do any good to an inedible cake...

 

I am pretty sure no costly "tweaks" can beat by itself alone a systematic method to do the mechanical, electrical and acoustical control of the system working embeddings in the house/room/system at low cost...

I know it because i did it...

And nothing will replace anything; vibrations3resonance  and high noise electrical floor and acoustic treatment and acoustic control are totally FOUR distinct problems to solve and the increase in S.Q. gained by solving each one of them separately  cannot be compensated even by all the other together sonically ...

And even "tweaks" at low cost like the Schumann generators or the ionization of the room which i added with success in my own room may appear to be AT FIRST  only " icing of the cake" but are in fact more than that: they add something completely unique to the sound quality, they are more than icing....I cannot eat my cake without them...

All that cost me peanuts, inspire yourself by LOOKING at costly tweaks, dont buy them, replicate them in your own way.... If i did it for many, then you can for some... I am not crafty at all...

I am a free thinker though....

😁😊

@stuartk :

What I've experienced experimenting with footers is that they typically make the system sound different but not better.

Bingo! And not just footers. Cables is another area I've see that happen.

@mike_in_nc 

"Bingo! And not just footers. Cables is another area I've see that happen"

Agreed.  

Speaker cable marketers claim energy from the signal gets into the dipole molecules of the insulator and returns back into the cable to distort the signal. Try this test. Tie the left channel cable close to the right channel cable. Connect only one of the cables to its speaker. and disconnect it from the amplifier. Connect the other speaker cable to the amplifier and disconnect it from its speaker. Turn up the volume and listen for this insulator stored energy distortion with your ear up against the connected speaker. When you can't hear any you will not only have proved to yourself any speaker cable marketer warning you about the need for special insulation requiring you to spend hundreds or thousands for their cable is scamming you. It will also save you from embarrassing yourself by mounting your speaker cables on little tripods to keep them away from the floor. The audio industry uses some of the most extreme junk science to prevent you from getting what you pay for. If you catch one manufacturer using such junk science as care to ameliorate skin effect, which diminished signal Voltage to speakers by about 1/100th a Db over DC at 20 kHz, they are already exposed as con artists and you should not listen to anything else they say nor should you pay their price gauged retail.

They're upgrades.  That way it doesn't sound like I wasted my money or self justified.  But the stuff I bought improved my system.  Someone whispered "yeah right".  Please don't rain on my parade.

If we talk about cables and another tweak turned on to through the Forum,

Silversmith Fidelium speaker cables! They replaced $6K cables which are now relatively junk. It has been said by a reviewer or two that they can go against the $30K stuff. $1200 an 8’ pair.

Nothing is more valuable than having a good relationship with a dealer that lets you try before you buy in your own system. I also like manufactures that have a no questions asked return policy.  

In 50+ years of using good to great audio equipment in 5 audio rooms, I've removed three times more tweaks than those I keep.  For example, I had the SR Atmosphere XL4.  Sure it could improve recordings but at what cost?  I found that there were too many options and too much time/waste of time adjusting for each recording.  

Here is what I use: Two pairs of Hallographs to focus and gain ambiance with my typical box type dynamic speakers, 34 SR HFTs throughout the room and on speakers which adjust tonal balance and also disperse early reflections, boxed mounted and hanging Acoustic Fields foam absorption panels, SR blue outlet duplexes and three blue fuses on multiple amps, various types of footers, SR Mig Sx under one stereo amp, Stillpoints and one set of old Aurios under equipment with a Townshend seismic sink under a VPI TNT 6. 

Stands and cabling are considered tweeks by some.  The biggest tweek was building a custom high end audio listening room for $160,000.  My cheap Legacy Focus speakers sound fabulous (only lacking in ambiance of really expensive speakers/lesser speakers and monitors do have some superiorities but at the loss of many other factors).  

Subjective question for a subjective subject.

I expect the answers will be very subjective for this subjective subject.

That was fun.

Now for more twerking not tweaking.

Very great choices it seems to me...Thanks for youre interesting post...

 

 

I will only add  for those who dont have money to do that like me, that it is possible for someone without money to do the same thing, or nearly approximate it, inspired by all this precise tweaks you just described...

Happily for sure, because we dont have all the luxury of this excess money......

34 SR HFT amount to near 2000 bucks...

2 pair of hallographs: 3000 bucks...

Add to that all others costly devices you described...And guess what is the cost?

😁😊

I dont doubt that these "tweaks" work at all...I know they work...

But it is possible to create a room with peanuts costs...

For example what the hallograph "form" teach us?

It teach us that modifying the shear velocity of waves on some pressure zone location we will enjoy a more "atmospherical" diffusion... This is TRUE...I created my own diffusers with Helmholtz method...

Then there exist simple means to do this at NO cost... Less esthetical though... 😊😊

It is the same thing for all other "tweaks" or "embeddings controls" which is the term i prefer to use or which i prefer to call them, to let in their sleep slumber the "snake oil" hunters or tool obsessed measuring groups...

😁😊

For a dedicated room, rejoice all "poor" audiophiles, i buld one at NO cost...Oufff 160,000 bucks... It work because if my sound is not the best there is in the world, i enjoy a sound quality with a 500 bucks system over the roof....

Read about acoustic and psycho-acoustic not about price tag brand name tweaks... But forget esthetic save if you are very crafty ....

For sure my post is adressed to the desesperate hopeless poor audiophiles....

😁😊

One thing is very important: the only luxury in audio is a dedicated room to conduct listening experiments and where tu put your devices, not the price tag of the system and the price tag of the "tweaks"...

An Helmholtz diffuser can be made with empty toilet paper rolls... 😁😊

 

Here is what I use: Two pairs of Hallographs to focus and gain ambiance with my typical box type dynamic speakers, 34 SR HFTs throughout the room and on speakers which adjust tonal balance and also disperse early reflections, boxed mounted and hanging Acoustic Fields foam absorption panels, SR blue outlet duplexes and three blue fuses on multiple amps, various types of footers, SR Mig Sx under one stereo amp, Stillpoints and one set of old Aurios under equipment with a Townshend seismic sink under a VPI TNT 6.

Stands and cabling are considered tweeks by some. The biggest tweek was building a custom high end audio listening room for $160,000.

 

Has anyone had their hearing checked lately?? Couldn't we consider THAT a tweak too?

The Hallographs are superior to toilet paper roll Helmholtz diffusers and probably any typical Helmholtz diffuser.  I needed them in my prior home which did not have a custom built listening room.  If I purchase Von Schweikert speakers, I probably won't need them at all.  Same with speaker HFTs.   I have friends with $500K audio systems in their living rooms with windows behind them that sound very good as well.  Another friend has only footer tweeks in a $15K system that sounds fabulous (RM9 amp Mac C20 preamp, VPI Scout/Dynavector 20X2H, etc/Von Schweikert export V35 speakers).  

I just wanted to point out that 2/3rds of the tweeks I tried were either ineffective or not worth the money.   I've been using tweeks for over 40+ years.  

About my custom listening room-I can afford it and everyone who ventures in to hear my music loves it and wishes they had such a great listening room.

I do not say they are equal in results...

I only suggest that a room acoustic and devices dont need to be costly...

I know this why?

Because when i listen my 500 bucks system in my dedicated room i am sure that your system is superior to mine... I am not so stupid... 😁😊

My point is more subtle and difficult to admit for some but my system is not so far away from yours than what you think...I am in no way envious or frustrated...Acoustic is the key and it is my most important discovery in audio... 😁😊

If i can enjoy my system room way better than my 8 headphones now in my drawer for good this means something no?

And my point was not to say that my low cost Helmholtz diffusers are not so much behind your Hallograph than what you think , BECAUSE they work on the shear velocity of waves diffusion on some location and price tag and acoustic principle has nothing in common anyway. and price tag dont determine the results...

By the way i use no brand name costly "tweaks" i created most of my devices homemade and with a method... Some device give us something that nothing else will do...You cannot replace vibrations control under a speaker by replacing the speaker by a more costly one generally... For sure a 500,000 bucks speakers nay have vibrations controls included in his design...

Optimizing SMALL room acoustic is essential not a icing on a cake in most cases most of the time...

It is the relation between the system and the room who give us acoustical factor like "listener envelopment" and source width ratio LEV/ASW not the electronical design by itself alone...

And designing a room is more important than the price tag of the components..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hallographs are superior to toilet paper roll Helmholtz diffusers and probably any typical Helmholtz diffuser. I needed them in my prior home which did not have a custom built listening room.

If I purchase Von Schweikert speakers, I probably won’t need them at all. Same with speaker HFTs.

Perhaps yes the sound quality will be so good you feel that way and you will perceive it so...

But buying ready made "tweaks" is not FINE TUNING A ROOM...

A tweak is not an acoustic method by itself.... Learning how to tune a room supposed a method...It is not buy and plug here...

The relation speakers/room ask for an acoustical optimization process that bear no relation with the design or price tag of a specific speakers... All speakers enter in a relation to the room in their own way and each specific room help and/or impede some emerging acoustical cues... Optimizing this relation ask for a fine tuning of the room that cannot be solved by a general ready made product alone even by many...

I called my grid of Helmholtz resonators and Helmholtz diffusers a "mechanical equalizer" why?

Because it modify the room pressure zone distribution to adapt the room to the specs and properties of the speakers FOR YOUR EARS which are also specific...

A small room acoustic is not an amphiteater room acoustic... This is very different room for different use...

Acoustic room treatment and mechanical control are always necessary save in a completely designed room by an acoustician for some specific speakers...but here the cost is stratospheric...A good acoustician here can use Helmholtz resonators in the wall and diffusers at some spot to help the room in his service to the chosen speakers...

There exist no miraculous speakers at any price who sound the same in ALL room....treated and non treated, controlled or not controlled... this is a common place fact...

 

I apologize if i seem rude....

My deepest respect to you

I hired an acoustician and followed his construction requirements as well as eliminating the need for bass traps by building them into the wall (including activated carbon filters between studs). The walls are 16" thick with no openings (doors are hinged and same design 17" thick). The ceiling and side walls have wall mounted acoustic absorption paneling, the floor is a 12" thick, steel reinforced 3000 psi slab. The hallographs are necessary not as a diffuser but as a focusing device-the Legacy Focus speakers tend to be narrow in soundstage and imaging. The Hallographs permit adjustable wider seating with enhanced ambiance. My Signature IIIs have a rear tweeter and have more ambient rich highs than the Focuses. The designer took into account the 6 -12" woofers in his order of carbon bass trap filters and that would include my proposed upgrade to the Von Schweikert VR9 SE Mkll speakers. I recognize very modest distinct benefits of 29 of the 34 SR HFTs I implement; however, the four HFT 2.0s on the bass portion of the speakers and the HFT-X on the center front wall are truly beneficial and very obvious in their affect in my tuned room. My choice of finished cherry plywood on all interior surfaces required more adjustment than room construction. I chose not to implement quadradic diffusion for reasons of loss of room area (the acoustician suggested 12" to 14" deep front and rear wall diffusion) and cost of real wood products (not the cheap/cheaper GIK products).

Enjoying one’s music in any system, even in a miniscule cost is the object of listening to music. My second audio system cost me under $5k in my good but not acoustically treated living room. It is better sounding than 95% of all music listeners I’m sure. Schiit electronics can be really cheap and sound very good. If the listener enjoys what they hear, that’s all that’s necessary. Audiophiles tend to gravitate toward improvements in their sound system and not concentrate on the music. Most music listeners today are satisfied with streaming music on their phones with earbuds.

ghdprentice/steakster-

If I count the Schwinn Sting Ray days+40 years of performance cycling/racing, I have over well over  half a century of saddle time.

Audio as a hobby is like finding the perfect  saddle height/riding position- IMPOSSIBLE, but you strive to achieve it until you drop dead trying.

My silly bike tweak-EVERY possible bearing is ceramic. Practically zero rolling resistance, but you STILL have the pedal the damn bike!