Now, to return my discussion to the topic of the thread...
Regarding discussion of various technologies which produce the "holographic" soundstage, I have found no greater technology than the Omnidirectional speaker. I have used far more capable speakers, but none create the specific "holographic" experience like an Omni.
There is a dearth of omnidirectional speakers in the market, imo. I felt the King Tower, which I obtained as a cancelled product it seems from Kings Audio, is a fantastic device at the price point. If it had been set up well and showcased at shows vs. put off to the side and not run I believe many would have been sold.
Then again, the zany blue foam balls which were stuffed between modules didn't help! I removed them immediately, which improved the speakers performance markedly.
But as to the most profound way to elicit a holographic soundstage - imo it's the transducer technology. Why? Basically any piece of gear (excepting special conditions ie. low power amps etc.) will alter the "3-D-ness" of the soundstage to a degree, but never as much as a complete technology shift in terms of a speaker. Whereas different cabling, amps, etc. display less fundamental shifts in spaciousness of soundstage, differing transducers display it fundamentally. YMMV |
Sabai, I should be asking you the questions, as opposed to you asking me. My "holography" does not follow me around the room. When I leave the sweet spot, I leave the holography, maybe I can train it to follow me around the room.
But laying all jokes aside, "how do you do that"?
|
"Regarding discussion of various technologies which produce the "holographic" soundstage, I have found no greater technology than the Omnidirectional speaker."
Agree, though as mentioned it is still quite possible with more directional designs as well with proper setup.
ALso certainly quality speaker designs including use of quality transducers are key. Poor quality in the speakers will likely greatly limit or mostly prohibit what might be obtained via other subsequent tweaks including to power otherwise. |
Geoffkait,
I am not familiar with the Audio Pulse Model One. But you stated, "It was later on that I discovered how much information is actually buried in recordings, that even very large and expensive systems fail to reproduce, and what was required to extract that buried information for 2 channel stereo. The real ambient information was there all along, we just couldn't hear it!"
My system extracts an amazing amount of the ambient information you are referring to. The more I make changes that improve the system the more information is extracted and the more life-like and holographic the sound becomes. This is what has been so astonishing through this whole process.
Mapman,
I am using Joseph Audio Pulsar monitors. They are about 8 feet apart and my listening position is about 9 feet from each speaker. They are slightly toed-in. My ears are at tweeter level but I have them fired well to the outside of my ears.
Mapman,
Bybees products are the best bang for the buck in my system -- by far. They are absolutely phenomenal. I picked them all up for reasonable prices on Audiogon. I would highly recommend looking out for them. Be patient because they don't come up very often anymore -- and do a bit of research, in the meantime, on various forums where Bybee users have posted their observations. I have never heard of anyone who was disappointed with Bybee products.
I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system and upwards of 20 other "tweaks" in my system. My system would not exist without Bybee products. I recently added a pair of Combak Harmonix MIC Enacoms to the system and they are a wonderful product. But there is nothing I know of that could substitute for most of the Bybee products that I have in my system.
Douglas_schroeder,
I am also thankful to God every day for the blessings he has bestowed on me and my wife -- most importantly saving a life that was "hopelessly lost", according to modern medicine. The fact that he has enabled me to assemble an audio system that I never dreamed even existed is icing on the cake.
I am not familiar with the King Tower. I will Google it and have a look. What products are you referring to with transducer technology? |
Douglas_schroeder and Mapman,
I agree completely that speakers are the most vital component when one is trying to create a "holographic system". I have owned many different brands but only the Joseph Audio Pulars have enabled the sound to reach this level. I am sure there are many other brands that would allow for the same level or an even higher level. |
I agree with Sabai that “holography” is difficult to achieve.
I agree with Newbee that ‘holography’ needs to be better defined.
I agree with Kijanki that shorter cables are usually better.
I agree with Al that shorter cables are not always better.
I agree with Douglas that daisy chaining cables produces a lot of confounding variables.
I agree with Al that cable performance is highly system dependent.
I agree with Mapman that good speaker placement improves “holography.”
I agree with Onhwy61 that good room acoustics improve “holography.”
I agree with Douglas that omnidirectional speakers improve “holography.”
I agree with Orpheus that the degrees of “holography” never end.
I agree with Csontos that Sabai might achieve even more "holography" if he changed his ratio of spending on tweaks vs. equipment.
I agree with Douglas that Sabai's experimental creativity should be commended.
IÂ’m feeling agreeable today.
Bryon |
Bryoncunningham,
Great post. I loved it. |
"I agree with Al that shorter cables are not always better"
He mentioned exception of digital cables related to timing of the reflections, but shorter analog cables should always be better. I've never heard of anybody claiming improvement with longer analog audio cable, other than salesmen trying to find excuse to sell more common longer cable (1m vs. 0.75m or 0.5m IC) that he has in stock. |
Mapman, I agree that either dynamic speakers or omni's can meet someone's expectations of holography.
But to get there one needs to thoroughly understand how the speaker propogates its sound and how the room will react to the sound. IMHO this is the most difficult aspect of audio and the one, which when absent, will most often keep folks from achieving anything much more than a pedestrian sense of 'soundstaging' certainly not anything aproaching holography as very well described by Sabai in his response to me. Clearly he understands how I define holography.
At the risk of being a pedant, or sounding pedestrian in this group, Omni's are very difficult to set up because one has to deal actively with the back wave, albeit there is much less problem with first reflections points.
Dynamic speakers (not dipole ones) are on one hand easier to set up and achieve an adequate sound stage (thought by many to be excellent) but which are handicapped by the user's lack of understanding of all of the set up issues. They know that they are lacking something but don't know what that might be so they fuel the tweak industry seeking the holy grail when all they really had to do was move the speakers a bit to deal with first reflections, including toe in which, by the way, is far more important than many think - folks seem to do this only to adjust tonal balance, not realizing the effect of first reflections off side walls and ceiling.
For example, many manufacturers recommend that speakers be set up so that they fire straight down the room. Why do they do this? Apart from possibly reflecting consideration for the speakers response on and off axis, because the first reflections off the adjacent walls will make an 'apparent' wider sound stage.
In the real world (mine anyway) i.e. our typical room, what this means is that the speakers have to be placed quite a few feet from the side walls resulting an adequate space between them to keep from rendering a congested center image, especially considering when the sweet spot is set up, but hey its wide! Consider that the only sound that should appear outside the speakers is out of phase sounds!
In that same room, you can place a dynamic speaker very close to the side walls (so long as it is not near a second room boundry (corner/back wall) IF you toe the speaker in so it crosses in front of the listener in his sweet spot and if necessary deaden the side wall surface adjacent to the speaker. That can easily create an uncongested stereo image which is as wide as the room behind the speakers, and incidentially because of the sound arrival time of each speaker create a much wider 'sweet' spot. It can also diffuse ceiling reflections as well which can be beneficial depending on height and surface. It can also produce a great sense of depth dependent on the space behind the speaker, the quality of the drivers and electronics, and lastly, IMHO, the effectiveness of any tweaks.
So, IMHO, as a practical matter it isn't nearly as important which type of speaker one selects as it is how well he understands them and how to use them in his room. Actually this is fairly scientific and predictible for those with the energy to research and learn.
FWIW.
|
I believe most people who use single wiring throughout their system are unaware that holographic sound has virtually limitless gradations -- unless they have visited a showroom or listened to a friend's system where exceptional sound opened their ears and mind to something unimagined. In fact, most of the very high end showrooms I have had the pleasure to visit had a rather simple front end and rather simple cabling that undervalued the components they were displaying.
Most people build the cabling in their system by purchasing cables from one company or by mixing and matching cables from different companies. This is a process of adding a cable here, subtracting a cable there, a rather simple process where, if the audiophile is lucky, he or she may discover a really good addition to their system, for example, any of the HiDiamond cables or a Synergistic Research Hologram D power cord.
But few audiophiles that I know get into "tweaking" with inline products. None that I know do cabling in series and only two that I know do parallel cabling. Very few audiophiles daisy chain isolation transformers, power regenerators and power conditioners. So, it is understandable that the reaction of many to an unconventional approach to building a system using components and cables in series would be scratching the head and a good measure of disbelief. |
On the subject of speaker placement and holographic image, one thing worth mentioning is that most speakers are set too far apart. I suppose many folks assume they will be able to obtain a wider soundstage do they frequently place the speakers rather far apart and toe them in as well. When I set up the speakers according to the XLO Test CD, specifically the Out of Phase track, I found, curiously enough, that the speakers presented a much more solid, deeper and wider soundstage placed about four (4) feet from each other, as opposed to say six feet - and with no toe in. XLO Test CD Test CD cautions that most speakers are placed to far apart. Obviously, the ideal distance for a given pair of speakers depends on at least a few factors. The ideal distance cannot necessarily be found by ear because you can easily wind up with a local maximum, not the real maximum. |
Newbee,
Substitute "directional" for "dynamic" and I would agree with most of what you said.
I am not sure directional speakers are necessarily easier to set up with adequate results than omnis. I think it depends. In smaller rooms with limited placement options away from walls, that might be true.
Tweaks are what they are...tweaks. You no doubt have to get the big things, starting with speaker and matching amp selection, speaker placement + room acoustics, right first for best results, not to say that good results might still be achieved otherwise, just not the best possible. |
Mapman,
You stated, "Tweaks are what they are...tweaks." All tweaks are not created equal. If you had the pleasure of having Bybee "tweaks" in your system I think you would agree. |
09-20-12: Kijanki
"I agree with Al that shorter cables are not always better"
He mentioned exception of digital cables related to timing of the reflections, but shorter analog cables should always be better. I've never heard of anybody claiming improvement with longer analog audio cable, other than salesmen trying to find excuse to sell more common longer cable (1m vs. 0.75m or 0.5m IC) that he has in stock. Hi Kijanki - My post was written playfully, not precisely. I agree with both you and Al that digital cables are the most demonstrable exception to the generalization that shorter cables are always better. Having said that, there may be other exceptions, though they are either controversial, system specific, or semantic... The controversial: Some folks claim that longer power cables can result in better SQ. The explanation typically offered attributes the improvement to reduced "reflections." That may be nonsense, I'm not technically competent enough to say. The system specific: On a few occasions I've had cables that were so short that they created a "nest" of criss-crossing behind components. In those cases, I have sometimes opted for a longer cable to provide wider spacing between cables, which at least in theory, could result in less interference and therefore better SQ. The semantic: The generalization that "Shorter cables are always better" might give a false impression that shorter cables are always AUDIBLY better than longer ones of otherwise equivalent design. I suspect that, for any specific design, there is a range of lengths which are sonically indistinguishable. This is particularly likely with balanced cables. Bryon |
The controversial: Some folks claim that longer power cables can result in better SQ. The explanation typically offered attributes the improvement to reduced "reflections." That may be nonsense It is nonsense for audio cables. I'm not sure about power cables but home wiring is so long that any difference shouldn't matter. I don't know why longer cable should reduce reflections and if it does it wouldn't be a good thing, since we're talking about high frequency energy, that is far better to dissipate in cable on multiple reflections than to enter power supply. The system specific: On a few occasions I've had cables that were so short that they created a "nest" of criss-crossing behind components. In those cases, I have sometimes opted for a longer cable to provide wider spacing between cables, which at least in theory, could result in less interference and therefore better SQ. True, but I'm only talking about "sound" of the cable alone. Speaker wires 1ft long will most likely sound better than 10 footers but speakers 2 feet apart will not. Longer IC might allow to separate interacting components benefiting overall sound but it doesn't change the fact that shorter IC causes less of transparency loss itself. The semantic: The generalization that "Shorter cables are always better" might give a false impression that shorter cables are always AUDIBLY better than longer ones of otherwise equivalent design. I suspect that, for any specific design, there is a range of lengths which are sonically indistinguishable. True, but if you believe that particular cable has any affect on the sound then half of the cable will have half of the effect. |
Kijanki - We are in agreement.
bc |
There's also a big difference between artificial effects vs. what's actually going on in the recording studio. Not a lot being said about that here. But there is a lot of hysterics going on considering what is actually achievable with cables. |
Orpheus10,
You asked, "How do you do that?" regarding hearing holographic sound outside the sweet spot. This seems to be a function of the amazing imaging that my system has. Once the voices and instruments have their own positions on the sound stage and the ambience of the venue is created by the system, the sound does not fundamentally change outside the sweet spot.
It is like attending a concert. There is no sweet spot in a concert hall. The music is rendered holographically in three dimensions so that when you are seated in a different position in the hall the sound just takes on a slightly different aspect but does not cease to be holographically three dimensional.
Of course, in my system, this also depends on the recording. It does not apply to old Beatles albums. The better the recording, the better this effect will be rendered. On better recordings the sound is stunning. As to "how" I do that, it is the daisy-chained front and and the series cabling that is producing the effect. |
"The music is rendered holographically in three dimensions so that when you are seated in a different position in the hall the sound just takes on a slightly different aspect but does not cease to be holographically three dimensional."
That is the thing often attributed uniquely to omnis.
As I mentioned, my Dynaudio monitor setup that runs off this same gear as my more omni OHMs exhibit this quality as well, as do many well set up rigs I have heard at dealers and even shows over the years.
The key difference I notice between the omni OHMs in particular and the Dynaudios in this regard is that with the OHMS, if I move say to the left the holographic image shifts to the right, much like in real life. WIth the Dyns, if I shift left, the image does as well. ALso the OHMs will continue to exhibit this behavior from most any location in front of the speakers, even if well to the outside of either. With the more directional Dynaudio monitors, the soundstage will tend to diffuse sooner if listened to from more highly deviant locations. |
Sabai wrote,
"I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system and upwards of 20 other "tweaks" in my system. My system would not exist without Bybee products. I recently added a pair of Combak Harmonix MIC Enacoms to the system and they are a wonderful product. But there is nothing I know of that could substitute for most of the Bybee products that I have in my system."
Have you tried the WA Quantum Chips from Germany? They're all the rage.
Link to WA Quantum Chips at:
http://www.kempelektroniks.com/Accessoires/WA-Quantum-Chips-(1).aspx
Back on the subject of information retrieval, ever try any of the Belt products? |
Mapman,
As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I visit Singapore I make a point of taking my reference CDs to the MBL showroom at the Adelphi 1 Audio Mall. They are very friendly and never rush me. The imaging and holography of my system consistently outranks the MBL systems I have auditioned. The imaging changes very subtly with movement to the left or right of axis -- there is no dramatic change -- as though one were moving to a different position in a concert hall. This is the only way I know how to give you a sense of what happens in my system. It is really uncanny. I have never heard anything like it before, and I have heard a lot of very expensive high end systems with many of the biggest names attached to the components and cabling.
Geoffkait, I have not tried the WA Quantum Chips or Belt products. I have only read about them. I have a two Kemp products in my system. |
Hi Geoff,
I have tried quite a few Belt products in the past. I must admit the strangest but most profound effects. I had much fun with various foils at the time.
The one that sticks in my mind most was a foil which I put on the ICs in my DAC at the time. I left the lid open so I could audition simply and find the best places for the foils.
The moment the foil touched the chip I felt something had changed. I went back to the hot seat and the music had become so clear and vivid compared to before the foil was added.
I have no idea how to explain what took place other than a profound sense of the music content. It was magical. Luckily for me a friend was over and he experienced it too, otherwise I would have booked myself into a mental asylum! |
mbl set up really well are hard to best in the holography dept. I have heard them that way at a local dealers showroom. There was 5-6 feet to the sides and 12' or more behind them + a lot of other room acoustic tweaks in place.
The same dealers rig setup at shows I have attended were more back with the pack, largely do to less than ideal setup and room acoustics.
So results can and will vary no matter how good gear may be. |
It needs to be stated that there WILL be a tradeoff for all this "holographic" sound; the trade off will be a loss of detail/defintion. It is impossible to keep interrupting/adding to the signal path and have an absolute increase in definition and detail.
For this reason I keep my signal path as short as possible.
The "holographic" sound can be generated readily enough via products which treat the signal, i.e. cables with networks, room correction devices, etc. I find these all to ultimately fail my Law of Efficacy as they all detract from the sound quality as much as enhance it. I fear the daisy chaining of cables would do similarly.
I have not yet, but do intend on testing this with XLR cables. |
Look, if continuous tweaking is what floats one boat or keeps one of trouble, then by all means have at it and tweak away.
I guess I'm more of a music person. The gear tweaks, etc. is just a means to an end for me. Once I am there I am done until something changes. I find I place less and less value in esoteric tweaks these days than in past when perhaps my gear was not performing up to snuff and I did not have the knowledge and finances needed to get the fundamental things right first. |
I have never heard the MBL speakers sound anything but defuse and phasey. Probably a room boundary issue.
A big magnepan would get you just as far if not further IMHO. The money you save could go towards SOTA amplification. |
Douglas_schroeder,
I beg to differ. If there were a loss in detail with any item added to my system, that item would not be in my system. If the use of series cabling and "tweaks" were detracting from the sound I would have abandoned this approach long ago. I do not have the time or money to waste on things that do not work.
On the contrary, each and every cable and "tweak" in series adds significantly to the sound. There is no "trade off" or "loss" whatsoever. The facts are the exact opposite of what your comments state. Every series cable and "tweak" enhances the sound in my system. I am extremely meticulous in what I do. I test each addition to the system with my reference CDs. I look for even the slightest loss of detail or definition. These are CDs I have played thousands of times. They are chosen for their subtle qualities.
You stated that "It is impossible to keep interrupting/adding to the signal path and have an absolute increase in definition and detail." I'm sorry but you are absolutely incorrect on this point. If you travel to Asia please let me know and we'll have you over for a good home-cooked meal and a nice listening session. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will change your mind after you listen to my system.
According to your reasoning, if I have 20 Bybee products in my system there should be a noticeable degradation in the quality of the sound with each Bybee product added. But the opposite is actually what happens. I imagine this is similar to what Nordost claims for their Quantum Q4X. The positive effects are cumulative.
Mapman,
Your lighthearted comment missed the point completely when you stated, "Look, if continuous tweaking is what floats one boat or keeps one of trouble, then by all means have at it and tweak away." It is as though you think I an doing this just for fun. I am not in audio for fun. This is a serious pursuit for me. I do not waste time or money on things that do not work -- certainly not the time and money I have invested in my audio system. If you think that Jack Bybee's products are "esoteric tweaks" I imagine you have never heard what they can do for a good system. They are as fundamental in my system as components. |
Douglas_schroeder,
I choose my reference CDs carefully for the complexity of ambient cues. Here are four of my favorite reference CDs. The Oscar Peterson recording is a live recording that is full of subtle ambient cues. The Johnny Rivers recording features live performances full of subtle ambient cues. The Boz Scaggs recording is a studio recording with many subtle ambient cues. The Joni Mitchell recording is a studio recording with many subtle ambient cues. Using these and many other reference CDs it is very easy to discern a degradation in the sound or a loss of detail/definition.
1. The Sound of the Trio, Oscar Peterson, recorded Live at The London House in Chicago in 1961 (remastered).
2. Johnny Rivers, Secret Agent Man, The Ultimate Johnny Rivers Anthology, 1964-2006 (remastered).
3. Boz Scaggs Hits! (remastered).
4. Joni Mitchell Court and Spark (remastered). |
DS,
Very refreshing to hear your thoughts on audio/life. There is a sound that many ears have not heard that needs to be heard. I believe most in this audio journey have a desire to hear not just a natural sound that is organic and pure but also to hear the sounds from above. Sad but most don't even know it!! |
Mapman wrote,
"mbl set up really well are hard to best in the holography dept."
I heard them at the Vegas Show, actually I couldn't help but hear them as the Mbl room was next door to the room I was in. I did visit the Mbl room, which had the complete Mbl system including amps the size of Volkswagons but I thought the system sounded pretty irritating. |
Geoffkait,
I have never heard an MBL system that sounded irritating. |
Simplicity in my experience is the only way to get true organic and holographic sound.
It's about very short signal paths, single stage amps, little or no crossover, well damped components, and as few breaks in the signal path as possible.
Then you get to speaker placement and room correction. The foundation where the bass meets the midrange is very important.
The fine detail that enables the layering and depth of soundstage to come through are very delicate. Any fuzz or phase artefacts will kill those details and when that happens the holographic elements collapse into 2D flat presentation. |
Chadeffect,
You stated, "Simplicity in my experience is the only way to get true organic and holographic sound." You don't seem to be leaving the door open to other possibilities that you have not yet experienced. |
Sabai,
I wonder how many life times it would take to experience every possibility?
That's why I said "simplicity in my experience..." In other words complex systems in my experience have not been so capable. But I am open to experiencing more. |
Sabai,
The only issue I have with your approach is you make it sound like foreever tweaking and adding stuff is a good strategy to follow. I am not so certain. It may work for you, but how is another to replicate your results with that approach? I have to wonder where the difference between better and different lies. I have heard a lot of gear including many very high end or reference type systems. There is only so much that goes into a recording. It is not an infinite pool of undiscovered musical detail as many audiophiles might think. At some point, improvement in one area often negatively impacts others. Wherever it may be, there is a finite limit to how "good" something can sound. A lot has to do with meeting individual expectations that differ much from person to person.
I do not doubt you system sounds great and holographic and whatever else. But I have trouble endorsing a lose strategy that is based on continuous tweaking. Where does it end? does it matter? That depends as well on ones goals. Having no specific goal and always tweaking and changing is as viable as any. Again to me its mostly about enjoyment. I take it seriously as well but once I get to the point where I can clearly hear differences in rrecordings with no real reservations over the long term based on a large sample recordings, I am good to go. My opinion is that powr and IC tweaks are probably required to get to where I like to be. Honestly, I could care less after that especially about things that make no sense to me. Not to say all esoteric tweaks are without basis, some are. All one can do is attempt to make informed decisions based on something that might even possibly resemble a fact. Its when one tweaks and spends just because they "think" they might be missing something and do not know what to do otherwise. At some point it becomes an obsession almost like a drug habit. That is the point at which I would become concerned if it were me.
That's how I feel about it, right or wrong. There are many tweaks out there that may do little or nothing and have no negative effect on teh sound though teh effect on one's bank account might be significant. Or, not. It all depends. Some common sense is usually a good ingredient whatever way one goes. |
Mapman, That's how I feel about it too, right or wrong. I believe that adding additional components or cables might bring relieve in some areas but has to lead to overall lack of transparency. I absolutely agree with you that tweaks, at one point, become an obsession. I call it gardener's syndrome - a constant need of trimming and re-potting.
As for the claims of achieving absolutely best sound, many people claim that and it is easy to understand why, since sound is a subjective matter and every hobbyist is proud of achievement. |
Chadeffect,
You stated, "I wonder how many life times it would take to experience every possibility?" Who's talking about "every possibility"? Did I say that? If you read my post again you will see that I did not. I said "other possibilities". Please do not misquote me.
You stated, "Simplicity in my experience is the only way to get true organic and holographic sound." You just happen to be wrong about this. It is not the only way. I have experienced a very different way.
Mapman,
Please answer the following questions:
1. What "tweaks" do you have in your system?
2. Do you have any Bybee products in your system?
3. Do you do series or parallel cabling?
I like to talk about what I know from personal experience. That way I can stick to the facts. Your statements are opinions sticking to thin air. Here's why.
You stated, "you make it sound like foreever tweaking and adding stuff is a good strategy to follow." May I repeat a statement that I have stated here before but that you choose to ignore: I do not have the time and money to waste on things that do not work. I am a serious audiophile who has spent a lot of money to get the best possible sound in my system. I do not play with "strategies". What you call my "strategy" has given stunning results. Since you have no experience with my "strategy" you are only left with speculation because you have no personal experience here. Just hot air.
You stated, "I am not so certain". Certain about what? That a "strategy" you have no experience with may or may not work? This is like speculating about whether you will like vanilla when you have never even tasted it yet. More hot air.
You stated, "There is only so much that goes into a recording." How much "goes into" a recording? You have missed the point completely. More hot air. The cues hidden by dirty AC are unavailable until you clean up your AC. It is the simple physics of sound reproduction. This is not audio religion.
You stated, "It is not an infinite pool of undiscovered musical detail as many audiophiles might think." How big is the "pool" if it not "infinite"? How do you know how much is undiscovered if your system has not discovered it yet? More hot air.
You stated, "At some point, improvement in one area often negatively impacts others." Whatsat mean? More hot air. I have never heard a Bybee product that negates anything at all. I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system.
You stated, "Wherever it may be, there is a finite limit to how "good" something can sound." Whatsat mean? More hot air. How do you know how good "something can sound" if you have not tried doing the things I have done to make those "somethings" sound better?
You stated, "But I have trouble endorsing a lose strategy that is based on continuous tweaking." More hot air. Who is asking you to endorse anything? Certainly not me. A "lose strategy"? Whatsat mean? You have no idea what you are talking about. You have never entered the race and you already know who the loser is. You would do well to visit the race track with that special gift.
You stated, "Having no specific goal and always tweaking and changing is as viable as any." No specific goal? You mean getting the best possible sound from your system is not a specific goal? Do you meant hat you consider that a vague goal? More hot air.
You stated, "My opinion is that powr and IC tweaks are probably required to get to where I like to be. Honestly, I could care less after that especially about things that make no sense to me. Not to say all esoteric tweaks are without basis, some are." Do we need to read any further to know you are talking off the top of your head about "things that make no sense" and "esoteric tweaks ... without basis". Does that include Bybee products? What exactly is your experience with them. Please illuminate us with your specific comments in this regard. Hoe do you compare the Bybee Ultra power cords with the Bybee purifiers? More hot air.
You stated, "Its when one tweaks and spends just because they "think" they might be missing something and do not know what to do otherwise. At some point it becomes an obsession almost like a drug habit. That is the point at which I would become concerned if it were me." You are saying that I "think" I am missing something so I "tweak" because I don't know what to do to improve things. More hot air. You really have NO idea what you are talking about. And I mean NO idea. You are worried that I may have a serious tweaking "drug habit". I mean, what planet are you living on?
You stated, "There are many tweaks out there that may do little or nothing and have no negative effect on teh sound though teh effect on one's bank account might be significant. Or, not. It all depends." Well, this uninformed statement can be framed for future reference. More hot air. Please let us know exactly what specific tweaks do little, which ones do nothing, and which -- God forbid -- do something good. I wonder Which Bybee products you are referring to here.
Please post when you have something specific to offer that is based on solid facts -- not merely uninformed opinions and hot air.
Kijanki,
You stated, "I believe that adding additional components or cables might bring relieve in some areas but has to lead to overall lack of transparency." Please let us know what this "belief" is based on. I do not practice audio religion. And please let us know what audio "relieve" means. I have not run across this concept in high end audio before.
You stated, "I absolutely agree with you [referring to Mapman] that tweaks, at one point, become an obsession." You also seem to be an expert in this area. How many Bybee products did you say you have in your system? I must have missed that. I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system. You and Mapman seem to have upwards of 20 strong opinions about unnamed "tweaks" that you have never actually tried.
To close off this post, we see time again on these forums where posters have strong opinions -- even unequivocal opinions -- about products they have never used in their systems and have absolutely no experience with. What is the value of these opinions that are based on strongly held beliefs -- and nothing more? I think the answer is evident. |
Mapman and Kijanki,
Good posts and I share the same sentiments.
Kijanki your "gardener`s syndrome" sums it up succinctly.
Regards, |
Charles1dad,
"Trimming and re-potting"? Sorry to disillusion so many people on this thread but high end audio is not a potted plant. To become so simplistic is to miss the point entirely. Simplicity for its own sake can be cutting off your nose to spite your own audio face. In fact, if a short signal path were the solution to audio nirvana there would be no mono amps, no pre-amps, no power conditioners, no power cells, no isolation transformers and no power regenerators -- among other audio components, not to mention daisy-chaining. |
So there you have it. The Gardeners vs the Couch Potatoes.
[Riding in a car for the first time]
Chance the Gardener: "This is just like television, only you can see much further". - from the movie, Being There |
09-23-12: Mapman
But I have trouble endorsing a lose strategy that is based on continuous tweaking. Where does it end? does it matter? That depends as well on ones goals. Having no specific goal and always tweaking and changing is as viable as any. Again to me its mostly about enjoyment. 09-23-12: Kijanki
I absolutely agree with you that tweaks, at one point, become an obsession. I call it gardener's syndrome - a constant need of trimming and re-potting. I would like to say that, for many of us, tweaking is simply fun. I understand that Sabai explicitly said that he doesn't tweak to have fun. But I think he is the exception. At the very least, I can say with confidence that a significant fraction of tweakers, myself included, are tweaking for the enjoyment of it. Personally, I do lots of tweaking. I tweak my audio system, I tweak my computer, I tweak my home, I tweak my work. I don't experience it as a chore. As to whether it is an obsession, there is certainly some truth to that. But, IMO, obsessive behavior says more about the person than the activity of tweaking. An obsessive person approaches tweaking obsessively. A hobbyist approaches tweaking as a pleasant way to occupy himself on a Sunday afternoon. My wife quilts. She enjoys looking for fabric, finding the right thread, creating the design, constructing the pattern, carefully stitching it together... In a word, she enjoys tweaking. She enjoys it as a hobbyist. She doesn't obsess about it. I try to be like my wife. President Bobby: "Life is a state of mind." --Being There Bryon |
Bryoncunningham
I enjoy tweaking immensely but it is not just an on-again off-again thing with me. It is in the deliberate pursuit of a better sound system -- a much better sound system. When I find something that works I am delighted. When I find something that does not work or does not work well, out it goes. Improving my audio system is a labor of love -- call it an obsession. This is a passion for me. I am a serious audiophile. I always work for the best results in whatever I do and that means putting a lot of time and effort into things to be successful. |
|
Dear Sabai,
We are all friends here. Don't get me wrong I enjoy tweaking too and have many tweaks in my system.
My tweaks include Hifi tuning fuses in all components, mains regeneration, anti vibration platforms, Acoustic revive RR77, audiophile wall sockets, AC inlets, plugs, power cords, ERS cloth, updated xover components, better quality passive componets in amps, contact cleaners, tube dampers, tube rolling, PW Belt foils, diffusers, cable elevators and so on.
So surely you can see I am with you? As I said I have had a fair amount of experience with tweaking.
If I miss quoted you you have misunderstood me. I find many tweaks have helped focus and refine the system performance, but the most worth while tweaks have been simple in signal path, or electrical supply mods. Of course you could go mad with more quantum this or that.
My point is its more fun (when basics are done) to find new music and spend there rather than listening to the same music 1000s of times but with yet another added tweak. The best tweak is new music IMHO rather than obsessing. |
Chadeffect,
It looks like you have a lot of experience with quite a variety of "tweaks". In fact, I have tried many of the items you mention and still have some in my system.
You hit the nail on the head when you stated "more quantum this or that." These are the very products that have made the most difference in my system -- especially Bybee Quantum products -- when compared with the effects of special fuses, audiophile wall sockets, Acoustic Revive RR77, high end plugs and IECs, ERS cloth and many other "tweaks".
I listen to music over 90% of the time and I obsess a few percent of the time. I think that's a fair balance. Otherwise I would go nuts "tweak testing". I love music too much to waste my time in "testing mode". It probably sounded the other way around the way I expressed myself. |
I was one of the very first to employ cryogenics on a wide range of audio related items, that was 15 years ago. I discovered the mechanism by which the (Quantum) Intelligent Chip works 7 years ago. I invented a six degree of freedom sub-Hertz vibration isolation stand 15 years ago. I started using Belt tweaks 10 years ago. I came out with the (Quantum) Clever Little Clock, based on Belt concepts, 6 years ago. May Belt and i wrote the explanation for how the clock works 3 years ago. My Brilliant Pebbles suite of crystal based devices was the first audio product to address a wide range of room and system issues. That was 8 years ago. Blue Meanies, also Quantum in nature, were introduced last year. You might as well lock me up and throw away the key. |
Sabai,
I want to make it clear that I`m not critical of your approach to building your audio system. I`ll assume we are in this hobby for love of music and good sound in our homes.There are those who will be more intense in their pursuit than others and see it more as a mission than I.
I`ll acknowledge up front some are far more 'serious' and hardcore than me. I just want a system that sounds natural,pure and realistic, one that allows an emotional connection to my music and pulls me into the performance. I have that and I`m very happy.Simple straight forward designs and concepts have served me best, (my system likely would`nt satisfy you). Others will have different ideas and follow another path. What ever gets you closer to your ultimate destination follow it.
Sabai, I`m not mocking your choices at all, I just relate more to what some others here have posted.Nothing more or less.I hope you do reach your goal.
Regards, |
|
"Mapman,
Please answer the following questions:
1. What "tweaks" do you have in your system?
2. Do you have any Bybee products in your system?
3. Do you do series or parallel cabling?"
1. Power strip, ICs, Mu Metal RF shielding for low output phono step up transformer
2. No Bybee products. Have never seen or heard. Same true of many other tweak products out there.
3. I use a single cable between each pair of devices. THe exception is my main rig runs through a Niles speaker selector that outputs to in-wall speaker wiring that runs to several rooms, so technically the speaker wires running into and out of the Niles are in series. |
"What you call my "strategy" has given stunning results. Since you have no experience with my "strategy" you are only left with speculation because you have no personal experience here. Just hot air."
I suppose everyone that takes a different approach from another could say that. Its not hot air for me to say I would not endorse your strategy based on my experience either. THat is not to say yours does not work. IT may very well. Its just not the approach I would take. I always like to keep things simple.
Sabai, does your system ever not sound "right"? WIth all those gadgets used, how much time does it take to isolate a problem to a specific device if it occurs? That has to be a disadvantage of your approach I would say. I simple system using as few devices as possible is much easier to troubleshoot when something is not working properly. That is a scenario we all have to deal with at some point in that all devices fail eventually and do not perform identically forever. I think that is an undeniable disadvantage to adding complexity versus keeping it simple assuming similar results can be achieved either way. |
