":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."
I have followed a strategy more similar to yours in the past and abandoned it in that it became to complicated to maintain. Were IO to change, I would look to make my system even simpler if possible, not more complex.
Of course your realization of your strategy in terms of the specific configuration is likely unique and different from most any other it sounds like. THe only way to make a valid claim that yours is superior would be to have a direct comparison to another system in an unbiased manner. In lieu of that, any claims of superiority by any of us is just hot air. The benefits of keeping any system as simple as possible in order to achieve results is pretty hard to argue though I think. |
Sabai,
Here's some more hot air....
When you demonstrate a willingness to respect the opinions of others, I might continue the discussion, which I find an interesting one. OTherwise I will save my hot air for a more useful purpose. |
Sabai,
Sometimes it's hard to get ones intent across clearly in these little posts. It seems you have a good balance of obsession/enjoyment to me. I'm glad we cleared that up! Or should I say I'm about the same? My system is pretty stable these days. I learned a lot experimenting and reached a good place.
I tried some ICs with bybees of some sort inside some years ago. But had nothing to compare it with. I.e the same cable without the bybee.
I wanted to try the quantum purifier bybees on each of the speaker driver terminals, but when I asked about it I was told they were not worth the effort by someone with the same speakers.
The manufacturer said they had not gotten great results or feedback from the very few who had tried it. So I shelved the idea. I didn't feel that $$$$ brave :-(
I had the impression that less sensitive/speakers that needed more current which gained more. I would give the WA chips a go sometime. |
One last breath of hot air I must add is that I am not anti tweak. However I endorse addressing fundamentals first, tweaks second. Some talk first about fundamentals, then tweaks, recognizing the relative importance correctly. Chadeffect is a good example. I have considerable respect for Chads comments on most any topic accordingly.
Its those who focus on tweaks (user or vendor) without giving proper due accordance to the fundamental principals involved in good home sound and establishing some credibility there first that I tend to question. |
My perspective is that people rad these threads mostly to learn, not for pure entertainment value. TO me it is a disservice for anyone to be going hog wild recommending potentially expensive tweaks without putting those in proper perspective compared to the things that matter most. That may be good for the tweak vendors business, but does little for those who rally want to learn how do practically get better sound. |
"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.
"
I like vanilla.
I have never tried jumping into quicksand either but I have a pretty good idea what to expect regardless. |
Here's a useful principlethat relates to applications of technology that can also be applied to optimizing home audio effectively. home audio tweaks fall into the 20% category of the Pareto Principle I would say. Personally, as one who seeks perfection in my home audio sound (yet knows that is not likely to happen 100%) I tend to want to well exceed the 80/20 rule when it comes to home audio matters. I would say I want my rig to achieve 90% or better of what is possible in theory. Some tweaking will be necessary to get that but realizing the fundamentals has a good chance of putting one in the game based on the Pareto Principle.. |
Charles1dad,
You make a good point. There are many different destinations in this vast audio world. Not everyone has the same wants and needs. So, to quote someone famous, "different strokes for different folks".
Mapman,
With no Bybees and single cabling you can only speculate about the kind of system that I have created. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as we realize it for what it is. But those who have experience with what I have done will have opinions that are of higher value because they are based on actual experience and not simply speculation.
Mapman,
When I was referring to hot air it was in regards to making speculative statements that have no basis in actual fact. They are what I call hot air -- no experience behind them. Everyone takes their own approach -- which does not mean that a radically different approach should be regarded lightly or summarily dismissed because of preconceived notions that may or may not be correct.
Mapman,
Simple for simple sake may not be the answer to better sound. It is very easy for me to figure out what is going on with any single item in my system. I take it out and listen. I put it back in and I listen. The ears will tell very quickly, or after an appropriate break-in interval, whether it is adding or subtracting -- and to what extent -- or if it is more or less neutral. So, yes, my system very often does not sound right if the item added is not improving things. So, out it goes and then it sounds right again.
Mapman,
Different strokes for different folks. You abandoned complex for simple, I abandoned simple for complex. Yes, it is quite complicated and takes a lot of time and effort and money. But, for me, the rewards have been more than worth the time and the effort and the money.
Chadeffect,
You make a good point. I have no experience with the internal Bybee purifiers. I only have the plug-and-play versions in my system and they are all amazing. Otherwise -- out they would have gone.
Mapman,
The "tweaks" in my system have made such a fundamental improvement to the sound that I consider them as fundamental as components.
Mapman,
By the way, Bybee "tweaks" are so unrecognized and underrated in the audio community that I was lucky to pick most of them up at a very reasonable price. The cumulative price was quite substantial, I will admit. And, by the way, there is no "quicksand" in my system. And, by the way, I don't work on percentages. I just use what works. If that amount to 20% or 40% of my system then so be it. I am only interested in the best possible results. |
Try the link to "diminishing returns". I would dare to wager Sabai is burning his crop by now. |
I believe the onus of proof is on Sabai since he is the one pushing the innovation.
Sabai, could you describe how you do your critical listening and make judgements about sonic improvements. The reason I ask is that with some many tweaks and variables in your system I am a little wary of your statement about 90% of your listening being for pleasure. |
Look, the bottom line is Sabai has his way which works for him. I have mine. We each have our own.
If it works it works.
Best practices that others might leverage is where it becomes interesting. Not everything that works can be a best practice. Best practices are usually the roadmap one wants to follow.
I'm sure there are some best practices relating to audio tweaks that might be discerned. Getting a concensus on what they are is probably a challenge. In lieu of best practices, it is the user who assumes the risks associated with exploring lesser understood territories. They may strike gold or go bust. It all depends..... |
Csontos,
Dare to wager. This is one you will not win.
Onhwy61,
"The onus of proof"? No problem. Come on over for a home cooked meal and an evening of lovely music anytime you're in Asia. Critical listening is done carefully with my reference CDs -- too many to mention. I would say 95% + is devoted to the pleasure of listening to my favorite music.
Mapman,
You got it absolutely right. "If it works it works." For me, the only "best practices" are those practices that improve the sound. I am very practical. I am only interested in results --- however they may come about.
Mapman,
You stated, "it is the user who assumes the risks associated with exploring lesser understood territories. They may strike gold or go bust. It all depends..... " You hit the nail on the head here. |
There's no mystery here. The territory is well understood, like Saskatchewan. No trees. See right across. Simple. Straight line. As the crow flies. Crystal clear. |
Csontos,
I would tend to agree that the home audio territories we are discussing are very well understood and not all that complicated on grand scale of things.
No doubt there are still some frontiers though. You can explore on your own or hire a guide. If you hire a guide, be sure you can trust them.... |
Mapman wrote,
"Personally, as one who seeks perfection in my home audio sound (yet knows that is not likely to happen 100%) I tend to want to well exceed the 80/20 rule when it comes to home audio matters. I would say I want my rig to achieve 90% or better of what is possible in theory. Some tweaking will be necessary to get that but realizing the fundamentals has a good chance of putting one in the game based on the Pareto Principle.. "
You appear to assume in advance what 100% sounds like, so it would be rather difficult to say you have achieved 80 or 90%, or whatever. Besides, there is no consensus for what constitutes "what is possible in theory," as you put it. Any limit or ceiling or percentage is strictly artificial or imagined. The only thing you can logically conclude is that you've gotten your system to sound as good as it sounds to you.
Cheers |
Geoff.
Each of us can obviously only assess relative to what each of us have actually heard.
In my case and I'm sure in the case of many other experienced listeners I have heard a lot of live music and home and pro systems over the years. Many performances, many venues, many genres of music, many systems including many high end systems. I have a lot of practical reference in this area as I am sure many do.
So what I mean by what one can expect "in theory" is each person's personal experiences and understandings.
Theory is probably a poor choice of words in this case. ITs really more about having a reference standard and then attempting to hit it. |
Mapman wrote,
"Each of us can obviously only assess relative to what each of us have actually heard."
Yes! That's the whole problem in a nutshell.
Cheers |
I can't quite see how one can complain about somebody else s tweaking in their own system. If they were streaking that might be cause for complaint. That is kind of personal and someone is sharing that with us, not forcing down our throat, i would like to say thank you. I do appreciate the sharing of these tweaks. If we all look at the initial post it was asking some excellent thoughtful questions and not making adamant statements. I will share something I have done that made a wonderful improvement because of this and another thread. I ran 2 different pair(1-ps audio and 1-audio magic)of speaker cables in parallel from amp to speaker. The difference I hear is almost the best of both cables. I am quite happy with it. I have been at this hobby low bugetwise for about 40yrs. Heard a ton of high high end equipment over the yrs. and I like what I did. You might to. And you just may criticize me also but I only aim to please my ears. |
Sabai, you're on! With the statements you've made, I don't believe you've been honest with us here. And there have been plenty of allusions to that end. You've been grandstanding here and you know it! I don't think anyone here actually believes you. You seem to be the only one in the whole world who's ever experienced the extent of what you're talking about. Subjectivity is the perfect veil, isn't it. Your problem is that we're all doing the best we can to achieve the closest semblance to reality with our systems; so we're on to you! |
Marqmike,
You have caught the spirit in which this thread was started and I appreciated that.
You have confirmed something that I do with my own system. I am also experimenting with speaker cables in parallel and the results are excellent -- as you say, "the best of both cables". This is also what I am obtaining with running cables in series, as well. |
Csontos,
You're the only one questioning my honesty. Anyone who questions my honesty will not receive a response from me. |
Mapman,
To give you an idea of what this all means for the sound my system produces let me give you a recent example. I put on Eugene Ormandy's Rachmaninov Symphonies 1-3 yesterday. The whole orchestra was in my room. I mean the concerts opened up with such expansive 3D imaging and sound stage that I could not believe it. Not to mention all the other parameters (detail/definition, tonality, dynamics, transparency, etc.) Not only did all the walls in my room disappear, it was as if I was actually at the concert. There is no other way I can describe this.
The sonic effects of what I have been doing to improve my system are simply stunning. They have exceeded my original expectations by a quantum measure. |
Tweaking to me is essentially fine tuning the sound to achieve a goal. With this definition, I have done a lot of tweaking to my system over the last 4-5 years as well to get to where I wanted to be. Pretty much everything save my turntable and tonearm changed. None of my tweaks were what I would consider "esoteric". I had some understanding of how each change worked. Predicting how wires specifically analog ICs would affect the sound was hardest. In the end, only listening told the whole story. My most uncommon tweak was use of Mu Metal for extra shielding needed to reduce inducted noise in my phono rig. Mu Metal is used for this purpose in many applications over the years and its principle of operation is well documented and understood. The mu metal needed cost $30 direct over the internet. Compare to Shakti stones. Those are much more attractive looking I am sure. Do they work as well or better than Mu Metal? I do not know. The Mu MEtal addressed the issue well so there is no issue to address anymore.
I guess my point is tweaking is essential to fine tuning the sound to reach a goal. I prefer to work with things I understand well especially when expensive. YMMV. |
Sabai,
"The whole orchestra was in my room. I mean the concerts opened up with such expansive 3D imaging and sound stage that I could not believe it. Not to mention all the other parameters (detail/definition, tonality, dynamics, transparency, etc.) Not only did all the walls in my room disappear, it was as if I was actually at the concert"
This is exactly what I have found and have been almost surprised by. I am sure by doing the basics 1st, then tweaking to focus from there is how to achieve it.
Obviously the gear has to be able to perform at its optimum. The speakers need to be carefully placed. The power supply clean. The room reasonable.
As a single digital sourced guy I am sure the latest digital has come of age to allow through so much of the very delicate information that makes that soundstage possible. Im sure the analogue equipment too. As it passes through the equipment it's a delicate preservation game!
To me the various tweaks have pulled the overall details sharply into focus to allow that 3D holographic presentation. Some tweaks more than others but each playing its part.
I guess now we start discussing the more controversial quantum tweaks. I have experienced very strange effects with the few I have tried. PWB foils being the oddest. Whether they were working on me, the system or both!
All that to say I doubt you can reach that level of 3D performance without the tweaks. |
Well Sabai, you did in fact respond. Btw, was that a bit of a Freudian slip in your last response to Mapman? |
Mapman,
For my system "tweaks" are much more than fine tuning. They are as important as components and often have as great an effect as changing a component.
Chadeffect,
When you stated "... I doubt you can reach that level of 3D performance without the tweaks." I have to agree with you completely. This is my experience after being at this for 7 years in a very active way. |
Chadeffect wrote,
"I guess now we start discussing the more controversial quantum tweaks. I have experienced very strange effects with the few I have tried. PWB foils being the oddest. Whether they were working on me, the system or both!"
The sort of discussion you're referring to might be a little too much for the more squeamish in the group. But just to get it out of the way, here are a few of my fav controversial quantum tweaks. They are guaranteed to get any self respecting skeptic's panties in a bunch. None of these tweaks are expensive, one is even free. Intelligent Chip, PWB Red X Coordinate Pen, Photos in the Freezer Tweak (free), the new WA Quantum Chips from Germany, Teleportation Tweak, and PWB Cream Electret.
Geoff Kait
machina dynamica |
Hi Geoff,
Here we go then...
I have noticed you receiving a tough time in some discussions. You will find me open to experimentation. I am interested in the result.
Like many here I have a slight knowledge of quantum theories. I'm not sure how up to date I am, but most of my reading was done 8 years ago now I guess.
I know of most of the products you mention in your last post. I have not tried them...yet! As I mentioned earlier I am interested in trying the WA quantum chip.
My experience with the PWBELT foils was most strange and dare I say unnerving? The effect was like no other tweak experience I have had.
If I had to explain it, I would say the closest to a "normal" tweaking experience would be like replacing a poor capacitor with a much much better capacitor in an important place in the signal path.
Suddenly the music was more "there". With that extra detail or removal of grunge, came a sense of the meaning that wasn't there before. As if the musics expression was more obvious.
There was a law or diminishing returns though, as the 1st few pieces made a large difference while more after those initial ones did little or nothing.
I tried to theorise what could cause the effect. Maybe putting the foil on the DACs chips was damping them? Luckily I didn't need to explain it. I just enjoyed what it did.
Which one of the mentioned tweaks would you recommend 1st? |
C'on Geoff. Let er rip. We can take it! |
Chadeffect wrote,
"Like many here I have a slight knowledge of quantum theories. I'm not sure how up to date I am, but most of my reading was done 8 years ago now I guess."
It might be helpful to forget almost everything you learned about quantum physics.
"I know of most of the products you mention in your last post. I have not tried them...yet! As I mentioned earlier I am interested in trying the WA quantum chip."
Yeah, me, too. I have some on the way from the US distributor.
"My experience with the PWBELT foils was most strange and dare I say unnerving? The effect was like no other tweak experience I have has. I tried to theorise what could cause the effect. Maybe putting the foil on the DACs chips was damping them?..."
The foils are not dampers or RFI/EMI absorbers or anything like that. An over-simplified explanation for PWB products would be "mind-matter interaction" - i.e., how the subconscious or conscious mind is affected by certain Objects or Images or Information in the immediate surroundings and, in some cases, at long distance.
"Which one of the mentioned tweaks would you recommend 1st?"
It's not that easy to chose a favorite. :-)
GK |
Lol Geoff. ;-)
Well I shall start with the WA quantum chip and see where it leads...I'm in the mood for a new journey into sound.
I just hope I don't get pulled into another dimension without a means of return. I quite like it here. |
09-26-12: Geoffkait
It might be helpful to forget almost everything you learned about quantum physics. Or for that matter, any other kind of physics |
Sebrof, some folks need a physic, not physics.
Tootles |
You mean Psychic, don't you? |
At least he's entertaining. Not enough to spend any money on anything he says, but amusing nonetheless. |
Csontos wrote,
"You mean Psychic, don't you?"
I knew you were going to say that. |
|
Every time you guys argue my treble becomes a little better |
"For my system "tweaks" are much more than fine tuning. They are as important as components and often have as great an effect as changing a component."
No doubt, tweaks can have a large effect as much as anything. I observe this as well with simple IC changes for example.
Again, to me, anything that changes the sound is a tweak. Changing DAC, amp, IC, power source are all tweaks to help achieve a desired goal. But not all tweaks are created equal some do nothing except change the way the user thinks, perhaps the mind matter interaction that Geoff is so fond of touting. |
FWIW, I added an elliptical training machine to my larger listening room where my large OHM F5s reside yesterday. I had to do some significant re-arranging of furniture including a large cushioned couch. THe speakers remained where they are and have been for months now. Yes, the sound changed! I am of the opinion that any change to what resides in a listening room effects the sound. The only question is how much and in what way. Some effects are so small however as to not be noticeable or significant, at least to human ears.
I also have no doubt that placing certain objects close to electronic circuits may very well have an effect. Again the questions are how much, what is the change, and is it for the better or worse or perhaps even a mixed bag. I suspect the third case is the most common, ie many well designed tweaks produce a combination of both positive and negative effects. However, the mindset initially is to listen for anything that might be different as positive. Over the long term, the assessment might change as our thought patterns change. More mind/matter interaction..... |
Mapman wrote,
"Again, to me, anything that changes the sound is a tweak. Changing DAC, amp, IC, power source are all tweaks to help achieve a desired goal. But not all tweaks are created equal some do nothing except change the way the user thinks, perhaps the mind matter interaction that Geoff is so fond of touting."
I'm afraid you're confusing tweaks with modifications or even upgrading components. Have you ever considered it might be time to change the way you think. Time to throw away all those McGuffey Readers and high school physics books.
Mapman also wrote,
"I also have no doubt that placing certain objects close to electronic circuits may very well have an effect."
Nice strawman argument but that is NOT what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception, as opposed to anything that has a DIRECT effect on the audio signal ANYWHERE in the system - the power provided at the wall, cables or electronics, or the acoustic waves in the room. You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room. What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers. Relatively speaking, of course. You're used to it, so you believe that everything is as it should be. This is the big secret! Lol
"It's what I chose to believe". - Dr. Shaw in the movie, Prometheus |
"Have you ever considered it might be time to change the way you think. "
Have you? |
" I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception"
You mean like you? |
"What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers."
Really?
Help me please! |
Geoff, please tell me what I should think! I am now so confused..... |
GEof, In the interest of better sound, I am willing to consider changing the way I think. Please tell me what I should be changing to. I am afraid to let go of everything without knowing where to go. Does that make me a bad person? Please help! |
"You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room."
GEoff, seriously, what do I do to hear the sound I've worked so hard for? Please tell me where to put all that stuff correctly! I think you must know something you are not telling me. Its not fair to scare me like this and not help if you can. |
My sensory perception is what it is, I think. Maybe I could ask a doctor how to improve it. Or maybe it just is what it is. Like a barrier island. You can fight mother nature with jetties, dredging, etc. but mother nature will win in the end. It is what it is? At least last time I checked I do not have any telephone books in the house thanks to the internet. |
GEof,
I know you are a vendor, but its really not right to point out these problems without offering a solution. IT sounds like you know this stuff and have some solutions. IS it your products? Just be forthcoming and tell us how to solve these problems that it would seem most are not aware of. I need answers. Otherwise, you know the saying, ignorance is bliss.... I honestly believe that sometimes! |
I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception, as opposed to anything that has a DIRECT effect on the audio signal ANYWHERE in the system - the power provided at the wall, cables or electronics, or the acoustic waves in the room. You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room. Geoff - How did you come to this realization, IOW why do you believe this is so? |
