What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Sebrof, some folks need a physic, not physics.

Tootles

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

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.

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

C'on Geoff. Let er rip. We can take it!

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?

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

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.

Well Sabai, you did in fact respond. Btw, was that a bit of a Freudian slip in your last response to Mapman?

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.

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.

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.

Csontos,
You're the only one questioning my honesty. Anyone who questions my honesty will not receive a response from me.

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.

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!

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.

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

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,

"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

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....

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,
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.

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.....

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.

Try the link to "diminishing returns". I would dare to wager Sabai is burning his crop by now.

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.

Here's a useful principle
that 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..

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

":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.

"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.

"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.

Sounds way cool Dude!!

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,

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.

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.

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.

Bryoncunningham,

amen

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.

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

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

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.

Mapman and Kijanki,
Good posts and I share the same sentiments.
Kijanki your "gardener`s syndrome" sums it up succinctly.
Regards,

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, 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.

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.

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.