Sweating the Small Stuff for Big Returns

PeterA said:

The quality of a system is not guaranteed by the level of components but rather by their careful selection, proper set up, and judicious fine tuning..

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

I have been enjoying a cartridge which I just got back from a rebuild. As it breaks in, and the sound of my system improves, it has me rethinking what I had previously thought about the relative importance of various aspects of system building. As I have not changed anything about my system in the past three years except this rebuilt cartridge and learning more about cartridge set up and loading, I have started to think about why it seems that my system continues to improve and why I have been more emotionally involved with hearing my music through my system. Listening has reached a level of satisfaction, that I no longer obsess about upgrading particular components. Sure, specific upgrades would be great, but I no longer feel the need to do so in order to be happy with my system. Here is what I just posted on my system thread and my MSL/AirTight cartridge comparison thread:

"This has changed my thinking about the relative importance of component selection, proper system set up, and fine tuning, whether it be with front end adjustments in an analog system or the selection of filters and settings in a digital system, or the judicious placement of room treatments, speakers and listening seat locations. All of these cost little but time, experimentation, and a willingness to learn and listen carefully. This is consistent with my experience of hearing great systems and with observations I have read from more experienced audiophiles on forums like this one: The quality of a system is not guaranteed by the level of components but rather by their careful selection, proper set up, and judicious fine tuning. This is ultimately what makes a satisfying system and listening experience."

I think this is an interesting topic about which I have not seen much discussion.

Click to expand...

853guy said:

(These books), essentially deal with asymmetrical relationships which are one of the defining features of complex systems. Finance is a complex system, marine ecosystems are, our bodies are. Some quick examples:

Investing in the stock market (an extremely complex system of interdependencies) comes with the reality that on any given day - in fact at any given minute - you’re exposed to unlimited upside and unlimited downside. Because it’s inherently asymmetrical, each dollar you invest can either make you a disproportionate amount, or lose you a disproportionate amount, and far greater than the value of your initial investment. If you’re astute, and many think they are but are not, you look for trades in which the asymmetry is heavily weighted in upside and limited in downside, like say, buying credit default swaps against subprime mortgage securities in 2008.

Our bodies, an extraordinarily complex bio-physiological organism, are also subject to asymmetrical relationships. The blood-brain barrier is a highly selective semi-permeable shield separating the blood from the brain’s extracellular fluid, permitting the entry of nutrients it considers essential while preventing harmful toxins and bacteria from doing so. One of the ways it does this is by preventing molecules heavier than 400 gm/mole to enter (though it also has more sophisticated systems for tagging which molecules can and can’t enter). Water, for instance, has a molecular weight of 18 gm/mole, and easily crosses the blood-brain barrier. Heroin has a molecular weight of 369 gm/mole, also making it capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier. However, though both water and heroin are capable of doing so, the effects on the bio-physiological state of an individual are inversely proportionate. Your body’s relationship to long-term consumption of (uncontaminated) water is only ever positive (or at the very least benign), and in the case that your body has too much of it, it has a rather simple way of getting rid of it. Long term exposure to heroin however is only ever extremely negative, and while the body does rid itself of heroin, the symptoms of it leaving the body are vastly more pronounced.

My framing of Steve’s comments apropos the installation of Master Built Cables is one of looking at an audio system as a complex system in which small changes can have an asymmetrical payoff in either a positive and negative direction in differing degrees of magnitude. ... (My view as previously stated on this forum is that given that the human brain contains music-specific neural pathways that respond exclusively to music but not to other sounds, an audio system playing an art form socio-culturally understood to be “music” can therefore be analysed not by the way an electrical signal is modulated through a series of components but only ever by the way the brain responds to that same signal. Did that component pass that electrical waveform without measurable deviation? Yes. Is that same waveform music or something else? Only our brains will ever know.)

... My own experience leads me to believe that small changes can often have disproportionate effects. The problem with those effects is that they are often difficult to describe, especially so in a complex system that undergoes constant changes of state. I could take a sip of water and a toke of a spliff and not be able to reliably tell you any difference in effect, though the molecular composition of each is radically different. Longer term exposure would allow better discernment of the influence of one over the other, allowing scientific analysis to better measure the effects on my bio-physiological state. However, if we were to give the same substances to a baby, a toke of a spliff would have much greater impact because the baby’s bio-physiological state is much more susceptible to stimulus (positive and/or negative). The fact remains that some of our systems are more susceptible to discerning changes than others, either because they are more revealing of small changes, because they are interdependently more complex (a stylus, magnet, cartridge, arm, bearing, platter, motor, plinth is an extremely complex relationship), or both.

Steve’s comments come off to me as simply someone’s reaction to a complex system of interdependencies in which a small change resulted in a significant difference that was disproportionate to expectations. That’s the nature of asymmetry in complex systems. No less, no more.

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

The quality of a system is not guaranteed by the level of components but rather by their careful selection, proper set up, and judicious fine tuning. This is ultimately what makes a satisfying system and listening experience."[/I]

Click to expand...

bonzo75 said:

Too many aspects to this. One is the what the hobby is about - is about fine tuning, setting up, or trying different products, or something else.

Based on sonics, yes, fine tuning and set up skills should ideally get much more out of a system. Which is why I like modded components, experts who have lived with a particular component and have tweaked it, can get much more out of a lower priced component than a stock component.

Regarding set-up/matching of components, I would expect this to be even more true in the TT world. Ron is very clear, he is just going to buy his TT, and let an expert set it up. It can make or break a system. I always thought that Marty was able to extract much more from his system than the just the sum of the component parts by matching things and setting them up carefully.

At the same time, at least my observed caveat for fine tuning is that most audiophiles make their own system a reference, and when they tweak or fine tune something, while it makes their own system better than what it previously was, the delta to external ears is actually not that big, though the fine-tuning can be extremely enjoyable as a process. For all my excitement on changing valves on my Lampi, the delta is much less significant than when Bill changed his BMC phono to the Aesthetix 3 box IO Sig. And so would be the case if 95% of audiophiles changed their speakers

Click to expand...

MadFloyd said:

853guy, may I ask what components you use now?

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

Listening has reached a level of satisfaction, that I no longer obsess about upgrading particular components. Sure, specific upgrades would be great, but I no longer feel the need to do so in order to be happy with my system.

Click to expand...

853guy said:

Hi Peter, Hi Bonzo

As I’ve mentioned above, asymmetrical relationships in complex systems create asymmetries disproportionate to the initial value of investment.

As to the points you’ve made bolded above, I want to offer a painful example from my own journey that I think underlines both of your statements.

Having neared Nirvana on my Naim journey I discovered that while my system continued to make incremental but meaningful progress with each tweak and addition Naim brought out, fundamentally, I only ever had a slightly better version of what I already had. That is, while I was able to build on it’s strengths (momentum, macro-dynamics and pitch differentiation), fundamentally, it did nothing to address its weaknesses (lack of harmonic complexity, fluidity of spaces in between the notes, touch and micro-dynamic filigree) - instead, my progress in one direction only called into sharp relief the lack of progress in others.

Ultimately finding it a three-trick pony (that Pace, Rhythm and Timing trope really became a self-defining limitation), but a very entertaining one in the ways that tricky ponies can be, in a fit of buyer’s impertinence I sold it all and ventured into the heavy-hitters Stereophile and TAS claimed were worthy of being loaned out long-term to their reviewers, accruing the quid quo pro commensurate honours. American digital, American valve amps, European speakers with exotic drivers and racks subject to modal analysis - there’s no need to name names.

I tweaked and tweaked and obsessed and tweaked and obsessed some more over setup, placement, power, isolation, acoustic treatments, cable dressing, millimetre perfect positioning, footers and other footers and better footers and placing Post-It notes under those better footers (one at a time, listening for the “change” I believed it would produce with methodical attention to the subtlest and most ephemeral artefacts of the recording process)…

Man, that system sucked.

While it addressed the weaknesses I was so desperate to remedy from my previous system, its strengths were ultimately as limited. In the end, it became difficult to keep watching a show where the characters remain mono-dimensional and their attempt at development is to film it in ever higher-resolution. What’s more, while many of the tweaks I employed came with gains to one or more aspects of its performance, there was just as often a deficit to others that resulted in a net loss.

In both cases, with the Naim and the those-that-shall-not-be-named, the system was never able to reach beyond its fundament character. They were what they were. They were defined by the values their topology, implementation and execution dictated. That they changed was only testament to the reality that complex systems have asymmetries that can be exploited. The BMC may have been good - great even with a bunch of very carefully executed tweaking, isolation, power cord swapping and grounding et al, but it’s possible its character remains evident and ultimately less-dimensional than that of the Aesthetix even without the tweaks (I’m guessing, I’ve not heard either).

So to me, component selection remains critical. You can roll a one-trick pony in glitter but it’s still just a small horse.

And if I learned anything from those two very expensive systems, it’s that only experience can tell you if the asymmetry you’re exploiting for a disproportionate gain comes at the expense of another variable that moves in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

853guy said:

Hi Peter, Hi Bonzo
As I’ve mentioned previously, asymmetrical relationships in complex systems create asymmetries disproportionate to the initial value of investment.
As to the points you’ve made bolded above, I want to offer a painful example from my own journey that I think underlines both of your statements.
Having neared Nirvana on my Naim journey I discovered that while my system continued to make incremental but meaningful progress with each tweak and addition Naim brought out, fundamentally, I only ever had a slightly better version of what I already had. That is, while I was able to build on it’s strengths (momentum, macro-dynamics and pitch differentiation), fundamentally, it did nothing to address its weaknesses (lack of harmonic complexity, fluidity of spaces in between the notes, touch and micro-dynamic filigree) - instead, my progress in one direction only called into sharp relief the lack of progress in others.

Ultimately finding it a three-trick pony (that Pace, Rhythm and Timing trope really became a self-defining limitation), but a very entertaining one in the ways that tricky ponies can be, in a fit of buyer’s impertinence I sold it all and ventured into the heavy-hitters Stereophile and TAS claimed were worthy of being loaned out long-term to their reviewers, accruing the quid quo pro commensurate honours. American digital, American valve amps, European speakers with exotic drivers and racks subject to modal analysis - there’s no need to name names.

I tweaked and tweaked and obsessed and tweaked and obsessed some more over setup, placement, power, isolation, acoustic treatments, cable dressing, millimetre perfect positioning, footers and other footers and better footers and placing Post-It notes under those better footers (one at a time, listening for the “change” I believed it would produce with methodical attention to the subtlest and most ephemeral artefacts of the recording process)…

Man, that system sucked.

While it addressed the weaknesses I was so desperate to remedy from my previous system, its strengths were ultimately as limited. In the end, it became difficult to keep watching a show where the characters remain mono-dimensional and their attempt at development is to film it in ever higher-resolution. What’s more, while many of the tweaks I employed came with gains to one or more aspects of its performance, there was just as often a deficit to others that resulted in a net loss.

In both cases, with the Naim and the those-that-shall-not-be-named, the system was never able to reach beyond its fundament character. They were what they were. They were defined by the values their topology, implementation and execution dictated. That they changed was only testament to the reality that complex systems have asymmetries that can be exploited. The BMC may have been good - great even with a bunch of very carefully executed tweaking, isolation, power cord swapping and grounding et al, but it’s possible its character remains evident and ultimately less-dimensional than that of the Aesthetix even without the tweaks (I’m guessing, I’ve not heard either).

So to me, component selection remains critical. You can roll a one-trick pony in glitter but it’s still just a small horse.

And if I learned anything from those two very expensive systems, it’s that only experience can tell you if the asymmetry you’re exploiting for a disproportionate gain comes at the expense of another variable that moves in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

There is no question that listing to vinyl can be a much bigger commitment than is listening to digital. It depends on how involved one wants to be. There are many digital options and when I watched some of my friends try to configure their computer audio based systems, my head starts to spin because of all of the connections, filters, options. In that sense, perhaps the formats are similar. Once sorted out though, digital is easier, I think.

Click to expand...

Yes, an analog expert can certainly help one with set up and fine tuning, but I strongly feel the user must know how to adjust things himself. Cartridges suspensions change over time. Some, like me, adjust VTA for each LP. The learning curve is long and constant.

Click to expand...

Al M. said:

853guy,

your post is very interesting, as is your first one on this thread. I agree that component selection remains critical. Fortunately, I have had to choose my basic set-up only once (after switching from a headphone system): CD playback going into Audio Innovations parallel push-pull triode monoblocks that drive highly efficient monitors, combined with a subwoofer. The amps have been heavily modified and supplemented with external power supplies, but in terms of design they are still the same as when I bought them 25 years ago. CD playback and speakers have changed but the new speakers are still of the same type, highly efficient monitors. While overall the system does have its limitations, to my ears there is no one area where it is severely limited in terms of what you described, to the extent that the limitation distracts from an overall enjoyment. Recent experiences with diverse other systems have not made me change my mind as to thinking that I should go another route, e.g., with larger speakers.

Further I agree with you that sweating the small stuff, as Peter A. describes it, cannot cure fundamental ills arising from not well suited components. Yet I also agree with Peter that sweating the small stuff is critical as well. Only when you do that, the inherent quality of the components/system can fully shine. Even worse, not paying attention to the small stuff you may end up with forever mediocre sound, no matter how much you change components and ruin your bank account along the way. For me sweating the small stuff mainly was on one hand choosing/positioning of acoustic treatment which also, critically, included carpets, and on the other hand listening position and speaker placement. The latter was performed to accuracy with a laser once I had the basic location figured out (Peter A. helped me a lot with fine-tuning).

Click to expand...

NorthStar said:

Yes, I too like reading your posts. You remind me of Frank (fas42) a little; very similar line of thinking and experience.

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

When it comes to maximizing the potential of one's system, I think there is no substitute for experience and a willingness to learn by doing. I hired Jim Smith for his RoomPlay service on my system. I spend a day and a half watching, discussing, listening, and learning from him about how to position speakers, the listening seat and room treatments. It was a great experience.

I would also love to have a guy like Andre Jennings come over to set up a cartridge and learn more about that process from such an expert. It is important to learn from people who know more than you do. But that can only go so far because they leave, and then you are left with your system. Part of the fun, for me at least, is to tinker and to try to extract more performance without spending much money. It can be fun, and it can certainly be rewarding.

Upgrading components can also be a lot of fun. But it can be frustrating too, especially if one can not do a proper in system direct comparison before buying. We read many complaints about the merry-go-round process and how it often does not lead to longer term satisfaction. I often wonder if the most satisfied audiophiles are those who tend to collect vintage gear, modify it, and tinker away, trying to improve performance and musical enjoyment. And then, at some point, one must ask where does the music fit in? How much is it about the gear itself, the sound of the gear, or the music. Bruce Brown recently wrote in a post that the gear or system is simply a means or vehicle with which to get to the music. (paraphrasing)

In the end, there are many approaches one can take. The happiest audiophiles I know are ones who know their systems well, have a clear idea of a sonic reference point and what they want their systems to do, and are fairly active with sweating the small stuff to make improvements. They have a sense of direction, an awareness of why they are doing things, a willingness to learn and work at it, and they tend to only make changes in a deliberate and well reason way.

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

When it comes to maximizing the potential of one's system, I think there is no substitute for experience and a willingness to learn by doing. ...

Upgrading components can also be a lot of fun. But it can be frustrating too, especially if one can not do a proper in system direct comparison before buying. We read many complaints about the merry-go-round process and how it often does not lead to longer term satisfaction....
In the end, there are many approaches one can take. The happiest audiophiles I know are ones who know their systems well, have a clear idea of a sonic reference point and what they want their systems to do, and are fairly active with sweating the small stuff to make improvements. They have a sense of direction, an awareness of why they are doing things, a willingness to learn and work at it, and they tend to only make changes in a deliberate and well reason way.

Click to expand...