Tweaks : A sensible investment or a waste of money?

Barry2013 said:

I am motivated to start this thread to facilitate a dedicated and an informed discussion about this aspect of our hobby as opposed to a Zu centric or other component centric exchange.
A useful starting point for me is what should we regard as a tweak.
I don't see cables be they interconnects, speaker cables, power cables or usb and ethernet cables really qualifying as tweaks. To me they are part of the audio mainstream and there is overwhelming experience and evidence that they do make a real difference to sound quality. How you divide your spend between cable and amps/sources is an entirely valid issue. In general ,and to use an old English proverb, I do not believe you can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Or in other words the spend on cables needs to bear a sensible relationship to the spend on the component concerned. No point in spending a small fortune on cables for a "budget" amp or whatever. Far more cost effective to buy a better amp.
As a long term proponent of the benefits of grounding I approach that feature in the same way. IME experience it is cost effective but it makes no sense to buy a Tripoint Emperor and Anaconda cables to connect to a system of mid priced kit. Investment in grounding needs to be proportionate to the rest of the system. Indeed, I can see the argument that you should shun grounding completely and use the saving to spend on upgrading other aspects of the system.I do not agree with that but I can see the logic. It's a matter of maintaining a sensible balance IMHO.
Vibration insulation is another issue on which I take the same view.
I won't seek to try and set out an exhaustive list of tweaks/real or alleged performance products, but it does seem to me that we could all benefit from a sensible discussion on this topic if only because the evidence suggests that it is all too easy to get the balance of investment in ones system expensively wrong.

Click to expand...

Interesting approach, Barry. Your view raises imho three questions:
- Might it be that cables (maybe together with loudspeakers) are the weak link in our audio set up and as a consequence investing in cables does make a lot of sense?
- In my view investing in ‘ground’ boxes makes a lot of sense, not only because high quality grounding yields very important benefits but also because it is a cost effective investment. All audio components connected to these boxes benefit from it, so is grounding not (one of) the best way(s) to elevate audio systems?
- Might it be that a large part of the audio community is still underestimating the importance of grounding in general and grounding cables in particular? In my very expensive Tidal La Assoluta / Kondo system the effects of the Tripoint Emperor mk ii ‘ground’ station and the Emperor mk ii ground cables are huge.

Imo, tweaks should be the last link in the chain, if everything else is correct in the system and all of the other gear is maximized, tweaking it with some form of tweak...cones, footers, risers, plugs, isolation devices..can all be beneficial. However, IME, if something else upstream needs to be addressed and is a fundamental component, then tweaks need to be delayed to address that problem first.

My posts suggest to people, correctly, that I am more skeptical about tweaks than probably is the average WBF member. I think tweaks should be the icing on the cake; they should not be used as a large Band-Aid on a system which is failing fundamentally to satisfy its owner.

Hyperbolic written and oral descriptions (which, of course, attract the attention of the ever-vigilant WBF Hyperbole Police) of tweaks aside I, for one, have written into the scripture MikeL’s quantification several months ago that all of his tweaks add approximately five (5) percent to the sound quality of his system.

I think a number like 5% sounds conceptually correct in terms of my notion that tweaks should be the icing on the cake.

Maybe even the icing on the cake suggests too material an improvement in overall sound quality. Maybe tweaks should be a few strawberries on top of the cake?

It's hard to say because ultimately, time decides. In many instances, yesteryear's tweak is today's OEM feature. Take probably the most famous tweak of them all, spikes. Somehow they get accepted, became standard issue for speakers and some electronics. Then the elbow joints came along (ball and cup) and these replaced spikes as standard by some manufacturers. Then came the CLD stuff like the Nimbus from HRS or CFS from CMS. The Nimbus now comes standard on Aesthetix's Eclipse Series. When teflon caps hit the market they were often used by the DIY community as tweaks (usually as coupling caps), they are pretty common now too.

All I can say about tweaks is that most of what I have tried have been either of the "did anything really change?" or more or less predictable in what they bring to the table. Those that delivered easily detectable differences, ran the spectrum of made worse to made better. I guess is it is as it should be because if someone has done his due diligence tweakage is really just that, trying to squeeze that little bit more. Those that predictably delivered consistent improvements over a wide range of users are the ones that eventually become part of the standard designer parts bin.

Audiocrack said:

Interesting approach, Barry. Your view raises imho three questions:
- Might it be that cables (maybe together with loudspeakers) are the weak link in our audio set up and as a consequence investing in cables does make a lot of sense?
- In my view investing in ‘ground’ boxes makes a lot of sense, not only because high quality grounding yields very important benefits but also because it is a cost effective investment. All audio components connected to these boxes benefit from it, so is grounding not (one of) the best way(s) to elevate audio systems?
- Might it be that a large part of the audio community is still underestimating the importance of grounding in general and grounding cables in particular? In my very expensive Tidal La Assoluta / Kondo system the effects of the Tripoint Emperor mk ii ‘ground’ station and the Emperor mk ii ground cables are huge.

Click to expand...

I think one question Barry is asking is, if you were the owner of a 3k KEF standamouunt, and knew you could upgrade your speakers and electronics by a considerable margin, would you have spent that grounding money on the KEF? Currently your tweaks spending is well balanced and though your tri point costs are high as a percentage of your tidal and Kondo they are not

Is loudspeaker positioning considered a tweak?
About room treatment and furniture?

NorthStar said:

Is loudspeaker positioning considered a tweak?
About room treatment and furniture?

Click to expand...

One way of looking at and defining tweaks is to view anything that plugs into the system, ie. cables or grounding boxes, as essential components to maximise the system whereas anything that is an ‘add-on’, not plugged into the system, ie. footers, acoustic panels or room energisers, are tweaks.

Cheers

Should also say that changing components internally, caps, wire or fuses, are modifications and not tweaks imo.

bonzo75 said:

I think one question Barry is asking is, if you were the owner of a 3k KEF standamouunt, and knew you could upgrade your speakers and electronics by a considerable margin, would you have spent that grounding money on the KEF? Currently your tweaks spending is well balanced and though your tri point costs are high as a percentage of your tidal and Kondo they are not

Click to expand...

Yep, I fully understood Barry’s point casu quo question but I am afraid I cannot answer it. Both my set ups (Tidal LA / Kondo and Genesis 1.1 / Kondo) are above average (if I may be so arrogant). My experience with grounding is limited to these two systems and the sonic benefits of the Tripoint grounding were huge, in particular with the Emperor mk ii ‘ground’ station and the three mk ii ground cables. No idea how these experiences would translate to more average systems. But one of my main points was / is: all components, including loudspeakers, benefit from good grounding. In that regard grounding is in my view a very cost effective upgrade in comparison to investing in just one audio component.

As mentioned earlier on WBF, I do not consider grounding a tweak but as one of the fundamentals (like acoustics, power, isolation) in order to create great sound at home. I believe Mike in the end agreed with me on this point. But if Mike would include grounding in his five percent tweak qualification, I (strongly) disagree with him. I both my systems the Tripoint ‘grounding’ effects are much more important than that.

There are many ways to skin a cat but perhaps that is a topic for another day.

On the subject of spend on components and essential infrastructure as well as tweaks the reasonable budget breakdown has always been debatable.

I wonder if rather than considering any one approach as being a hard and fast rule there are possibly potential guidelines on wisdom which can be useful just as that... perhaps just as guidelines and relate only to the context of the system being developed.

So a system develops through time. For me the speaker is set by the music I like to play and the room. I’ve found very few speakers that I want to live with so the spend on these and associated amp and source components is somewhat set by the type and qualities of the speaker itself.

Agree 100 per cent that power and signal cables mostly should not be seen as tweaks but rather as essential infrastructure though with some speaker types the cables seem less influential which is a good thing because speakers that really reveal cable differences may demand cables that may be at the super pricey end of the spectrum and that kind of loom just don’t come cheap.

I’ve seen guys that have upgraded quite expensive amps and preamps to chase better bass or greater extension but when I look to their signature with their power or signal cables and sometimes see a potentially more cost effective upgrade of these may well give them even better return on either extension and balance.

On isolation and resonance control, power conditioning and grounding once again the justification for exhorbitant spends does seem to tie back to speaker systems that are super revealing of differences, and then also accumulated tweaking can then drive all the synergistic effects to at times extraordinary degrees of tweaking sensitivity as witnessed in sota super revealing kinds of full range system setups.

Eventually system development over time will ask us to re-evaluate where we may have hit the wall with system weak links and where then we need to next to step up.

Everything is context based though surely and no-one ever guaranteed that it would be a nice and sensible linear journey. A system change could easily render previous investment redundant but sometimes the tweaking journey can also be an exciting one for discovery, but just as equally over spending on components that then just give a different sideways shift rather than a true and better step up can also be an expensive choice... tweaks, components, whole system changes... let’s face it we’ve all had wins and losses and probably lost the plot as well completely sometimes. Finding the way back or just pushing the complete system reset button is easier for some than others.

Ron Resnick said:

My posts suggest to people, correctly, that I am more skeptical about tweaks than probably is the average WBF member. I think tweaks should be the icing on the cake; they should not be used as a large Band-Aid on a system which is failing fundamentally to satisfy its owner.

Hyperbolic written and oral descriptions (which, of course, attract the attention of the ever-vigilant WBF Hyperbole Police) of tweaks aside I, for one, have written into the scripture MikeL’s quantification several months ago that all of his tweaks add approximately five (5) percent to the sound quality of his system.

I think a number like 5% sounds conceptually correct in terms of my notion that tweaks should be the icing on the cake.

Maybe even the icing on the cake suggests too material an improvement in overall sound quality. Maybe tweaks should be a few strawberries on top of the cake?

Click to expand...

Before I post a comment do you consider that cables (signal and power are tweaks)? Should we consider that everything that is not equipment or Mogami-equivalent cable is a tweak?

I would love if the ever-vigilant WBF Hyperbole Police would also cover ambiguity.

First there are no "investments" in audio.
Next, many times tweeks feel like the scam side of this industry, as there are in many other industries (think aftermarket exhausts for cars)

Best to look at the guys selling their tweeks and their history. Many jump from brand to brand as they get hot and then cold. It all seems driven by how much quick money is to be made.
Then look at the manufacturer. "I sold thousands of "X", can't keep them in stock! A year later of got "X+". It blows away "X"!. And I'm so successful with "X" I'm going to raise the price of "X+", even though my economies of scale have improved so much. Please!!!.

Finally, look at the evaluation/return policy. If the tweek is really something good, 30 days minimum should be expected.....

As always, Caveat Emptor

NorthStar said:

Is loudspeaker positioning considered a tweak?
About room treatment and furniture?

Click to expand...

I think loudspeaker positioning is not a tweak because the speakers have to be somewhere in the room. I would say fine-tuning their positioning is an adjustment.

I think room treatment is a tweak. I think furniture is not a tweak because you need to sit somewhere.

But, really, the answers to these questions are a function of whether you are using “tweak” as a noun or as a verb.

bonzo75 said:

I think one question Barry is asking is, if you were the owner of a 3k KEF standamouunt, and knew you could upgrade your speakers and electronics by a considerable margin, would you have spent that grounding money on the KEF? Currently your tweaks spending is well balanced and though your tri point costs are high as a percentage of your tidal and Kondo they are not

Click to expand...

I can't compare my system to Rudolf's and I have spent disproportionately more on grounding than on my speakers but IME the Elite box and Emperor grounding cable add the same benefits to my sound that Rudolf has posted about for some time. Is mine as resolving? No, but if I'm still elevating the sound, there is value and I'm still early in my hifi journey and plan many more upgrades in the future. My current room is suitable for my setup and I enjoy the sound but have no plans of buying a more resolving speaker for this space. As Rudolf mentioned, my grounding system is connected to everything in my room, HT & 2CH, and everything benefits even my aurender once I get it connected.

Dave

The greater the profit margin of the tweak, the more necessary it is for your system. Cheap tweaks just don't work.

Barry, "Zu centric" wasn't directed at me, was it?

I remember the days when the rule of thumb on a budget was 90% on components, 10% on cables and supports.

That was up to the late 1980s.

Then Mana Acoustics came along, and the first upgradeable audiophile supports were born, and a whole new area to spend on.

Now that 90/10 rule became more 66/33.

cjfrbw said:

The greater the profit margin of the tweak, the more necessary it is for your system. Cheap tweaks just don't work.

Click to expand...

This is not entirely true.

https://youtu.be/SEbwZfkeIt8

NorthStar said:

Is loudspeaker positioning considered a tweak?
About room treatment and furniture?

Click to expand...

IMHO no, Bob. We usually consider as tweaks modifications that do not result in changes that are not measurable using typical instruments in the audio band.

Speaker positioning results in measurable differences - although probably if someone claims he must positions his speakers with an accuracy of 1/8" I would feel tempted to call it tweaking.

The same for room treatment or furniture - or dogs! -they are not tweaks.