Tweaks : A sensible investment or a waste of money?

[NorthStar]

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

That's a valid interpretation/view. The opposite is also valid, in my opinion.
That goes for loudspeaker's positioning, acoustic room treatment, and furniture...including the main listening chair.
* Dogs are our best companions, they are not tweaks...100% agree here.
We still can fine tune them to like the music we like and remain silent though. :b
It's easy for me because I love extremely smooth and tranquil music.

Now, a question for you my dear Francisco: Is replacing fuses with audiophile grade fuses in our audio components considered a tweak?

About tube rolling?

 

[RogerD]

Grounding is not a Tweak. It is a fundamental improvement or extension of the internal grounding in electronics. The internal grounding schemes cannot remove all of the current leakage in a single component. Remove all of the current hash and you are left with a pure unadulterated audio signal. The most important part of the circuit is the connecting cable. Here is where the size of the gauge of cable matters. Many use 12 awg wire, no one would use that size wire to jump a car battery. A large cable is necessary for low resistance and to make the circuit highly efficient. Small wire is highly inefficient.

 

[Barry2013]

An interesting take on room treatment micrstrip.
I am more inclined to see room treatment as a tweak. I suppose a lot depends upon your room. No room I imagine is perfect and there will be rooms that are seriously compromised and for which room treatment is a no brainer.
Up to now I have not felt the need to use any room treatment as my lounge has very good acoustics - and not just my view - but I am entirely open to considering it if it is likely to be cost effective. No expert at all on this so very open to the experience of others who have used it.

 

[microstrip]

That's a valid interpretation/view. The opposite is also valid, in my opinion.
That goes for loudspeaker's positioning, acoustic room treatment, and furniture...including the main listening chair.
* Dogs are our best companions, they are not tweaks...100% agree here.
We still can fine tune them to like the music we like and remain silent though. :b
It's easy for me because I love extremely smooth and tranquil music.

Now, a question for you my dear Francisco: Is replacing fuses with audiophile grade fuses in our audio components considered a tweak?

About tube rolling?

In this hobby most concepts have different interpretations/views. Most of the time our debates are just due to this Babel tower effect, it is why I often ask for clarifications. What is the point of debating the value of tweaks if some people think about fuses and others of speaker positioning?

IMHO audiophile fuses are tweaks - and the fuse manufacturers do not give us the important electrical details about them.
Tube rolling is an interesting and easily explained tweak. Most of the time it results in appreciable differences in noise, distortion and gain when changing tubes.

 

[NorthStar]

Absolutely Barry; I think room treatments can be considered as the best/one of the best tweaks in audio sound reproduction in our rooms @ home.

Speaker's positioning is fine tuning for taste in imaging, depth and soundstage's width. It's 'tweaking' the sound.

The furniture, materials, paintings, carpets, tables, audio racks, couch(es), chair(s), LP shelves, CD shelves, Tape shelves, ... can also be used to fine tune/tweak the sound to taste.
In my opinion they are part of tweaks, like speaker's spikes on carpets, cable lifters, absorbing pucks, wire's geometry, wire materials, turntable's adjustments, stylus shape, cartridge's make, tonearm's length, under component's feet, top component's stones, etc., etc., etc. to infinity and beyond.

Ground isolation too.

An interesting take on room treatment.
I am more inclined to see room treatment as a tweak. I suppose a lot depends upon your room. No room I imagine is perfect and there will be rooms that are seriously compromised and for which room treatment is a no brainer.
Up to now I have not felt the need to use any room treatment as my lounge has very good acoustics - and not just my view - but I am entirely open to considering it if it is likely to be cost effective. No expert at all on this so very open to the experience of others who have used it.

 

[NorthStar]

In this hobby most concepts have different interpretations/views. Most of the time our debates are just due to this Babel tower effect, it is why I often ask for clarifications. What is the point of debating the value of tweaks if some people think about fuses and others of speaker positioning?

IMHO audiophile fuses are tweaks - and the fuse manufacturers do not give us the important electrical details about them.
Tube rolling is an interesting and easily explained tweak. Most of the time it results in appreciable differences in noise, distortion and gain when changing tubes.

We all know that we are having an open discussion on a vast subject...audio tweaks. It's all over the internet in all audio forums.

For me, anything that changes, transforms, improves the sound for the better or worst is tweaking, is experimenting, is audiophile world.

And I agree with everything you've just said; that's only one small reason why you are one of my favorite members. There are more reasons.

 

[microstrip]

An interesting take on room treatment micrstrip.
I am more inclined to see room treatment as a tweak. I suppose a lot depends upon your room. No room I imagine is perfect and there will be rooms that are seriously compromised and for which room treatment is a no brainer.
Up to now I have not felt the need to use any room treatment as my lounge has very good acoustics - and not just my view - but I am entirely open to considering it if it is likely to be cost effective. No expert at all on this so very open to the experience of others who have used it.

You have a point - surely it depends on the extension of the room treatment and perhaps also the conditions under which they were carried. I was thinking of significant treatments, of appreciable size, and furniture as an whole.

 

[microstrip]

Absolutely Barry; I think room treatments can be considered as the best/one of the best tweaks in audio sound reproduction in our rooms @ home.

Speaker's positioning is fine tuning for taste in imaging, depth and soundstage's width. It's 'tweaking' the sound.

The furniture, materials, paintings, carpets, tables, audio racks, couch(es), chair(s), LP shelves, CD shelves, Tape shelves, ... can also be used to fine tune/tweak the sound to taste.
In my opinion they are part of tweaks, like speaker's spikes on carpets, cable lifters, absorbing pucks, wire's geometry, wire materials, turntable's adjustments, stylus shape, cartridge's make, tonearm's length, under component's feet, top component's stones, etc., etc., etc. to infinity and beyond.

Ground isolation too.

I think you are highlighting Ron distinction between the noun and the verb - and then you seem to accept that tweaks are just any entities used in fine-tuning - that becomes tweaking. It is a possible nomenclature, but IMHO it drives us away from the intentions of the OP.

 

[dminches]

Based on everyone's definition of what are tweaks are what are not, my room treatments are the most critical tweaks I have spent money one. They helped every source (vinyl, reel and digital). My system would sound like crap if I did not treat the room. So, for me, they were a must.

 

[NorthStar]

I think you are highlighting Ron distinction between the noun and the verb - and then you seem to accept that tweaks are just any entities used in fine-tuning - that becomes tweaking. It is a possible nomenclature, but IMHO it drives us away from the intentions of the OP.

Let's ask Barry what he thinks.

I've read Ron's post and his mention about the noun and the verb.
I don't want to complicate anything. Simplicity is best.

Tweaks : A sensible investment or a waste of money?

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.

I've read his post very carefully, I took a lot of time and thinking and evaluating and researching before I posted. I believe my opinion is as valid as anyone else.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

first things first.

room -> speakers -> signal path -> sources -> cables -> power grid -> acoustics -> tweaks.

you can only judge the later step to the level of execution of the earlier step (s).

sure; tweaks are a small percentage of the whole. but when shooting for the moon (or Mars) how big is a 2% miss? if you are not going very far then tweaks won't seem very relevant. inserting tweaks too early in the process can actually inhibit ultimate performance as it could give you false readings. you might even need to remove tweaks to optimally judge gear decisions sometimes.

but if you have optimized every step then tweaks are taking you somewhere not otherwise attained.

 

[dminches]

first things first.

room -> speakers -> signal path -> sources -> cables -> power grid -> acoustics -> tweaks.

you can only judge the later step to the level of execution of the earlier step (s).

sure; tweaks are a small percentage of the whole. but when shooting for the moon (or Mars) how big is a 2% miss? if you are not going very far then tweaks won't seem very relevant. inserting tweaks too early in the process can actually inhibit ultimate performance as it could give you false readings. you might even need to remove tweaks to optimally judge gear decisions sometimes.

but if you have optimized every step then tweaks are taking you somewhere not otherwise attained.

What is the difference between the room and acoustics?

 

[Barry2013]

Based on everyone's definition of what are tweaks are what are not, my room treatments are the most critical tweaks I have spent money one. They helped every source (vinyl, reel and digital). My system would sound like crap if I did not treat the room. So, for me, they were a must.

Thanks.
Now it maybe that there is another dedicated thread on room treatments which you should direct me to but could you share with us some more detail about your room treatment applications. It's not entirely clear if your room was such that room treatment was effectively mandatory in order to get a reasonable sound quality, or if it was more a case of "tweaking" to realise the untapped potential of your system.
I am not hung up on any dogmatic definition of tweaking but what was in my mind when starting the thread were all the less expensive additions to a system which are advertised or portrayed as effective alternatives to more expensive, but more cost effective component upgrades, even if that may require a more patient approach

 

[Barry2013]

Let's ask Barry what he thinks.

I've read Ron's post and his mention about the noun and the verb.
I don't want to complicate anything. Simplicity is best.



I've read his post very carefully, I took a lot of time and thinking and evaluating and researching before I posted. I believe my opinion is as valid as anyone else.

Thanks Bob
Hopefully my response to dminches' post 29 is helpful

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What is the difference between the room and acoustics?

the sequence.

the room is the structure, space and dimensions. the acoustics are the reflective qualities of the surfaces, and the shape of the surfaces.

can't refine acoustics without speakers, signal path, sources, cables and power grid.

acoustics optimize those other things. and typically, until you as the user have evolved to develop your reference, getting acoustics right is not possible. a reference comes with system maturity.

for myself; I had a killer room, great speakers, great signal path and sources.....but it was still me holding the music back waiting to understand my own reference, which then allowed me to refine the acoustics. after that I was able to take things further by optimizing tweak choices.

might some people have that perfect reference prior to those other steps? some certainly tell us they do. but then we listen and they don't 'get' where the acoustics are letting them down.

so I think acoustics can only be resolved when you really know where you are going and have the right pieces.

just my own system building culture....YMMV.

 

[NorthStar]

• https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...lection-Points&p=475305&viewfull=1#post475305
• https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...at-sounding-room&p=47638&viewfull=1#post47638

Now it maybe that there is another dedicated thread on room treatments which you should direct me to but could you share with us some more detail about your room treatment applications. It's not entirely clear if your room was such that room treatment was effectively mandatory in order to get a reasonable sound quality, or if it was more a case of "tweaking" to realise the untapped potential of your system.

 

[dminches]

Thanks.
Now it maybe that there is another dedicated thread on room treatments which you should direct me to but could you share with us some more detail about your room treatment applications. It's not entirely clear if your room was such that room treatment was effectively mandatory in order to get a reasonable sound quality, or if it was more a case of "tweaking" to realise the untapped potential of your system.
I am not hung up on any dogmatic definition of tweaking but what was in my mind when starting the thread were all the less expensive additions to a system which are advertised or portrayed as effective alternatives to more expensive, but more cost effective component upgrades, even if that may require a more patient approach

My room is 27x20x8 and is basically all drywall except for 2 windows on the right hand side in the rear. Before I did any treating the room was fatiguing and boomy. I hired Jeff Hedback to analyze the room and design a treatment plan. What resulted was 48 panels (diffusers on the ceiling and side walls for the first point of reflection, bass traps in the front corners, bass traps around the ceiling where they hit the wall and some absorbers behind the speakers). The room is now very quiet and neutral. I can listen to music for hours with no fatigue. Feel free to PM if you want more details.

 

[Barry2013]

Thank you again Bob.
Just had a quick look and they do seem interesting and informative.
I'll look at them more thoroughly in the next day or two.
ATB
Barry

 

[microstrip]

Let's ask Barry what he thinks.

I've read Ron's post and his mention about the noun and the verb.
I don't want to complicate anything. Simplicity is best.



I've read his post very carefully, I took a lot of time and thinking and evaluating and researching before I posted. I believe my opinion is as valid as anyone else.

Surely your opinion is valid, Bob, and is a perfect definition.

But my feeling (perhaps wrong) is that in post 1 Barry was not questioning the investment in sound treatments, just in the other tweaks!

 

[Barry2013]

My room is 27x20x8 and is basically all drywall except for 2 windows on the right hand side in the rear. Before I did any treating the room was fatiguing and boomy. I hired Jeff Hedback to analyze the room and design a treatment plan. What resulted was 48 panels (diffusers on the ceiling and side walls for the first point of reflection, bass traps in the front corners, bass traps around the ceiling where they hit the wall and some absorbers behind the speakers). The room is now very quiet and neutral. I can listen to music for hours with no fatigue. Feel free to PM if you want more details.

Many thanks dminches.
A lot clearer now.
Northstar has kindly directed my attention to two earlier threads so it's probably more sensible for me to go through those before coming back to you, but much appreciate the offer.