What is a good tweak?

[BillB]

Vibration control?
Damping?
Absorbtion?
Diffusion?
Isolation?
Spiking?

Bill

[hifimaster]

Same reply I gave in a similar post of a general question like this: All of the above!

"A system is only as strong as it's weakest link"

James

[siamese dream]

Sometimes it's good to stop for a while and just enjoy the music. If something's bugging you, maybe change a component.

[mtrycraft]

Vibration control?
Damping?
Absorbtion?
Diffusion?
Isolation?
Spiking?

Bill

One that work, not hyped to the moon.

[E-Stat]

Vibration control?
Damping?
Absorbtion?
Diffusion?
Isolation?
Spiking?

Bill

Hi Bill,

I have experienced good results with damping, absorption, diffusion, and isolation in differing areas.

1. Damping: Can be beneficial with CD players that are not as solid as exotics such as Burmesters. I used sections of Dynamat to dampen the cabinet and various parts of the transport of a Pioneer PD-54. The result is somewhat improved bass response and focus.

2. Absorption: Through room treatments such as bass traps (never have too many) and wall panels. No matter how good your room is, treatments can improve the sonics. Traps minimize unavoidable bass nodes that color the sound and mask real bass. Wall panels can tame an overly "live" room by minimizing slap echo to improve image focus.

3. Diffusion: Using a DIY formula, I built Argent Room Lens clones. Placed on either side of your speakers and in between, they can minimize reflected sounds and sharpen the image lock.

4. Isolation: Works great with turntables and CD players alike. There are a number of approaches one can take that generally involve either mass loading and/or methods such as air springs and roller bearings.

While I have never tried spiking my speakers, I know that Carl Marchissotto of Alon (now NOLA) favors spiking his speakers, including his incredible Grand Exoticas.

Good luck!
rw

[FLZapped]

Hi Bill,

I have experienced good results with damping, absorption, diffusion, and isolation in differing areas.

1. Damping: Can be beneficial with CD players that are not as solid as exotics such as Burmesters. I used sections of Dynamat to dampen the cabinet and various parts of the transport of a Pioneer PD-54. The result is somewhat improved bass response and focus.

What measurement technique did you use? I'd like to see your data and set-up.

2. Absorption: Through room treatments such as bass traps (never have too many) and wall panels. No matter how good your room is, treatments can improve the sonics. Traps minimize unavoidable bass nodes that color the sound and mask real bass. Wall panels can tame an overly "live" room by minimizing slap echo to improve image focus.

3. Diffusion: Using a DIY formula, I built Argent Room Lens clones. Placed on either side of your speakers and in between, they can minimize reflected sounds and sharpen the image lock.

Funny, you can reduce slap echo by diffusion as well. As for bass traps, you CAN have too many if their combined effects reach undesireably into the mid-range frequencies.

Applying something acoustically can easily create more problems if done haphazardly and without first identifying what the problem is and what you intend to achieve.

If someone wants to learn how to properly apply acoustical treaments I would start by reading Everest's book: The Master Handbook of Acoustics" and visit Art Ludwigs site for an example of acoustics done the right way:

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html

If you want to give yourself a good headache, you can visit these guys(but maybe only after you have read the book):

http://www.rpginc.com/research/index.htm

4. Isolation: Works great with turntables and CD players alike. There are a number of approaches one can take that generally involve either mass loading and/or methods such as air springs and roller bearings.

Mass loading? Gee, wouldn't that fall under damping? As for the other methods, one question. How do you isolate the device when it is in the same acousitc environment as your speakers? Placing something on springs may isolate it from a surface, but increase the effects of the acoustic signal, no?

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

What measurement technique did you use? I'd like to see your data and set-up.

"Flawed" listening to familiar music.

As for bass traps, you CAN have too many if their combined effects reach undesireably into the mid-range frequencies.

Ok, but that takes a bunch depending upon room and trap size. I use 4-16", 4-12"

Tube Trap placement guidelines

Naturally, there are similar guidelines on the ASC website, but some might find their recommendations biased.

If someone wants to learn how to properly apply acoustical treaments I would start by reading Everest's book: The Master Handbook of Acoustics" and visit Art Ludwigs site for an example of acoustics done the right way

Thanks for the tip.

Mass loading? Gee, wouldn't that fall under damping?

Perhaps it should. I was thinking more of intentionally massive isolation devices.

As for the other methods, one question. How do you isolate the device when it is in the same acousitc environment as your speakers? Placing something on springs may isolate it from a surface, but increase the effects of the acoustic signal, no?

The objective is to provide selective isolation at single digit frequencies. One can achieve results without moving the device outside the room.

rw

[Eyespy]

Nice to see that after all these years, little to nothing has changed

[hifitommy]

been a while, i was recently thinking of you. SOME things have radically changed here, dontcha think?

still got the nordost? isnt that what you had? nordost zipcord? i cheeeeeeped onto some kimber 8tc (15' for $50, still a valid cable according to tas).

more on topic, i need to kill the echoes in my room. what cables do you recommend for that? JUST KIDDING. gotta get some stuff up on my expansive wall areas.

and do you recommend laser eye surgery? i am damned tired of having to go get my glasses to read record jackets and instant food packages.

[skeptic]

A good tweak had the following attributes.
It is predictable
It is controllable
It is cost effective
It's the best way to achieve a desired goal

Upgrading audio cables as an example is the perfect model of an awful tweak because it does not meet any of these conditions. Here's why;

First of all, it is unpredictable. There is no way to know in advance whether changing audio cables will make a difference in performance, to what degree, or in what direction they will change the performance if at all of a sound system.

Second, it is uncontrollable. You hook the new cables up and that's it. Even if the effect is beneficial, you have no way to adjust it.

Third, it is not cost effective. A tweak which costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars which gives you only a very marginal improvement at best is hardly the best use of money. A better pair of loudspeakers or a better amplifier would make infinitely more sense.

Fourth, if there are any benefits at all, they are reportedly in the realm of changing the frequency response of the system. That can be done far more predictibly, cheaply, and controllably with a graphic or parametric equalizer. Even the most modest equalizers introduce no audible distortion or noise, the golden eared audiophiles' criticisms of them not withstanding. This is why virtually EVERY professionally installed sound system incorporated one or more equalizers and NEVER exotic audio cables.

[E-Stat]

This is why virtually EVERY professionally installed sound system incorporated one or more equalizers and NEVER exotic audio cables.

That and the fact that no one really cares about the transparency of sound reinforcement systems. Why bother with mediocre venues? On the other hand, you will NEVER find equalizers used by the best recording labels such as Telarc, Reference Recordings, Classic Records, Chesky Records, Windham Hill, etc., because you CAN hear the inevitable degradation caused by them. And many of those quality conscious studios DO use aftermarket cables for the same reason.



rw

[skeptic]

I am really glad you responded to my posting e-stat because it sharply points out the fundimental differences of view between us. Of the recording labels you cited, the only one I am familiar with is Chesky, having reissued several recordings originally made by RCA red seal. On the the other hand, of the recording labels which recorded the greatest classical artists in the world in an effort to not only capture their fabulous musical talent but the sound their instruments produced such as the priceless violins by Guarnarius, Stradivarius, and Amati, the spectacular pianos made by the likes of Steinway of course, Bosendorfer, and Baldwin, not to mention the exotic voices of the worlds greatest singers whether solo vioces like sopranos, Kiri Tekanawa, Kathleen Battle, the worlds greatest tenors like Placido Domingo, Luciani Pavoritti, and Jose Carreras, voices of days gone by like Jussi Boerling, or the sound of vast ensembles like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the sound of the worlds greatest symphony orchestras and pipe organs, and whatever else is a true audible treasure to be captured and kept for future generations to understand and appreciate what we had, the world's finest music recording companies like Deutche Grammaphone, Phillips, London, RCA, Columbia, Angel, EMI, Sony just to name the most prominent used the very kinds of equipment and techniques you depricate, to convey the sonic message the worlds best had to offer. Given a choice between your view of what should have been done and that of the finest recording engineers of the day, guess what happened? Your method was virtually unanimously rejected. Future generations to the end of time will be eternally grateful that practical wisdom won out over inexperienced and ignorant prejudice.

[E-Stat]

Your method was virtually unanimously rejected.

I would agree that Jussi Bjorling was arguably one of the finest tenors of all time. Given that he died forty-four years ago, I am not at all suprised that the engineers of that day felt they needed to EQ given the limitations of their recording gear. Even still, one particular recording of his in my experience still sounds shrill and thin, despite the incredible performance.

Given your love of classical music, you really should sample some recordings by the companies I mentioned.

rw

[mrkiko]

Your method was virtually unanimously rejected. Future generations to the end of time will be eternally grateful that practical wisdom won out over inexperienced and ignorant prejudice.

That might be right. But that is the challange and the fun. I have a very good equalizer, and yes, using it i can change many things ... But i like to turn the equalizer off, and try to get with absolute flat settings, the best sound i can. In my car i use "bass" and "loudness"... and these things. But during the listening sessions, i prefear non equalized things. Sometimes this is a problem, because some original recordings sucks, are not recorded to "fit" my flat settings. In this case i throw away the cd and look for something that is well mixed. So it's not always a prejudice. It's a free choice.
Though the solution is not to by expensive cables. The solution is to spend 10000 bucks in speakers, that solves many things.

[mtrycraft]

That and the fact that no one really cares about the transparency of sound reinforcement systems. Why bother with mediocre venues? On the other hand, you will NEVER find equalizers used by the best recording labels such as Telarc, Reference Recordings, Classic Records, Chesky Records, Windham Hill, etc., because you CAN hear the inevitable degradation caused by them. And many of those quality conscious studios DO use aftermarket cables for the same reason.



rw

You mean that those studios have no mixing conels? A direct to maste is recorded unaltered? No EQ of the room to mix? Ridiculous. They must have nothing in that studio then, right but a mic and direct to the master. Or do you mean that they just don't muck it up as badly, right? Or, what do you really mean?

[E-Stat]

You mean that those studios have no mixing conels? A direct to maste is recorded unaltered? No EQ of the room to mix? Ridiculous. They must have nothing in that studio then, right but a mic and direct to the master. Or do you mean that they just don't muck it up as badly, right? Or, what do you really mean?

Shazam! Right, Gomer? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your utter lack of exposure to anything beyond that which is patently mediore.

Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 and pioneered the use of the original Soundstream digital recording process. The "studio" is the hall of the performing symphony. Here are the technical liner notes from the 1981 recording of ASO performing Orff's Carmina Burana.

Microphones: Schoeps Colette Series
Digital Recording processor: Soundstream
Console: Neotek
Monitor speakers: ADS Model 1530 (biamplified)
Power Amplifiers: Threshold Model 4000

During the recording of the digital masters and the subsequent transfer to disc, the entire audio chain was transformerless. The signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any step during production.

Such is only ridiculous to the inept. I think it is a safe assumption to suggest that you have never heard a master tape of any sort. Although Telarc now uses SACD as their primary medium, they still do not rely upon any crutches to achieve their fine results. I had the distinct pleasure of participating (in a minor way) in the recording of The Firebird at the ASO. Fenner took the better part of a day just setting up and fine tuning the few microphones used because there is little mixing involved to achieve a natural soundstage. After each take, Shaw would go downstairs where the mastering equipment was set up and auditioned what was essentially the final mix.

While most of the labels I mentioned primarily record classical music, Windham Hill is a "new age" label owned by some of the artists themselves. Most of the artists play acoustical instruments and some are simply solo piano or solo guitar. In Liz Story's Solid Colors recording of her Steinway, here are the liner notes:

This recording was made direct to two track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

Indeed most pop recordings are not made with these painstaking measures and one (present company excepted) can readily hear the difference.

rw

[skeptic]

"Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 "

I hate to be the one to break it to you e-stat, but among the world's top ranked recording studios, Telarc is a minor also ran and not to disparage the ASO as a fine symphony orchestra but it is definitely NOT top tier. Just look at where the best classical musicians in the world record. The labels I listed DG, Phillips, London, EMI, Sony(Columbia/CBS), RCA, Angel. Personally, I don't think Telarc's recordins are any better than the best of anybody elses. And while ASO may have them lined up around the block in Atlanta, I don't think the likes of the Berlin Philharmoniker, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Philladelphia Syymphony Orchestra, the NY Philharmonic, The Boston Symphony, Cleveland or Chicago have much to worry about any time soon. Telarc/ASO is one example as an exception to the rule.

It is absurd and totally unrealistic to imagine that recording engineers would not use EVERY available means at their disposal to optimize their products regardless of how their methods offend the sensibilities of audiophiles whose naive view of the world and their idealized notion of how things should be done would preclude the most powerful tools at their disposal. The fact that you cannot hear the results of their manipulations and tweaking audibly is testimony to the enormous degree of the skill they have used. I'm sure that they would just as soon set their equipment down, run the tape, download it to the final product, and go home but the state of the art today is far from allowing them to do that if they want to compete with other people using these capabilities to the fullest. Maybe someday, that will be the way it is done, but not yet.

[mtrycraft]

Shazam! Right, Gomer? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your utter lack of exposure to anything beyond that which is patently mediore.

Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 and pioneered the use of the original Soundstream digital recording process. The "studio" is the hall of the performing symphony. Here are the technical liner notes from the 1981 recording of ASO performing Orff's Carmina Burana.

Microphones: Schoeps Colette Series
Digital Recording processor: Soundstream
Console: Neotek
Monitor speakers: ADS Model 1530 (biamplified)
Power Amplifiers: Threshold Model 4000

During the recording of the digital masters and the subsequent transfer to disc, the entire audio chain was transformerless. The signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any step during production.

Such is only ridiculous to the inept. I think it is a safe assumption to suggest that you have never heard a master tape of any sort. Although Telarc now uses SACD as their primary medium, they still do not rely upon any crutches to achieve their fine results. I had the distinct pleasure of participating (in a minor way) in the recording of The Firebird at the ASO. Fenner took the better part of a day just setting up and fine tuning the few microphones used because there is little mixing involved to achieve a natural soundstage. After each take, Shaw would go downstairs where the mastering equipment was set up and auditioned what was essentially the final mix.

While most of the labels I mentioned primarily record classical music, Windham Hill is a "new age" label owned by some of the artists themselves. Most of the artists play acoustical instruments and some are simply solo piano or solo guitar. In Liz Story's Solid Colors recording of her Steinway, here are the liner notes:

This recording was made direct to two track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

Indeed most pop recordings are not made with these painstaking measures and one (present company excepted) can readily hear the difference.

rw

You are right, I wasn't in th estudio while that was recorded, to scrutinize what they were doing. So, what you are saying, they have no mixing consoles, nothing? Direct feed to the tape? How about afterwards? Nothing? Went directly to pressings? LOL. Get real.

[FLZapped]

Vibration control?
Damping?
Absorbtion?
Diffusion?
Isolation?
Spiking?

Bill

Any one of these could be a good tweak when properly applied to a well defined problem. Any one of these could be an awful tweak if applied randomly without a defined cause: at the very least a waste of money and effort. At the other extreme, one could damage their equipment, or void the warranty.

-Bruce