Moooo!
For those who endorse high priced tweaks
- Thread starter LuvMyQuad
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Moooo!
I like tweaks. Not sure what rates a high priced tweak, but I probably purchase upper end Audioquest cables but not there highest priced.
I did laugh at the article when mentioned the little Audioquest suitcase. I got one of there power cables for my power conditioner and it came in a little suitcase, I told the dealer I wouldn't mind if Audioquest charged me $100.00 less and ditched the suitcase.
I really enjoy my hobby and I am sure some of what I experience is placebo, but that is OK with me.
I had some low end Audioquest Pearl 4K HDMI cables and just last week got a replacement 8K Thundercat, absolutely an increase in video output/visual.
One thing I like to do with equipment and cables, tweaks, is use what I have and upgrade only after a few months then it helps me see/hear the difference.
I look at my rig like when I was younger fussing with my cars adding little things here and there, definitely fun and sometimes even made a difference.
I just received, and have not used them yet, Isoacoustics Gaia II (feet) for my two floor stand speakers, looking forward to using them.
I am very close to purchasing the GIK Acoustics starter pack, which is two corner bass traps, two side wall reflection panels, and two rear wall diffusers.
It was nice to read the first article.
I certainly would never put anyone down for expressing there love of hobby, whether one agrees or not with there decisions.
I did laugh at the article when mentioned the little Audioquest suitcase. I got one of there power cables for my power conditioner and it came in a little suitcase, I told the dealer I wouldn't mind if Audioquest charged me $100.00 less and ditched the suitcase.
I really enjoy my hobby and I am sure some of what I experience is placebo, but that is OK with me.
I had some low end Audioquest Pearl 4K HDMI cables and just last week got a replacement 8K Thundercat, absolutely an increase in video output/visual.
One thing I like to do with equipment and cables, tweaks, is use what I have and upgrade only after a few months then it helps me see/hear the difference.
I look at my rig like when I was younger fussing with my cars adding little things here and there, definitely fun and sometimes even made a difference.
I just received, and have not used them yet, Isoacoustics Gaia II (feet) for my two floor stand speakers, looking forward to using them.
I am very close to purchasing the GIK Acoustics starter pack, which is two corner bass traps, two side wall reflection panels, and two rear wall diffusers.
It was nice to read the first article.
I certainly would never put anyone down for expressing there love of hobby, whether one agrees or not with there decisions.
I'm all for Acoustic panels, they work! The best studios I have been in have the right balance between lively and dead sounding, difficult to put in words, you hear direct sounds clearly with just enough 'room reverb', no boominess/resonances, a bit like being outside but with no extraneous noise. GIK are used by Abbey Road. Move them about when you do get them and find your preferred sound balance.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,991
Acoustic panels make absolute sense since most [if NOT ALL] domiciles are just not fashioned with acoustic 'properties' in mind.
Heavy drapes, thick plush carpeting and even overstuffed furniture are known to both absorb and diffuse sound.
I've had great luck with Shakti's holograms and room tunes even though the former have been lambasted by some in audio circles.
That's why I always say: If you're going to try a TWEAK, especially if it's pricey, you should ensure it can be returned, without monetary consequence, should it prove worthless.
It you don't try something ..... you will never know whether it's an ACTUAL improvement or another so called placebo effect!
I LOVE those who debase even the most rudimentary of tweaks without EVER HAVING TRIED THEM. IMO, IGNORANCE PERSONIFIED!!!!!!
I read that as Shakira's holograms!
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Rodrigues was a genius!
Doug
Doug
I can't find the pic but one of my faves is: Audio salesman standing next to a large stereo speaker set up labeled "AP" playing a demo for a skeptical potential customer:
"Sir! Have you never heard of Audio Putra Speakers from Sri Lanka? It is just like you are here listening to them!"
musicmemorabiliashoppellc
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I think everything sounds better after a couple of hits from my CAPITAL HILL US BONG
https://glasshead1.blogspot.com/2011/04/us-bongs.html
https://dispensarygirl.com/greatest-bong-hits-of-the-1970s/
If anyone knows of 1 available or owns the US BONG Capital Hill model pictured above or the DRAGONFLY pipe company model
I'd be willing to make a deal with you
Last edited:
Working backward, very high quality and expensive interconnects might not actually improve the sound but switching to cheap cables will degrade the sound for sure. I remember working on an amplifier and needed a set of cables to connect a tape deck to the amp. I picked up a set at the dollar store. The amplifier hummed like crazy, substituting a better set everything sounded fine.
All of this hocus-pocus is strictly for revenue generation. An audio dealer here in the '90s sold a clock radio that he said if plugged into the same outlet as your audio system would make the audio better. He also sold green magic markers for CDs, replacement power cords for your amps and receivers (at huge bucks) and of course and cosmic cables the size of vacuum cleaner hoses.
Very nice.......................
I'll never tell how Monster cable saved Benefit 5.1. No green marker, got it.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
Just in case it needs mentioning...
When someone starts describing attributes of a digital signal cable as though they were talking about an analog signal cable, they are being 100% willfully dishonest.
For anyone who doesn't get that intuitively...
A stream of ones and zeros (on vs off, a voltage chirp vs none) goes down a digital cable. If the ones and zeros make it to the other end, the patterns are recognized and reconstructed into samples of sound per second by the DAC and only then can the analog output be used.
If you connected a speaker to the digital cable, you'd hear what sounded like those modem startup sounds. (Remember how everyone left the troubleshooting telltale on and listen to that?)
That leads to:
When someone describes "clearer highs" or some analog domain audio quality, that can never come about from a digital signal cable! If there's signal degradation, it's an all or nothing kind of thing. Sound or no sound. Digital doesn't get muddy. The patterns get lost and the weirdo effect is more like the audio is "pixelated". There ARE error correction schemes for lost packets of data and thus there's a little bit of an in-between. That would be pure zero error signal vs reconstructed signal via error correction. And there's a threshold for where the error correction gets ambiguous. Just to be fair on that! But mostly when you see this stuff written, it's genuinely laughable when you know just a couple things about how this stuff works.
When someone starts describing attributes of a digital signal cable as though they were talking about an analog signal cable, they are being 100% willfully dishonest.
For anyone who doesn't get that intuitively...
A stream of ones and zeros (on vs off, a voltage chirp vs none) goes down a digital cable. If the ones and zeros make it to the other end, the patterns are recognized and reconstructed into samples of sound per second by the DAC and only then can the analog output be used.
If you connected a speaker to the digital cable, you'd hear what sounded like those modem startup sounds. (Remember how everyone left the troubleshooting telltale on and listen to that?)
That leads to:
When someone describes "clearer highs" or some analog domain audio quality, that can never come about from a digital signal cable! If there's signal degradation, it's an all or nothing kind of thing. Sound or no sound. Digital doesn't get muddy. The patterns get lost and the weirdo effect is more like the audio is "pixelated". There ARE error correction schemes for lost packets of data and thus there's a little bit of an in-between. That would be pure zero error signal vs reconstructed signal via error correction. And there's a threshold for where the error correction gets ambiguous. Just to be fair on that! But mostly when you see this stuff written, it's genuinely laughable when you know just a couple things about how this stuff works.
I remember when people claimed CDs sounded better if you wrote on them. I recall thinking..HUH??? I'll stick with vinyl.
No green marker, got it.
Coincidentally, I got an email today advertising high end electrical power cords to replace the ones your component came with. They were advertised as affordable compared to other 'high end' cables, and cost 'only' $250 per meter. I'm not sure what effect they'd have, but i am not about to go cutting all the cables off my components and replacing them all to the tune of about $1000...
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
This reminds me of a salesman at a high end audio store in Redondo Beach area who offered to lend me a $3k power cable for connecting to a Sony PS2? and claimed that it dramatically improve the sound. I told that him that it was digital and would make no difference. He went on to say that it made the 1's and 0's sharper and cleaner. At the which point I realized, it was a fool's errand and quickly got the hell out of there. The idea that a 6'ft power cable is going to magically improve the sound after the energy has through miles and miles of normal copper is still one of those mysteries. The number of fools (hopefully none on this group) that fall for this trap is even more mind boggling!
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Not entirely true. It just depends on the application. As a simple example if I am using it for load level (e.g.) the cheapest will do just fine. If you are going line level , you need appropriate shielding and may not be good enough as you mentioned in your amplifier tape loop experience below. However it doesn't necessarily imply expensive interconnects.
This is a valid case. The cable didn't likely didn't have shielding or was poorly shielded and it picked up extraneous noises (hum usually from Power supply ) which were further amplified. The better set here is simply using something that is shielded.
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Deleted. Redundant post
Last edited:
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Unless those who debase them are actually informed individuals with appropriate engineering backgrounds, who actually get PAID doing this for a living and based on sound engineering judgement know what things likely even have a chance of making a difference. Why would these said individuals need to waste their time trying something they already know has absolutely no chance of making a difference ?
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Absolutely agree!
bluelightning
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Sorry , but I would say almost all of what you mention except for acoustic panels count as "high priced unproven tweaks".
Sorry again, but to say that an 8K HDMI cable produces an improvement in picture quality flies completely in the face of how the interface works, unless your Audioquest cable were plainly detective or just poor quality (which wouldn't surprise me) and unable to handle the 4k bandwidth requirement and either through handshaking the signal dropped down to HD/SDR or the cable bandwidth was marginal and you are dropping frames, seeing the screen go black or show white noise every so often. One thing to note is that many HDMI cables marked 4K are unsuitable for 4K bandwidth, the Audioquest you have may just be one of those. However, there is no magic involved in figuring out if it is deficient. Plug it in play something and you either get a continuous picture at the appropriate resolution/settings selected or you don't. Nothing in between. Anyway it is your money and your prerogative to spend it how you like. Just know what you are really getting for it.
It's completely dependent upon the "tweak". The-not likely enough-short version? Whatever truth there is to be discerned is about the same as what I said in another similar thread earlier: People's psychoacoustic sensitivities differ dramatically, people's environments differ dramatically, people's gear differs dramatically, the recording (i.e., the venues where they were made, including mics, desks, D/A-A/D's, etc) qualities differ dramatically and the qualities of the physical formats (if they're not downloads) differ dramatically. One good example? Giveaway cables can and do sound worse than anything that was designed with a stringent eye cast toward isolating the signal, rejecting EMI/RFI, and minimizing resistance-but that's only WITHIN REASON.
Why? The law of diminishing returns, like rust, never sleeps. The first jump (even if it's a 1974 "Yorx/Emerson" all in one piece of High-Fatality dreck) is the biggest. After that, the law of diminishing returns rules to one degree or another. Each time the outlay of wherewithal gets bigger, and more often than not, the return will (if in no other way, then merely perceptually) be somewhat diminished. It's not that nothing matters or that everything matters. It's that (somewhat paradoxically) they both do, and do so simultaneously. So it let's nearly everyone off where they get on. The answer? Joe Walsh or Bill Szymczyk might opine "Drink 'em if you Smoke 'em...". Or maybe, "Play 'em if you got 'em...". In the end, nobody gets out alive. Let the good times roll, if you can lay your hands on some.
Why? The law of diminishing returns, like rust, never sleeps. The first jump (even if it's a 1974 "Yorx/Emerson" all in one piece of High-Fatality dreck) is the biggest. After that, the law of diminishing returns rules to one degree or another. Each time the outlay of wherewithal gets bigger, and more often than not, the return will (if in no other way, then merely perceptually) be somewhat diminished. It's not that nothing matters or that everything matters. It's that (somewhat paradoxically) they both do, and do so simultaneously. So it let's nearly everyone off where they get on. The answer? Joe Walsh or Bill Szymczyk might opine "Drink 'em if you Smoke 'em...". Or maybe, "Play 'em if you got 'em...". In the end, nobody gets out alive. Let the good times roll, if you can lay your hands on some.
Similar threads
