Audio fact or foo

Been thinking about component isolation/dampening solutions recently. Along with a host of other variables that are often overlooked/tarred with that old 'snake oil' brush (its bone dry don't ya know!).

When I'm tube rolling, whether it be in preamp/DAC or phono stage, I often leave the covers of components off so I can swap tubes in/out with ease for comparison. When I'm settled on my preferred combination I put the covers back on.

Then I sit back and listen to the fruits of another hour wasted down the rabbit hole.

Every time and I mean EVERY single time I do this I always detect a slight decrease in SQ from my system compared to when I was actually trying out the tubes (with the covers off . . . ). Each time I have put it down to the fact I have been trying to critically listen for differences/changes for that period and now I have switched back into 'just' listening mode.
That and the fact the tubes have been put in/out and have gotten cold/haven't warmed up etc compared to when I decided that, 'yes, this is the tube I'm settling on.'

Well the gloves (covers) are off . . . definite increase in SQ and after a bit of research it does make scientific sense.

Resonance added by covers as well as leakage from transformers and a whole host of other electrical interference (especially detrimental to tubes) seems to have been somewhat removed. In no way eliminated and I'm sure its worse on certain equipment and undetectable in others, but this is audible as well as making scientific sense.

Internal damping and improved isolation would also seem to be weapons in this attack on parasitic electrical, and as a result sonic, degradation.
I'm only scraping the surface here I know and my understanding is from an exceptionally basic standpoint.
I'm very interested to know what others think of these kind of tweaks and indeed how far you have taken things.

Here is a website I've often stumbled upon and although at first I was highly skeptical of it yielding results, not to mention the effort it would take to carry out even 10% of these tweaks, it's really fascinating for me.

I already do a lot of the suggestions as a matter of logical practice but some of the stuff you just wouldn't have the scope to contemplate (at least I wouldn't!).

http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_Increase_...ience_Gear.htm

Some guys at Audiogon have gotten this for years. They're not bothered about proving anything to anyone and don't care if people believe this stuff works or not, they are however also interested in explaining things with science. From some of the debates I read on more UK based forums its either one camp or another. That's fine but I want to make my system sound as good as possible (I realise that's most of our goal!) but using either pure science or indeed pure subjective approaches exclusively seems far too narrow minded approach for me.

Just an example of what is often disregarded as 'foo' explained by those in the know with no agenda other than to educate:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussio...nent-isolation

The same/similar threads may well exist here (I will be doing a more in depth search now) but I haven't happened across them as easily.

It's a good read all the same and uses knowledge and science to explain audible results and improvements people have found that many would write off as nonsense. I've never been a fan of the 'if you can't measure it nothing has changed' attitude. I don't disagree with the statement at all its just very often only a small part of the audio picture is being measured.

Vibration across all components (passive/active/organic) seems to make some difference. To what extent is more complicated to explain but I'm beginning to assume that everything in the physical space your system exists in matters.

I doubt I'll ever understand this 'organic' chain that is linked physically/electrically/acoustically in any comparative way to some, but I do listen to and absorb what is advised and I'm getting better at sorting the truth from the assumption.

Oh and lastly, I was advised by someone to put a couple of these in my listening room.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultra-low-F.../dp/B078H92R9C

Certainly an interesting device and theory. I can't prove it but they do seem to 'steady' and somewhat reinforce the low end. That's purely subjective, I doubt I could actually detect if they are on or off . . . but I 'think' I like what they do. Anyway, the mind is a powerful thing and if I 'think' it sounds better then it does!

Haven't covered my room in Helmholtz bottles yet but I'm game for giving anything a try!

Right, I'm off to lift my speaker cables . . . . :sofa:

Everything matters. Absolutely everything can have an influence on perceived performance.

In terms of (metal) covers you definitely get eddy currents circulating if there are transformers inside.
Removing hum from a one box sensitive MC stage can be fun in this regard, it can be done.

There's no science at all on that Audiogon thread and at least one of the participants is flogging isolation devices so not exactly impartial.

Vibration will affect a turntable and change the sound. But at best all you can do is reduce some structural vibration. Not much you can do about airborne vibration. You could put the TT in a separate room to the speakers but then you lose the added reverb which a lot of people like. As for the rest of it, no, I don't reckon there's anything in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

There's no science at all on that Audiogon thread and at least one of the participants is flogging isolation devices so not exactly impartial.

---

Relevant scientific foundations such as the existence of sound waves and vibration punctuate the entire thread.

If you’re definition of science is simply graphs and stats you will be disappointed but I did say they use science to explain, not that they ‘do science’.

Also some bloke coming into the discussion and politely asking if he can link to his site as it provides further scientific explanations (as well as promoting his interest) is hardly a reason to bring impartiality into it (if that’s what you’re referring to?).

Does every thread with a contribution from such a person also lack impartiality?

Not that I said it was impartial anyway I just meant from the tone of the discussion they didn’t seem as bothered (as some) about having their advice proven or otherwise, just so others ‘could’ take their advice or not, they’re just putting it out there. It was refreshing that they didn’t care.

Some guy even apologised to a contributor for doubting him 30 years ago which said contributor graciously accepted with some class.

I wouldn’t immediately distrust something for the reasons you state but I understand why you might. Like I say I only have a very basic understanding but their explanations made (scientific) sense. At least to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

Relevant scientific foundations such as the existence of sound waves and vibration punctuate the entire thread.

If you’re definition of science is simply graphs and stats you will be disappointed but I did say they use science to explain, not that they ‘do science’.

.

---

No. the scientific method. Repeatable observations with controlled methods to test an hypothesis. Peer reviews. All that stuff. One bloke says that vibrations affect mains cables. Well maybe they do but it's a bold claim but he's not backed it up with any science. To go one further, even if vibration did affect the mains cable could we really hear the affect of vibration on a mains cable in the music? Well maybe we can but that's an even bolder claim with what to back it? That's what I was expecting from what you said, that there would be links to some research that was breaking new ground. I was a bit disappointed to find out it was just a casual discussion. Nothing wrong with that of course but as far as I'm concerned it falls a long way short of 'explaining things with science.'

I think the reason that the discussion was so laid back was because all participants simply took it as gospel that vibrations have all these bad effects on everything. Had there been a dissenting voice I suspect there might well have been some angst displayed.

Anyway maybe these effects do exist and do matter, it's not proven that they don't. Personally I don't use any isolating or anti-vibration products at all except for the turntable being on a spiked stand. I didn't even bother fitting the spikes to my speakers. Although I have experimented extensively in the past with such things I eventually came to the conclusion that it was audio nervosa and just got in the way of enjoying the music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

No. the scientific method. Repeatable observations with controlled methods to test an hypothesis. Peer reviews. All that stuff. .

---

Ah yes, I can see why you were left wanting then Martin!
I know you're a hard man to please (scientifically at least!) but the quest for absolute proof is no bad thing, I get you there.

It was more aimed at giving some possible reasons behind the increase in SQ I had experienced from my system. That particular thread seemed to contain some plausible explanations. I also found it refreshing how willingly and (from what I understand) correctly concepts were explained, albeit in laymen terms for the likes of I!

Whether these concepts actually audibly affect SQ is indeed another debate and one that would require at least the requirements you suggest.

A TT in another room would seem a good idea, if completely impractical and a bugger in all other aspects!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Although I have experimented extensively in the past with such things.

---

I think its something we all (at least feel the) 'need' to explore if you're serious about hi-fi. At least in your case for the peace of mind that comes with concluding (science aside) that you cannot detect any change so why bother chasing what doesn't ultimately matter. You've listened for yourself which is THE best proof as far as I'm concerned. Money saved also so win win.

Interestingly I've tried all kinds of feet and materials underneath my DAC. It's basic standard feet sound the best by far. Other so called 'performance enhancing' products make it sound dead/muddy/thin etc. The same products do however bring small (but audible) improvements to other components. It's suck it and see for me. No one solution either.

I'm still interested to hear if anyone else goes to any lengths suggested in the website linked prior to that (or indeed take anything even further:eyebrows:!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

I think its something we all (at least feel the) 'need' to explore if you're serious about hi-fi. At least in your case for the peace of mind that comes with concluding (science aside) that you cannot detect any change so why bother chasing what doesn't ultimately matter. You've listened for yourself which is THE best proof as far as I'm concerned. Money saved also so win win.

Interestingly I've tried all kinds of feet and materials underneath my DAC. It's basic standard feet sound the best by far. Other so called 'performance enhancing' products make it sound dead/muddy/thin etc. The same products do however bring small (but audible) improvements to other components. It's suck it and see for me. No one solution either.

.

---

I sort of gave up on the whole tweaking side after eventually coming to the conclusion that it was massively outweighed, eclipsed even, by the contribution of the engineering quality of the main components - source, amps, speakers. I wasted too long trying to eke better performance out of sub-standard kit with that sort of thing.

It isn't that I have tried things and failed to hear a difference, just that the difference tends to be minor or ephemeral. That is, you tweak, listen and think 'Yes, that's better.' Only next time you come to listen the improvement has vanished.

Last tweak I tried, and this is some years ago now, was placing hard rubber feet designed to reduce vibration from washing machines underneath a large and heavy SS integrated amp. Sat down to listen - terrible! Sounded worse and I took them out again after just a couple of minutes. Now there is no known mechanism by which these feet would alter the performance of the amp. And even if it were the case that vibration into the components of the amp were actually changing the sound you'd expect that the feet would, by suppressing/reducing vibration, improve the sound, not make it worse.

I concluded that the whole thing was in my mind. That could be an incorrect conclusion of course, but that's where I left it.

Regards the sound improving when you take the lid of amplifiers - you're not the only person to have experienced that phenomenon. Which doesn't prove it is real, but it is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

eventually coming to the conclusion that it was massively outweighed, eclipsed even, by the contribution of the engineering quality of the main components - source, amps, speakers. I wasted too long trying to eke better performance out of sub-standard kit with that sort of thing.

---

I think that statement is a sensible conclusion. The majority of what is 'good' about the sound is in good engineering principals and circuit design.

What pisses me off is all the YouTube 'audiophiley' types (also in some forums) generalising with statements like "Isolate everything" and "use power conditioners" with some proclaiming "don't use power conditioners" etc.

Have you got the same kit as me? Do you live in the same voltage consistent/inconsistent area as me? No? Well maybe have the sense to add a disclaimer such as "this may or may not help depending on your circumstance" - of which I've only outlined a very few.

Okay so that's unrealistic as most just want to push kit on people at 100mph, but it took me a while to realise the need to apply more common (as well as scientific) sense when on an 'upgrade' path.

Your example of the washing machine 'pucks' is exactly why if you really want to know you've got to try it. REAL WORLD tests are the ONLY tests!

"reduce vibration from washing machines underneath a large and heavy SS integrated amp"

Martin, had you considered not having a washing machine under your SS amp? :-)

Of course vibration coming into any equipment will have some effect, but as with so many other things how significant it is, and how much benefit trying to remove it is quite another matter.

Has anyone considered that a pair of loudspeaker cables passing current actually will behave like a loudspeaker, but probably at a level 100s of dB below audibility.

Dennis I stack all my equipment on washing machines. It really cleans up the sound.

Although under the right conditions it might sound warmer, aren't you concerned about colouration and fading?

Well my blacks aren't as black as they used to be.

When Stan Curtis was working for the original Cambridge Audio and making the P50 amps, he used to want to leave the wiring (there's quite a bit inside) in a mess, as it sounded best that way. His supervisor though, insisted that it was all made nice and tidy. Bundling tightly the wires obviously increased crosstalk between channels, but, that's the way it had to be done.

Sent from my K3 using Tapatalk

What about scale Martin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columbo

When Stan Curtis was working for the original Cambridge Audio and making the P50 amps, he used to want to leave the wiring (there's quite a bit inside) in a mess, as it sounded best that way. His supervisor though, insisted that it was all made nice and tidy. Bundling tightly the wires obviously increased crosstalk between channels, but, that's the way it had to be done.

Sent from my K3 using Tapatalk

---

Totally logical, as you say the potential for signal wires to interact electrically (audible or not) greatly increases with 'bundling' of said wires.

Shame SQ is not the utter priority in that example and presumably many others!

Running my speaker cable away from 'any' other wire (power/signal/patch etc) always seems to make a small difference (could just be expectation bias of course . . . ).

I agree Chris.

In my apprenticeship we were taught to wire point to point in audio to minimise paths and undesired coupling.

A fellow apprentice asked me to build his ELL80 power amp for him, which I did, using alley screens and point to point.
He took over and rebuilt it because he didn't like my approach, and then used boards, and when finished it had an 8MHz oscillation on it, subsequently asking me to do it again for him, which I declined. My reputation went on to become the humless amplifier man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharos

My reputation went on to become the humless amplifier man.

---

Certainly worse things to be nicknamed Dennis!

I'm not surprised you declined either. The cheek indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharos

What about scale Martin?

---

Which reminds me of the old joke:

Bloke: 'I've bought a model of Mount Everest'

Other Bloke: 'Is it to scale?'

Bloke: 'No, just to look at really'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columbo

When Stan Curtis was working for the original Cambridge Audio and making the P50 amps, he used to want to leave the wiring (there's quite a bit inside) in a mess, as it sounded best that way. His supervisor though, insisted that it was all made nice and tidy. Bundling tightly the wires obviously increased crosstalk between channels, but, that's the way it had to be done.

Sent from my K3 using Tapatalk

---

How would one maintain a consistent 'mess' of untidy wiring? If you didn't, one unit could sound different from another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry

How would one maintain a consistent 'mess' of untidy wiring? If you didn't, one unit could sound different from another.

---

I think the point is that it only looks a 'mess' to the untrained eye whereas in fact it's wired in such a way as to minimise hum and crosstalk.

I imagine, if he he put his mind to it, he (SC), could have come up with a system for creating an "ordered mess", for sound consistency. I don't think it would have been beyond his wit. Having a "reference mess," one would just have to repeat it. Surely?

It's quite difficult to replicate exactly an "ordered mess" or jumble of wires, unless they are somehow fixed in space.

Suppose it depends on how one might view the term "mess". He obviously knew how to create the "mess" in the first place, in order to get a sound improvement. And obviously noise & crosstalk can be measured on a 'scope. Perhaps I have more faith in Stan - The Man? He did, after all, design the 3 box CD1, did he not?