I've been following this thread with some interest and am in theory interested in using TC in the context of my system (although given it's complexity and number of connections applying TC is not something I'd relish short of a full breakdown if/when I move).
Anyway I was struck by some of the varying experiences with this, and with other similar system level tweaks (e.g. fuses, footers, damping materials etc) and a possible expalantion of what might be going on
In a nutshell my hypothesis is that for tweaks of this nature (i.e. those that address spurious noise, interference, resonances, subtler room effects and all sorts of potential impediments to hearing what was originally in the recording) far from there being a law of diminishing returns there is in fact a system of increasing returns
What do I mean? I mean that as you reduce noise (I'll use this term to mean all potential sources of non original signal distortion) of all sorts the marginal benefit of removing each additional level of noise is larger i.e. as you can resolve more you gain a greater appreciation of removing each additional bit of interference
This effect should be independent of the absolute level of investment in active hardware (assuming a decent source and resolving speakers, plus enough room treatment that you can hear any type of change)
Certainly it's my experience that the more I address "problems" in reproduction the greater benefit I get from each small tweak (e.g. most recently careful application of foQ material). This also helps explain the "aha"/big change experience sometimes associated with what may seem minor tweaks -- in the context of such an optimized system the change may seem large while in another system no or little effect may be apparent
Of course the other approach to getting to this audio nirvana is to simplify the system to remove potential sources of interference (lets call this a Kaitian philosophy) -- unfortunately not the route I've chosen to go down 😉but if I was to start again it's quite appealing
Anyway I was struck by some of the varying experiences with this, and with other similar system level tweaks (e.g. fuses, footers, damping materials etc) and a possible expalantion of what might be going on
In a nutshell my hypothesis is that for tweaks of this nature (i.e. those that address spurious noise, interference, resonances, subtler room effects and all sorts of potential impediments to hearing what was originally in the recording) far from there being a law of diminishing returns there is in fact a system of increasing returns
What do I mean? I mean that as you reduce noise (I'll use this term to mean all potential sources of non original signal distortion) of all sorts the marginal benefit of removing each additional level of noise is larger i.e. as you can resolve more you gain a greater appreciation of removing each additional bit of interference
This effect should be independent of the absolute level of investment in active hardware (assuming a decent source and resolving speakers, plus enough room treatment that you can hear any type of change)
Certainly it's my experience that the more I address "problems" in reproduction the greater benefit I get from each small tweak (e.g. most recently careful application of foQ material). This also helps explain the "aha"/big change experience sometimes associated with what may seem minor tweaks -- in the context of such an optimized system the change may seem large while in another system no or little effect may be apparent
Of course the other approach to getting to this audio nirvana is to simplify the system to remove potential sources of interference (lets call this a Kaitian philosophy) -- unfortunately not the route I've chosen to go down 😉but if I was to start again it's quite appealing