Tweaks you got rid of because they were not effective (enough)?

Not only we dont have a definition of what a "tweak" is, but it seems that we dont even have a clue about a simple fact:

how can anyone could be able to perceive some change and qualify it positive or negative change, with an audio system that is not mechanically controlled for resonance/vibrations, that is located in a house where the noise floor is high like most houses, and where the acoustic controls of the room is inexistant?

I will not even speak about regular uneducated ears who accept to live with such an audio system , i dont have any other word: a badly E.... system.....People then succumbs to temptation of a costly upgrade for solution to their deficient E....Or they buy a ready made costly "tweaks", nevermind the word definition....

I cannot use the word E....in this thread, the reader must read my past posts to guess it....

:)

A philosophical simple point: when we dont have an adequate CONCEPT for a reality or for a phenomenon, we cannot adequately PERCEIVE it...

This is epistemology for children.....

:)

A "tweak" is a ready made identical solution product for all audio system, room, and house ....

A control device for one of the 3 E... is a specific  partial solution inscribed in a set of step by step  listening experiments ....

Calling my devices homemade controls "tweaks" is simply  confuse an object with a concept and a method....

Is it not clear?

@djones51 -- Sure, just voicing opinions -- or rather, "facts," namely, facts about what did or didn’t make a difference for you, in your system, with your preferences, etc. The more clearly we describe the experiments we conducted, the more others can try them to see what they think.

@mahgister. Surely, from what is above, the term "tweak" has been adequately delimited. But, since you’re not clear yet:

• Some things are necessary to make the system even work (make sounds!). They’re more than tweaks.
• Some things are intended to improve the main function of the system, how it sounds.
• Some things are intended to make a system look more attractive. I like djones’ term "jewelry" for that. ( Where "jewelry" indicates an aesthetic factor which does not bear on the sound but rather the overall experience of the system, which includes visual appeal. Nothing wrong with "jewelry" (visual improvement) unless it’s pretending to be a "tweak" (sonic improvement).

Finally, your epistemological point is, what? That unless people have an "adequate concept" for a phenomenon they cannot "perceive" it? I’m sorry, but that kind of intellectualism puts down the experience that so many careful listeners on this forum clearly have. They may have different ways of expressing their experience, and they may still be finding the words in which to express it, but the notion that if they don’t have a "concept" first they can’t perceive it? I cannot accept that.

Inert dead oak speaker stands. May have deadened vibration but also deadened sound.

If you dont have the concept of "electricity" how can you explain and perceive adequately the spontaneous dead frog legs movement?

It this intellectualism?

If so i apologize and will let the thread rest.... :)

Audio is not only and mainly about "tastes" there exist some simple facts and concepts...."tweaks" are not a matter of taste.... And the demarcation between what makes a system work and what improve it is NOT a clear line....

My E... concept adress elementarily what it is necessary to do for an audio system to work adequately at his utmost potential...

mahgister3,548 posts10-15-2020 6:21amNot only we dont have a definition of a what a "tweak" is, but it seems that we dont even have a clue about a simple fact:


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The facts are mahgister, YOUR ideas are based on a "philosophy, or ideology", that YOU have developed over the last two years or so.

I think with ALL the information you have provided, I have yet to read a single thing you’ve actually done, beginning to end, and how and what materials you used to do it.. I really don’t LIKE your embedding ideas, because you won’t explain it. Plane and simple as that.

You sir are learning... I admire your tenacity, but "Audiofiling" has no "isums" in it... You have WAY to much "ICING" and not near enough "CAKE"

I suggest before you go spouting how your 500.00 system is what it is because of "embeddings", your own private way of describing things that have been described for over 100 years by others, in other TERMS.

YOU learn what a "TWEAK" is, not me, or most of the others...

"A Tweak" is ANYTHING other than equipment or cabling.
It can also be a "WAY" of doing things. BTW a room is optional, where you place your equipment, is ALL "Tweak"

I say you have a NICE 500.00 dollar system..

When it all boils down to the last word.. BETTER EQUIPMENT,
AND "How it’s used" is the only answer to better Sound Quality.

"Tweaks" are icing on the cake, NOT "Embeddings’, what ever that is..

Respectfully, I really don’t need a philosophy lesson, from a "2 year old audiophiler", with a whole new way of doing things... It’s called "Tweaks"

If your nice, I’ll send you another 500.00 worth of equipment.. You keep saying how you have no money. I’ll pitch in.. What do ya need? I’ll pay the postage too.. What do you want?

Kinda like Bruce Lee's book, that no one could understand, BUT HIM...

Regards...