What is the Silliest Accessory You Have Ever Seen.

mijostyn

... all of our hearing is excellent at playing tricks on us. Seeing is believing, but hearing is not.

Oh no, the eye is very easily deceived. Using that to advantage is part of the art of many pursuits, such as architecture, illusions ("magic"), and design in all sorts of things, from clothing to cars.

In truth, the eye itself is not deceived, but the brain. The same is true when we listen. It's our brain that tells us what we hear. That is an important distinction because it hints at one of the challenges of conducting a scientifically valid blind listening test, but getting into that here is OT.

Just a word about a simple explanation about "tweaks" that seems to perturb some brain....

It is not the "Riemann hypothesis problem" level of difficulty to understand that:

ANY "tweak" is a tool thay may help or not, it is MOST OF THE TIMES not enough to buy a tweak and think that it will solve completely the problem related to the working dimension where the "tweak" or tool is applied...

This is the reason WHY i dont recommend tweaks in itself, but a set of systematic listening experiments in the mechanical dimension, electrical and acoustical one...All my devices are chap modified low cost product or homemade by the way....I sell creativity not lazy consumerism...

An example:

A set of springs can apparently help to control vibrations...If the number of springs is adjusted finely...

It is a "tweak" but without listening experiments, this tool cannot solve the problem why?

Because it smooth the effect of vibrations yes but not necessarily of speakers internal resonance...And the perception of the instrumental timbre is negatively affected also by resonance .... Then thinking by listening experiments i added an another new set of springs this time on top of the box speakers under an heavy load that was already there damping my speakers... WHY? because the asymmetrical compression of the 2 sets of springs boxes, one under the speakers, the other on top of the speakers under the damping load create an effect of asymmetric elasticity between the top and the bottom of the speakers enclosure smoothing the effect of the inevitable internal resonance...

All that is not the fact of a gullible consumers buying a "tweak" or a tool, being a set of springs or an equalizer...

I called that listening experiments in the mechanical embeddings dimension of an audio system... COST: peanuts....


Now an important remark:

If your electrical grid is too much noisy like ALL non treated electrical grid, if your room acoustic is not enough under sontrol, how could you hear the destruction of musical timbre by internal resonance when putting the springs tool or tweak under your speaker?
You could probably not.... You will think that vibrations being in some controls all is ok....you will satisfy yourself with  the improvement linked to the partial vibrations control.... But it is an illusion linked to the insufficient treatment of the electrical grid and of the room....An illusion also linked to the fact that NO tweak or tool solve all problem by itself....

Do you understand now why i speak not about "tweaks" mainly, but about the relative controls of the embeddings 3 dimensions of ANY audio system by listenings experiments?

Tweaks are plasters in the worst case like many upgrades are, most of the times for most consumers, or in the best case a tool like an equalizer, but NEVER the only solution all by itself...Listening experiments method is the solution....

Or buy a million dollars room and system and call me nut.....It will be less ridiculous than calling me nut because you own a 10,000 bucks equalizer....

More easy to understand than number theory no ?
I can give to you an introduction also...

"Seeing is believing."

Right. Moron. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc


Why are audiophiles always making it harder than it needs to be? Take something utterly uncontroversial, turn it into War of the Worlds. Maybe everyone take a break, type the word into a browser, read what comes up? When I do that strangely enough its pretty simple-

tweak: improve (a mechanism or system) by making fine adjustments to it.

Yeah. I can see how that would drive some people crazy. Sheesh.

You can call it a tweak. You can call it an adjustment. You can call it fine tuning. You can tweak VTA, VTF, speaker toe in, etc, etc, on and on. You can tweak by moving, adding, removing. You can buy a tweak, or you can make a tweak. Heck you can even invent a tweak.

The question is why anyone would want to ridicule and insult people for trying to improve their systems by making fine adjustments to it? Isn’t improved systems what audiophiles are here for? Apparently not. Some it seems are here to insult us for the crime of wanting to make our systems better.

Some tweaks are not so fine. When does a tweak become radical ?  What's the threshold of a tweak to move above and beyond the mediocrity of its given name. 
Is an equipment rack a no name tweak or is it like I have found it to be a system component that is a necessity?  I am a member of a company that makes high level  resonance control systems and component parts for audio as well as for violin and cello. Tom

theaudiotweak, by radical do you mean ineffective? Resonance control systems can be very important. The Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory in Vermont had a huge problem. It's compressors were driving it's neighbors nuts. The screens surrounding them rang like a tuning fork. They hired my brother's company to stop it. What component parts do you make?