What has produced the greatest sound improvement for you?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

In your audio system, what has produced the greatest improvement impacting on sound quality or better musical experience? Not just 'maybe a bit different' but in your opinion clearly better.

 

It could be software, hardware, room treatments, tweaks whatever. What single thing or things stands out that you would definitely recommend to others?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Each element (name it) improves vastly (and not just different). But the most surprising is the PC. Of course I know this for years, but today I may regard the PC more important than the DAC.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter, you obviously produce an audio computer and there has been a lot of interest lately with the new CAPS server as well as the Taiko Extreme. Without giving away proprietary secrets is there something more specific about what part of the PC is so important?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

David - thanks. This is nothing much about proprietary matters. For me this is about an overkill of "capacity" (contrary to CAPS like machines), combined with the ultra-fastness of the PSU elements, that in itself combined with the fact that it should not be a switching PSU (which are inherently ultra-fast - just saying). Next up, and this is about the real finesse, it is about a super stable current usage (think shunt-like). If you now compare with the contenders (or with Taiko, or with CAPS-like), you can see differences all over the place. Think in the realm of 40 cores, weighing 14Kg/31lbs only (including linear PSU, including cooling and dead silent, not even water cooled).

 

I did not want to make this a commercial / self-advertisement. I only can't put enough emphasis on the importance of the PC (playback machine).

 

 

Thanks Peter.

As far as I am concerned as OP, and I hope @The Computer Audiophile will agree/permit, you can plug your products as much as you like. My interest is in finding out what things make an improvement and why. To the extent that you're willing to share that information, I say let's do it. That applies to any other manufacturer by the way.

 

As you know I am not from a technical background but I don't think anyone would disagree with the concept of having a linear power supply for a PC, your emphasis seems to be on speed/capacity. The other thing I'm taking away is stable current usage and the need for multiple cores.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

49 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Are you joking.? The things with the round, yellow elements!

 

 

Ah yes,

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

50 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Are you joking.? The things with the round, yellow elements!

 

 

Nice looking room!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, 20hertz said:

Bricasti M5

 

I do like Bricasti 🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I know you were joking but to make things absolutely clear - these closed enclosure floorstanders' crossovers cut off their bass at 60Hz, they were designed to work with the subs and were sold as a set.

 

Okay cool. What is the name of the speaker/subwoofer set?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

--Dedicated AC power line.

--Room treatments.

--Dual subs.

Other elements do/did improve sound quality for sure, but the items above were very big gains, and on this forum, most probably already have a system "dialed-in."

 

I think the uninterrupted "home-run" from the panel to the audio area would be a benefit to anyone. And perhaps clean power supplies should be included to make a generic statement: improve power.
 

I feel strongly others would also benefit from room treatment/management, but if you have a less than optimum space, it is worth serious consideration.

 

My room is oddly shaped, with a low ceiling. When I brought speakers home to try I was floored by how much worse they sounded  than in the shop. Who stole my bass?
 

So, I read around various product sites and tutorials on room treatments and sound management, and incrementally added things, listened, and added things. 
 

I am fortunate that I can design and build things myself, when desired, so it allows a lot of freedom in customization. 
 

For some inexplicable reason, Sweetie has let me run absolutely wild building the system and the room. Makes no sense at all.

 

 

 

I have gone for the first two on your list, definitely. I also think Sweetie gave her/his approval very wisely for the Revel speakers. In my humble opinion they are giantkillers. (I sure hope I identified the correct speakers but they sure do look like Revel salon 2 which I have listened to for many many hours).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, jcbenten said:

More watts...I went from 66 watts/ch to 200 watts/ch by adding the Linn 2250 and this is far and away the biggest improvement in my system; over multiple DACS, CD players, and streaming methods from my NAS to the system.

 

I think it depends on what watts 🙂

 

Was the overall quality of the two amplifiers different apart from just the power rating? I would expect for example, comparing oranges with oranges, more watts will be beneficial if you have a difficult load. If you are a fan of class a then it also might mean how long the amplifier stays in class a

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, Summit said:

1. Setting up the audio system correct in good listing room trumps everything else IMO. Many try to squeeze in too big speakers in a small room or worse sit too close to some walls which result in massive amount of reflections.
2. Fix bad mains power is paramount, because just like the course is never going to tests good if you start with bad raw materials, no audio system will sound good with bad mains power, leaking currents etc.
3. Get better source i.e. sever, transport etc
4. Get good anti-vibration racks, footers and room treatments.
5. Now if you have done 1-4 it’s perhaps it’s time to start upgrade the other audio gear in your system.  

I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest things for me was treating the room with bass traps large enough to be bass traps and then playing with reflection and diffusion, speaker setup et cetera.

 

I've never been a fan of any DSP thus far and that includes digital room correction. I hear different but is not right to my ear (thus far). With regards DRC I realise that I am now probably a dinosaur in my opinion but I swear I can hear the direct sound from the speakers and not just some kind of summation or psychoacoustic effect of the sound waves interacting at my listening position. I hear the direct sound first and I don't like the alteration from DRC whether it be minimum phase or mixed phase or the next phase generation. I put a lot of effort into getting that direct sound and to mess with it basically messes with my head. The analogy here would be sitting in a reasonably intimate live venue listening to amplified sound. If I'm close enough to the artists I get a mixture of live and amplified sound, natural and artificial sound. It's part of what makes live performances still so attractive to me, there is still a realness to the sound which is hard to reproduce.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, daverich4 said:

At my age I'm pretty much done upgrading the one thing that I can hear the most difference in so now what? Listen to music?

Sounds like a good plan!🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

 

Wasn't really a convincing post in terms of scientific rigour (Dennis wasn't claiming this). If I was inclined to the cynical I might say I never liked Krell products especially their CD players 🙄.

I would say digital sources have improved just a bit since 2004

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Alcohol  

 

When purchasing or listening to the gear?😄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Not sure.

 

I was going to say power cables, but changed my answer at the last second.

All power to you !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, Chris A said:

  

 

1) The room itself, treated for near-field early reflections, was likely the most important ingredient (see https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/26684-chris-a/?tab=field_core_pfield_3 for a listing of room and equipment).

 

2) A very close second were the loudspeakers themselves--employing full-range directivity (same link).

 

3) Dialing everything in using a good DSP crossover for each channel in the 5.1 (manually)--with flattened phase response.  Bringing the centerline of the HF waveguides closer to the centerline of the bass bins (left, right channels) also significantly improved listener involvement on stereo music tracks.

 

4) Multichannel 5.1 (especially all channels carefully time aligned and their phase response flattened using fractional order crossover filters).  Native DSD multichannel music files in particular sound really good, i.e., those recordings retaining as-recorded phase response.

 

In short, it wasn't electronics or computers that made the difference (other than the DSP crossovers used in the 5.1), but rather the measured acoustic fundamentals.  The greater the fidelity of the direct arrival acoustic energy without intervening early reflections or embedded/added electrical/electronic phase growth within the reproduction chain, the greater the subjective listening performance--disproportionately.  This dramatically increased subjective listener involvement (see this link for further explanation).  Only then did the "magic" start to occur, and then very small improvements in music sources (quality of music tracks) and electronics fidelity become clearly audible.

 

Chris

Nice post, nice room!