Lowering the noise floor


I am coming to the conclusion that success in home audio reproduction is largely about lowering the noise floor. There are so many different types of “noise”, from so many different sources, that we only really “hear” by their absence.

Those components, cables, accessories and tweaks that SUCCEED at lowering the noise floor, can, and do, dramatically increase sound quality. Sometimes the type of “noise” dealt with is controversial, or not (yet) widely recognized as being a problem. Sometimes the explanation of how a product works is dubious. Sometimes the way it is marketed reeks of “snake oil”. Sometimes the reviews singing its praises go over the top. While these things will certainly put off some prospective purchasers, they do not negate the audible results that are there for anyone open to hearing them.
tommylion
It’s Interesting and not terribly surprising how pervasive ignorance is among audiophiles on the dodgy subject of cryogenics. I realize how hard it must be to break out of the paradigms of the 70s and 80s. It’s like trying to get an electron to move to the next higher energy orbit. In fact, cryogenics itself improves SNR of all wire, including cables, fuses, transformers, inductors, power cords, wall outlets, what have you. It improves SNR by improving conductivity. This is why most high end cable manufacturers routinely employ cryogenics for their products. Because they know they cannot compete in the marketplace unless they do. Duh! 😛 It’s also why you see some (enlightened) manufacturers like Tannoy and Meitner employ cryogenics for their electronics. For digital gear reducing vibration means, you guessed it, improving SNR by reducing jitter. I.e., reducing noise. For structural or mechanical elements such as tonearms, racks, nuts and bolts, turntable platters and even LPs and CDs, cryogenics improves the strength and reduces brittleness, make them less prone to vibration. As I said, everything should be cryo’d. ⛄️
willemj
No it is not. FM has serious limitations, even if internet radio has as well,
Most of FM's "serious limitations" aren't inherent - they exist because of the execution. Internet radio is much the same. That’s why it’s silly to argue that:

there is nothing really you can do to get it close to the quality that can now be achieved by e.g. internet radio.
There’s no argument that Internet radio can sound very, very good, btw.
You can do wonders with spread spectrum communications. Noise disappears out of the equation. 
I agree with the goal of reducing background noise to allow your system to be at its best. I tried a DSP product last month but rejected it for several reasons. One, it significantly increased the noise floor hum. This might have been related to the fact that my preamp output voltage was over the recommended input limit of the DSP. I’m not blaming the DSP per se, just that it was not suitable for my system.

My goal of late is to minimize the ringing in the room in the low frequency range. I put this in the same category as noise because the music signal is fighting to be heard thru this unwanted sound overhang. To the extent I’m able to improve the decay time, the music becomes clearer. And it’s amazing how changing the location of a minor piece of furniture (basket full of magazines) alters the decay rate. I would not have believed it if I hadn’t seen the waterfall measurements.