A minor rant


Prologue: this is a minor rant. It will not be tediously long, and it will not attack anyone. Proceed only if interested in reading a short diatribe on reviews about tweaks.

Almost all serious members of our hobby have tried various tweaks over the years – some successful, some not. Infact, tweaks are so much a part of our hobby that dedicated audio enthusiasts are often referred to as “tweaks”. I’ve tried a lot of tweaks myself over the years, and most proved of dubious value, but most were also fairly cheap. Many of us indulge in tweaks in the hope they will get us closer to audio nirvana. I think, however, that the variety and price of tweaks has reached the stage (like interconnects) that, as Monty Python might say, they are “silly” (envision John Cleese doing his bit as the Minister of Silly Walks…).

During lunch today, I strolled down to the Tower Records in the University District (a block or so from the Univ of Washington campus) to browse for a few CD’s, and wound up buying the current issues of “Listener” mag and “Audio Musings” mag. The copy of “Listener” contains a subscription ad with a picture of a coiled pile of feces sitting next to a can of Shinola wax, with the caption: "Read ‘Listener’, and learn the difference”. Did this ad inadvertently contain an editorial statement about the very tweaks that were the subject of their review article?

There are two tweak products reviewed in the mags: the Rollerblock Symposiums (which sell for $300 for a set of 3 steel balls, with their blocks – and for only $75 more, with tungsten carbide balls) (I once knew an Army drill sergeant with a pair of those, but that’s another story…), and the Aurios “Media Isolation Bearings” (MIB’s), which sell for the same price.

“Audio Musings” has an equipment review of the Aurios bearings, which the reviewer tested under a Parasound 1500 power amp (also the subject of a full review). To determine how effective the isolation bearings are, the reviewer placed not one set, nor two sets, not even three sets under the amp. He eventually placed 5 SETS OF BEARINGS (3 bearings per set) under the amp. That’s $1500 worth of isolation bearings under a $995 power amp!! Here’s a quote from the Audio Musings review:

“I switched amps to the Parasound 1500. After getting used to its sound, I placed three Aurios under it. With just the three Aurios MIB’s, there was a slight but noticeable improvement. With each addition, the level of improvement was noticeable. Then I put 6, 9, 12, and then 15 MIB’s under the amp. With each addition the level of improvement was noticeable. Boy, was I surprised. This raised the level of performance to quite a degree…”

Let’s set aside the issue of whether the reviewer suffered from “audio delusions” working as a possible factor here. Does anyone in their right mind actually spend 50% more than the cost of the amp (or other component) on isolation tweaks? What kind of improvement would be realized by getting a $2500 amp with regular feet, vs. a $1000 amp with $1500 feet? At what point does improvement from adding more MIB’s reach a plateau? Could an actual human being hear the difference between 15 MIB’s vs. 30? Or 45, etc. If these isolation bearings offer such "noticeable improvements", why has no component manufacturer seen fit to make them standard on their products at a fraction of the $300 cost (for one set)? (Would you buy a $20,000 car with $30,000 tires?)

This kind of asinine reviewing is what contributes to “normal” people seeing audiophiles as strange at best, and maybe clowns or dupes at worst. This review really aggravated me, and I appreciate having a place to vent to my fellow ‘philes. Thank you – I now return control of your computer to you.
sdcampbell
SD of course you are correct about the absurdity of using
$1500 of bearings under $1000 amp, it may even be silly to use $300 (1 set) under $1000 amp because of high relative cost ratio. One set of standard MIBs can support 1000lbs, and I doubt if any major benefit comes from using more than 3 MIBs from my experience with these.

I like the cover of Listner tweak issue, with medeval doctor
boring hole in some fools head and inserting a funnel, could this be symbolic of the average audio mag reviewer?

BTW I do believe bearing devices are quite effective for certain applications, but only if it makes sense cost wise with a balanced system.
Hi, Megasam. I agree with you that these type of bearing devices can be useful, and would reinforce your comment that the bearings have to be seen in the context of the overall system. One set of bearings might be supportable (no pun intended) with a component in the $1500-2000 range (to pick an arbitrary dollar figure), but doesn't make much sense in the context of a sub-$1K component. On the other hand, where the hell does the audiophile catechism say that things have to make logical sense?
Something in SD's orginal post choked me up more than obvious stupidy of the review(er): The implication that if I don't read Listener magazine, I likely don't know *&#@^!. Call me sensitive, but I find that insulting. I don't subscribe to any audio magazines (although I'll buy the odd issue once in a while) since I find them all to be full of pointless, self-serving drivel, but if I had a subscription to Listener I would be registering my complaint along with my cancellation...

RLW
There is one MAJOR point that you folks are missing. The more "tweaks" ( cones, bearings, pods, etc...) that someone puts under a component, the more it is coupled to the surface supporting it. As such, instead of having the surface area of one set of 3 bearings "isolating" it, the amp now has FIFTEEN bearings "coupling" it. That means that there is a 500% increase in contact / transfer area as compared to one set. I bet if he would have put that amp right on the supporting structure, it would have sounded REALLY great... Sean
>