Some Hi-Fi Myths

• Firstly some definitions. What's what? A basic system comprises of the source component, it's interconnect, the amplifier, speaker cable, and the speakers (inc. stands if needed). Upgrades are when you change an essential part of the basic system (i.e. what you need, bare minimum, to get any sound) like the cd player for a better one. Upgrades usually always cost money. Tweaks are things you buy to try to enhance the existing sound by adding to what you already have, broadly speaking anyway. Most tweaks cost money, with the more absurd ones being more expensive and the best ones being free. Optimisation is altering things like positioning of speakers to get the best sound. It doesn't cost anything (if it did it would be a tweak) and you aren't adding anything to your existing system (again, a tweak)...you're just getting the best of what you already have.
   
  
• Different cables make your Hi-Fi sound different. Maybe. I upgraded my interconnect from Kelvin K2 to Ixos Gamma and found an improvement in sound quality. Upgrading to Chord Co. Carnival Silver Plus was an even bigger step up. People usually cite the issue of intereference....even though most interconnects are shielded, there is always capacity for interference - better cables let through less interference. However, shielding is pretty easy to get right, so it would be a surprise if even a cheap cable wasn't up to the job here. No, the major reason is that different cables have different resistance, inductance and capacitance properties which alter the sound. Therefore signals are propagated differently dependent on the material they're going through, so silver cables may sound different to copper ones. This is important because cables should aim to be neutral, i.e. not let the signal between the components be altered in any way. Also, an analogue coax that doesn't convey a lot of treble will sound good in an already bright system. This is because it is artificially taming the treble. However, this does mean that the cable itself is altering the sound quality (for instance my set-up relies on the components to sound superb - the cables should only be there to complement the system, allowing it to shine through, not adding or subtracting anything from it). The same goes for speaker cable, it really can dramatically improve the sound quality of the system, again not aiming to diminish anything, merely allowing the amp and speakers to sound as they should do in the first place (i.e. the cables should be 'transparent' for want of a better word). There are many different types of cables to choose from (most of which sound similar) so you'll have to try them and see. You can get the best info on cables from Audioholics.
   
  
• Electrical coaxial digital interconnects are better than optical digital ones. False. By their very nature, any coaxial cables will let in some interference and also colour the sound depending on what they're made of. Optical cables, conversely, are not physically affected by interfering electromagnetic fields. They rely on light to convey the signals. This means that they are able to propagate a much purer signal without adding anything to the information. However, a signal is electrical, gets converted to light, sent down an optical cable, then converted back again to electrical signals, whereas coaxial cables don't need these conversion steps. This is why some say that optical sounds better but others like coaxial. In practice, it makes virtually no difference at all, you either get a 1 or a 0 no matter what cable you use. However, if you need longer runs of wire over 5 meters it may be better to stick with optical as you might get noticeable interference over such a long run of metal wire.
   
  
• A £600 cable will sound better than a £60 cable. True and False. It has nothing to do with price. The £600 is for people with more money than sense. It may sound better, it may not. There is a law of diminishing return which means that you have to spend larger amounts of money as you go up-market to hear smaller differences in sound quality. Besides, the wiring inside a component is made of 50p wires. Do you really think that by adding an expensive wire it will magically transform the system?...the wiring inside the components is still the Rate Determining Step and a cable will only make a difference up to a point.
   
  
• Speaker stands make the sound improve. True. Most (probably all) non-floorstanding Hi-Fi speakers are designed and developed with correct stand placement in mind. Weighted stands allow the speaker cabinet to remain immobile whilst all the drive unit(s) energy goes into producing sound (not making the speaker wobble - an inefficient use of sound waves). It also places the tweeter at the correct height (eye level). Stands should be filled with something heavy - lead shot or sand will do fine.
   
  
• Stabilizing discs, equipment racks and squash balls improve sound quality. Maybe. To a limited extent. As long as the equipment itself is immobile, the laser used to read the information (from the MD or CD) is reading a cleaner set of data. See technical explanation in the next section below.
  The ONLY improvement you might see with DIY tweaking like this is if the DAC is having to interpolate values. Theoretically, keeping the signal mistake free at this point means that the processing power of the DAC chip (and therefore the current available that can be delivered to the DAC as it is needed) goes into accurately decoding a true picture of the sound rather than guessing what is missing, so you theoretically get a more accurate reproduction. A stabilization device or equipment rack keeps the CD and MD players immobile to achieve this. However, beyond a certain point, there shouldn't be much difference between them, once a system is physically immobile, it's physically immobile. Thus a £1000 rack does the same job as a £250 rack or a well made £25 solid table. Squash balls are also meant to isolate decks, but add nothing to the sound if it is already on a good rack (it's already immobile anyway). Stabilising CD platters, again, may work if they end up reducing a significant number of guesses by dampening CD vibrations as it revolves and by absorbing stray reflected/refracted laser light within the disc. Then again, they probably won't (see below) - you have to listen yourself to see.
   
  
• How do CD players work then? Warning: Techie Talk. Here I'll try to explain how the CD player decodes the CD. The 1's and 0's are actually a "snapshot" of the complicated waveform at one point in time (basically the numerical value of the amplitude of the waveform at that point). Each of these values is encoded as this binary number (base 2 rather than base 10). If the CD were encoded as 2 bit, the waveform can only have values of 0, 1, 2 or 3. So increasing the number of bits to 16, allows us to encode any whole number value between 0 and 65535 (which, including 0, equals 65536 values (= 2 to the power 16, hence it is a 16 bit signal)). So you get a string of numbers per value, for instance, the value 15 would be 0000000000001111, which is a word (the binary representation of that specific amplitude). Now, 44100 snapshots take place every second (hence a CD being encoded at 44.1kHz) so you have each word overall 44100 times per second - that's a lot of numbers for just 1 second of music, enough to mean that you will inevitably get a few errors now and then. So the CD itself has a set of built in error correction systems.
  At the end of each word is a parity value that tells the DAC how many 1's or 0's it contains, so any missing values can be "filled in" by it. The "filled in" values are not just guessed, they are obtained from tracks of data that are not normally used and are, at their simplest, merely 'backups' of the audio signal that can be used to fill in the blanks if original data is lost (redundancy). By increasing the number of parity bits, we can create quite complicated systems that allow us to correct and detect more accurately. Secondly, the data is not set out in a continuous string of numbers like words in a book. They are, in fact, all jumbled up - interleaved. This means that if you had the equivalent of an error in the phrase WHATISYOURNAME, it might end up looking like ISYOURNAME. Whereas, with interleaving, the phrase is coded as AIAORMEHTNSYUW so the mistake creates RMEHTNASYUW which recodes as WHT S YUR NME, which is easier to correct (it is easier to correct small missing "bit errors" than longer tracts of lost data called "burst errors"; so interleaving tries to create manageable bit errors from more difficult potential burst errors). We can also use a system by which the data is arranged so that there are fewer transitions between 1 and 0 (or vice-versa), which is where errors can occur. This allows pits on the CD to be grouped in such a way as to only trigger certain possible frequencies in the laser pickup, so therefore making it easier to decode correctly - modulation. Finally, if these initial stage corrections (built into the way the CD is coded) do not work, the DAC has two more tricks up its sleeve. It can interpolate (guess) the correct missing values based on what it sees either side of the missing figure, and if this fails it will mute the sound altogether over the mistake - so you will hear sound dropping out from the speakers. The initial CD coded corrections are pretty foolproof, and no amount of tweaking will improve DAC's here, because you will be getting a true waveform with just these anyway (The Red Book CD standard is designed to cope with error rates of 220 errors per second, and still work accurately). Alternatively the DAC will reach the last straw and give up altogether, when the sound will cease, in which case your CD is probably unreadable. So, as mentioned above, the ONLY theoretical improvement you might see with DIY tweaking is if the DAC is already having to interpolate values, and this is then reduced, but this is fairly unlikely on it's own.
   
  
• Up/Oversampling a billion times is very very important. Not really. Firstly, we have to distinguish between sampling and quantisation. As explained above, sampling is the 44.1kHz rate at which data is read off the disc. The filters in the DAC cut off the signal steeply just above 20kHz (i.e. just above audible range), but these filters produce time distortions and artefacts that "smear" into the audible range (either side of the cut-off). So a poorly implemented DAC and filter will introduce abnormalities into the audible range. Increasing the sampling frequency from 44.1kHz to, say, 96kHz means that any distortions will "smear" down to say, 48kHz...well above audible range so it should sound better. Most CD players implement 8x over/upsampling, so the filter cuts off at 352.8kHz (8x44.1) rather than 44.1kHz. This is upsampling when it takes place outside the DAC and oversampling when taking place within the DAC itself. In practice, they're pretty much the same. Over/Upsampling involves interleaving new data values in between the 441000 data points/sec of the existing waveform and therefore interpolating a higher resolution waveform.
  Hand in hand with this is the opportunity to increase the quantization level as well, to maybe 20 or 24 bit. If the 16 bit data could be decoded bit for bit by a 16 bit DAC with no errors, it would be working in a linear fashion (ideal). In practice, there may be errors as most 16 bit DAC's are not 100% perfect. So manufacturers came up with the idea of increasing the quantization level of the DAC for longer word lengths and more accurate representation of the amplitude. This means that any errors are a smaller proportion of the overall signal and also allows a better signal to noise ratio as well.
  So when a CD player boasts a "24 bit DAC", it might sound better, it might not, as the raw data is still 16 bit and it depends how well it's implemented (i.e. 24 bit DAC's don't necessarily sound better than 16 bit ones). The extra bits are being guessed and added in. The improvement in sound, if any, may well be more to do with the DAC over/up sampling at the same time instead.
   
  
• Re-clocking the player will improve it. Probably Not. Firstly, a CD player needs two signals, one is the binary one, the other is the individual timings of those values, needed so that the DAC can place those signals in the correct (temporal) sequence. Thousands of 1's and 0's are being read off the disc, but need to be decoded by the DAC at regularly spaced intervals (i.e. it needs to know when to decode the next word). So the DAC has a "word clock" which is a timing signal input that tells the DAC to decode the next word every 1/441000th of a second (for a 44.1kHz sampling rate). It is here (and only here, at the DAC's word clock input) that Jitter can cause a problem by causing the words/values to not be correctly spaced. If this were to happen, a pure sine wave, for instance, would end up looking slightly irregular as certain numbers are closer to their neighbours than others, rather than equally spaced. Now if the sampling frequency were only 1Hz, then a normal quartz watch oscillator would be fine, but the word clock is running at 44.1kHz here, so you only need inaccuracies in the order of microseconds in a 16 bit DAC, to be audible, so it has to be very accurate.
  Jitter is very inducible in the path between the transport and the digital processor interface, so to fix this, samples are read off the disc and placed into a RAM buffer and then passed out regularly, which means that samples are reliably fed out independently of the transport or reading mechanisms. However, remember the only place where jitter matters is at the "word clock" input of the DAC, so a perfectly buffered linear clock signal from the transport that degrades just prior to the signal entering the DAC is still no better than a high-jitter signal that stays as it is till it gets there.
  Re-clocking involves trying to tackle Jitter where it matters...yes you guessed it, at the "word clock" input of the DAC, not by trying to institute RAM buffers, or by creating improved transports, for instance (these are separate things to re-clocking, but are trying to achieve the same goal of reduced jitter). If the DAC already has an excellent clock things won't improve very much. Theoretically, if the new clock is very much more accurate, you may think you'll hear an improvement, but it also means that your existing CD player may need to be binned if the clock is that poor (chances are, it wouldn't have been manufactured in the first place if it can't even manage to have a precise clock....so I take these claims with a tiny pich of salt).
   
  
• Therefore, all accessories always improve a Hi-Fi. False. A lot of reviews in Hi-Fi magazines have one thing in common - PLACEBO. Medically speaking, placebo can account for even up to 90% of improvements in symptoms in some studies. Now if a person can lower their symptoms by BELIEVING they are receiving medicine, it's entirely plausible that a lot of so called improvements in Hi-Fi are because people believe they will work. When you review a cable in a shop, the fact that you know you are listening to interconnect X allows for the effect of placebo. The way to eliminate placebo and truly assess the merits of an upgrade would be to blindfold yourself and let the shop assistant RANDOMLY connect different upgrades WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING OR WHAT THEY ARE and let you truly listen for yourself with no clues as to what you're listening to. This is called a single blind trial. I'm not sure if Hi-Fi magazines conduct blind trials but in the absence of any of them saying they do, you have to assume that placebo plays a large part in their comments. The only Scientific way of truly testing a hypothesis is to conduct a double blind trial in which both you AND the cable swapper have no idea what is being tested (harder to do, and usually not actually done in the subjective world of Hi-Fi...see below).
   
  
• Adding a sub is not 'High-Fidelity'. False. This is Hi-Fi snobbery at it's worst. Without a sub, there aren't any speakers around that go down to 20Hz (lower limit of our hearing) on their own. More importantly, there are very few speakers that go down to very low bass levels with any appreciable loudness. Sure, most speakers will output something at around 35ish Hz, but it's usually a wimpish fart-like sound; something that you can only just about hear...the same speakers may only give good levels of SPL at about 50Hz (the region where a lot of speakers tend to run out of steam, regardless of type).
  To fix this problem, you can add a sub to your stereo pair setup thus making what some call a 2.1 system - although this is a misnomer because, unlike home cinema, the sub here is not actually an extra 'separate' channel...it's being fed by (and outputting) the same stereo signals that your speaker pair are getting already (so you're still listening to a pure "2" system)...but I digress. A sub should integrate seamlessly with your stereo pair to extend the usable frequency range (i.e.. that which has an appreciable volume) down to basement-like levels. Without my BKsub, my stereo standmounts run out of puff at around 50Hz, my Tannoys at around 40Hz. I can just about hear a low frequecy warble below this but this doesn't count. As I said, it needs to be an appreciable volume. With the BKsub added, the frequency response of the system goes clean down to 20Hz all with good, loud SPL. On top of this, you should also set up your sub so that it is not heard as a separate box (i.e.. so that the bass sounds like it's emanating from your stereo pair only).
  Also, very well respected Hi-Fi companies such as Martin Logan have built in powered subs in them powered separately to the electrostatic panels. The very well recieved Anthony Gallo Reference 3 floorstanders have an extra bass voice coil per speaker that you can (if you wish) power as an extra --- in effect acting like add-on subs. Wilson Watt have speakers with the bass driver housed separately to the mid/bass and treble cones, again, similar to having a separate sub in a separate enclosure. So why are these numerous examples (as well as others) "allowed" but other separate standalone subs pooh-poohed? Bizarre to say the least (then again, if you're happy with your Hi-Fi not being able to reproduce/extract everything that's encoded on the CD that's fine...it's just that ignoring the lowest 4 octaves of encoded information is not my idea of High-Fidelity).
  If you wish to check wether you have usable volume at low frequencies, I suggest you use my 20Hz-20kHz wav Test Tones (66.2Mb Zip file - external server).
   
  
• Personal players, mini/micro's, MP3, T.Vs, videos, dvd players, computers... etc constitute Hi-Fi. False. This is all very well for people wanting "lifestyle" systems and convenience but true High-Fidelity is based solely upon SOUND QUALITY. It's like trying to say an MPV is a Drivers Sportscar. MPV's may well be convenient and comfortable but they are not designed for "the ultimate driving experience". True Hi-Fi usually consists of separate decks/components allied to stereo speakers - after all, the soundstage is meant to be in front of you, not whizzing around your head. It's a shame that most Hi-Fi mags previously devoted to Audiophile sound quality have now gone down the convenience (non-hifi) multichannel road.
   
  
• I should buy based on what other reviewers think, I don't need to listen to it. False. My components have been rubbished by some reviewers but applauded by others. It depends on what they reviewed it with and what music they played on it. The important thing is that YOU think the system sounds amazing. Some speakers (my old Cerwin Vega's for instance) can sound stunning at first listens but tend to fatigue you with their treble after 20mins. It is therefore extremely important to have an EXTENDED LISTEN before you buy.
   
  
• I'm not afraid of Placebo. True. As an example I think cables make a difference because I can repeatedly hear differences between an ixos gamma and chord co. chameleon, say, in my system. Having said that, it is subtle enough to be within the sphere of "placebo". So it may just be my mind. Do I care?...no.
  The reason is that as long as I'm happy with the sound, I'm also happy with the idea that placebo may or may not take a part in my reactions/perceptions...
  ...but hang on, why is this? Well I am a human being (last time I checked). It is inevitable that placebo takes part in a lot of my perceptions. That's how nature built me. If you believe placebo plays no part in your everyday experiences in some way or another (Hi-Fi or not), you may not realise how big the placebo effect is. The problem really stems not from the idea that cables may or may not be different but from the fact that people equate placebo with the phrase "being duped". Which means people take offence at the idea of "succumbing" to placebo (are you afraid you might be branded a pleb or something ??). This should not be the case. You aren't a pleb...you're normal.
  In this example I believe that my cables sound different...but if in the long run I eventually get proven wrong and realise it is placebo...so what? I'm only human and placebo isn't a dirty word. I'm still happy with my cable selection no matter what and the idea of placebo doesn't scare me.
  PLACEBO is a normal part of BEING HUMAN.
  This is why double blind tests are important in scientific circles, to remove placebo and sort fact from perception, but wrt Hi-fi which is very subjective, some would argue that there is no such need/thing as "ultimate truth". Everything you hear is so subjective that it is a hard topic to get objective with (if you get my drift.....it's essential in most sciences, but they would argue if it is essential in hi-fi at all.....if you're happy who else cares?). I personally believe double blind testing is very useful for sorting fact from fiction especially wrt 'tweaks'; but otherwise I'm still happy with my Hi-Fi anyway.
   
  
• I don't understand what these Hi-Fi magazines and reviewers say anyway. Neither do I. Here's something that may help you though: Hi-Fi language translator.
   
  
• Dedicated digital coax interconnects sound different to normal analogue phono ones. False. A digital interconnect is only digital in the sense that it conveys a binary code. A coat hanger used instead will ALSO convey a binary code so the idea of it being digital doesn't make it "special". Also, physically a data stream of one's and zero's is being sent. If you use a single phono lead (50Ω) instead of a digital coax (75Ω), this change in impedance of the cable won't all of a sudden cause twelve's and twenty-eight's to appear. You're still getting a binary code of ones and zeros. Any differences between the two are due to the cables interference rejection / signal purity (see the second point above - 75Ω wires are meant to reduce reflections within the wire, but do these 'reflections' significantly alter the actual information sent down the wire? - some would say "yes, significantly", whilst others argue that there's no audible difference). The fact that the makers call one "digital" doesn't give it special powers (a well made 50Ω cable should sound fine, and no different in my experience).
   
  
• CD-R sounds better than MD so why buy an MD deck. Yes...and? CD-R does sound better because it doesn't use a compression system to work. However, a CD-R copy may not sound as good as an original factory pressed CD (the way the data substrate is physically created on the disc surface is different). MD on the other hand was never meant to compete with CD-R. It competed with DCC (Digital Compact Cassette) and won. MD's only use is its portability and convenience of editing. If I really want top quality/serious sound, I go out and buy the CD (£10 off the net) because it will always be better quality then any equivalent CD-R/MD recording. The same goes for MP3/HD Players that sound great for portable use but come nowhere close to separates for High-Fidelity.
   
  
• How much should I spend on interconnects? Up to you. A general rule would be about 10-12% of the value of the component it's used on. Overall, all accessories should cost no more than 15% of the TOTAL rrp cost of all the components, maximum.
   
  
• Biamping/Biwiring improves sound quality Mostly. First of all, you can only do this if you have two pairs of binding posts at the back of each speaker. Running a separate cable to each is meant to keep the negative return signal of the tweeter separate to the less delicate bass negative for longer. However, you are actually hearing the pistonic motion of air from the cone not negative return signals, so intermodulation between drive units may not be the whole issue. The effect is more probably achieved because you have effectively doubled the gauge of the wires going to each speaker, and removed the need for the (poorer) quality bridging links. This gives you a tighter more accurate bass with crisper treble. I have gone a stage further and use silver cable for the treble path and copper cable for the mid/bass. This way, sound is much better on my speakers than spending twice as much on single wire and connecting this as if it were a 'pseudo 6Ω' with the bridging links, onto both drivers. Bi-amping is the next step up by amplifying the drive units completely separately (this requires two power amps, one for stereo high and one for stereo low frequencies ...monoblocking, on the other hand, is one amp for the left (full range) channel and one amp for the right (full range) channel).
  Also, it depends on whether your speaker manufacturer has included two sets of binding posts on the speakers. If not, they're designed to sound better using single wiring, so there is no option for biwiring. On the other hand some biwirable speakers are only that way as it is "industry standard", and they may actually sound better single wired. Then again your speaker instructions may strongly advise biwiring as this would be the better option...so it may boil down to what the speaker is designed to sound better with as well.
   
  
• Can I use both sets of taps from my amp? Maybe. It's important to remember that, despite what the manual states, stereo amps tend to run better when driving one stereo pair of speakers. Using both taps from the rear will double the load on the amp (fine, if you have a 100W behemoth, but the amp is at risk of clipping if overdriven).
  For instance, bi-impedancing is a variation on biwiring and works if you have drivers within a speaker cabinet that have different impedances. My Mid/Bass cones in the Quad's have 4Ω drivers, so these can be connected to the 4Ω taps from my amp. The Tweeters, however, have 8Ω drive units, so these can be separately connected to the 8Ω taps from the amp. This way, the drivers would be correctly impedance-matched to the source amp, but it does mean that you are really just messing around with the x-over [and the respective cone-EQ curves], so may be effectively running the speakers under non-ideal conditions!. Try both ways to see which suits your system best.
   
  
• Vinyl's always better than CD. False. My CD player sounds better than my record deck.
   
  
• What about Sonic Memory? It's important. Our brains are always comparing things, which is why ABX testing is so popular. However, our Sonic memory (ability to accurately remember every nuance of a musical piece/sound) diminishes very rapidly with time. When discussing tweaks, the differences (if any) are usually very small, and will be lost/forgotten by our brains within a minute or so. So unless we switch between different sounds very very quickly, we cannot hope to accurately remember all the subtleties that went before and thus make a true comparison. In fact, this is how most snake oil functions...by allowing a sufficient time to elapse whilst you 'set it up' that you wouldn't be able to notice that it's sound is unchanged even if it came and bit you on the arse. Also, we aren't necessarily aware of how much our sonic memory degrades over time because even though the subtleties may have gone, we retain the rough overall picture; so we continue believing our memories are 100% accurate long after they have ceased to be.
  Switching between comparisons should ideally be (almost) instantaneous if you want an accurate picture of what's going on (a minute at most).
   
  
• Should I buy second hand? Up to you again. Second hand goods can be bargains, but usually are 'sold as seen'. However, older speakers can sound better. For example, the mid/bass driver in speakers used to be 8" as standard. Nowadays, most models have 5" or 6.5" drivers to look slimmer and more 'lifestyle'. These don't produce as good bass as an 8" driver (such as those in my old Tannoys), and don't therefore sound as rich (also see note below).
   
  
• Floorstanders are usually better than Standmounters. Sometimes. Actually, Floorstanders use their cabinet size to produce deeper bass. The downside is that the bass is amplified by the enclosure and ported out, which results in a deep but less controlled bass than that directly from a mid/bass cone. Standmounters are therefore easier to design and 'get right' than floorstanders, but with floorstanders you don't have to worry about correct ear height when it comes to placement. Remember, speakers are probably the largest hi-fi component market out there so you'll find all different types and sounds on offer to suit your ears.
   
  
• Metal sounds sharper than wood. Oh Dear. There is the general opinion of many hi-fi mags that such and such hi-fi rack made of glass and steel imparts a "brightness" to the sound. This other wooden rack sounds "warmer". Cases made of a natural material makes the sound more "natural". All of these statements are complete and utter tosh. The perceived property of a material that is not in the signal path is not imparted to the sound.
   
  
• Displays that turn off improve sound. Maybe. The display will not affect the parts of the player dealing with digital signals. However, the analogue sections of older players (anything in the signal path after the DAC) may be susceptible to interference from noisy displays that are emitting RFI (interference). Newer CD players have well manufactured displays that emit less or no RFI and players are constructed such that the analogue sections are routed away from the display anyway, so you may hear no improvement despite the theory.
   
  
• Spikes act as one-way diodes wrt sound propogation. False. Ridiculous idea really. Tests on the component casings with various spike positions (point up/point down) show there is no difference to the intensity/pitch etc of transmitted sound, regardless of which way the spikes are pointing.
   
  
• It's about fine detail, harmonics, soundstage, separation, and depth then? No It's all about just sitting back and enjoying the sound (NOT analysing it).
   
  
• If I cover myself in special "hi-fi" quality jam and wrap my head in "audiophile clingfilm" (proven to work, EISA award winner @ £700/m), my system will sound better. Haven't you been LISTENING...?
   
  
• My experience of various accessories foisted upon us as improvements, along with legitimate upgrades:
  

  upgrade from £200 CD player to £400 one		definite improvement
  upgrade from Arcam CD player to a Naim		even bigger improvement
  change from solid state to valve amp		GIANT leap forward in sound quality
  change from internal PCB to internal hardwired valve amp		another leap forward in sound quality
  metal stands filled with sand		stands £80, sand £8 - big improvement by keeping tweeters at ear level
  upgrading interconnects and speaker wire		maybe but does depend on what you buy
  taking speaker grills off for listening		does change the sound and imaging quite markedly
  IsoTek Isoplug £30 anti-'mains noise'		widens the soundstage markedly
  upgrading to Tannoy speakers		more refined sound than Cerwin Vega
  upgrading to Quad 12L speakers		even better than my Tannoys!
  cryogenically freezing things		no change in sound at all...LMFAO
  biwiring speakers		improved clarity and definition & tighter bass
  Sound Improvement Disc (£18)		v slight change maybe? ...actually no! So slight a percieved effect that it's more probably placebo
  using Densen DeMagic once per month		treble & vocals = sweeter, soundstage=better height...but again v v slight so may be my imagination (placebo)
  squash balls under components		improvement if on a shelf, but none if already on a good rack
  placing marble slabs (£2.50 each) under speakers/sub		massively tighter/more focused bass on my suspended floor
  hi-fi rack		better than keeping them on the floor where it's dusty
  CD lens cleaner		no improvement and may well scratch the laser lens...*CAUTION*
  using Brasso and ethyl-alcohol to clean plug pins		no change in sound at all
  turning the CD display off		no change in sound at all
  Ferrite Rings placed over speaker wires at either end		no change in sound at all
  high quality banana plugs		no change in sound at all (try using the bare wire ends instead)
  Ferrite Rings over power cables		no change in sound at all
  Dynamat on underside of sub (£12 for 2 pieces)		absorbs some bass going down to the floor
  Internally rewiring the Tannoys with QED Silver Anniversary (£7.50)		yes...they sounded smoother and more precise
  Using Duende Criatura Tube Rings over your valves (£35)		more focus, clarity and detail? very difficult to pick out actually, so again most probably placebo
  using anti spike/surge mains blocks		actually worsens sound if mains has to go through extra fuses/switches/circuits prior to the component

If you're having problems with the acoustics of your room, this Room Mode Calculator might help ('xls' file so you need excel to view).

If you need better info/clarification, go to Audioholics and to .

Budgeting for a new Hi-Fi? Here is a simple budget to follow to get a well balanced system (works regardless of total budget). Copy the following list to figure out how much to spend on what:
 

♨ 30% on CD Player ♨ 3.3% on CD Interconnect (11% CD Player cost) ♨ 27% on Amplifier ♨ 2.7% on Speaker Cable (including connectors if used - total = 10% Speaker cost) ♨ 27% on Speakers (cost for floorstanders, otherwise Speaker (±sub)=24%, stands=3%) ♨ 6.3% on Equipment Rack (11% of [CD Player + Amplifier]) ♨ 3.7% on Others (e.g. mains stuff)