Can the need for novelty and change be mitigated by rotation?
There is a not too serious term audiophilia nervosa; it may be a joke, but it builds on a valid observation: there are people who are never content with their equipment in medium term.It is not the initial period, when one does know much about gear and learns; or the question of disposable income, when one gets the best they can afford, and upgrades untill he (or, probably less often, she) buys the dream system. Audiophilia nervosa is a state later on, a plateau, when a desired piece initially gives much satisfaction, yet it wears off, and the person gets uneasy and looks for smth. else. To give a personal example, I was on a quest for my ultimate power amp. Had to be Pass Aleph; happened to find Aleph 4. Did not suit the speakers (Lowther Fidelio) too well; got other speakers (MBL 101b or c) ; still not there; got ML no. 23. Much better; but still uneasy about Aleph and speakers for it; got Gradient 1.5; fine with ML, Ok with Pass; exploring options, got Parasound 2200 mk2 (and a couple of PA amps). And I needed a preamp. Seller insisted on only trading ML no. 28 together with no. 27, — another power amp. Now the ML 28 is there to stay; Gradient 1.5 are keepers too; but I’d keep old MBL101 even if they stopped working (I’d probably use them as garden sculptures), so they stay, too. But I have way too many power amps (the listed, and a few more), I would need to sell some. The trouble is, I cannot decide. So, in order to decide, I rotate them. ML 23 is very good with MBLs, fine with the Gradients. ML 27 is very good with the Gradients. Parasound 2200 2 is very good with the Graients, - but in a different way. So I swap every few weeks, and I still cannot decide. And after each break I [re-]discover things I like about the particular amp / amp-speaker combination. Again and again... Which made me think: — What if this ‘rotation’ takes good care of my need for change and novelty? After a while I will decide which one(s) to sell, and later on I will probably want smth. new. But for the time being, keeping and rotating them slows down my pace - and I see it as a good thing, as in the aftermath I do not think my decisions have been sufficiently well informed (for instance, I am getting used to the fact that I actually do not like sound of Pass Alephs as much as I thought I do, and my Aleph 4 may be the first to go).
I think there are two kind of related things. One is a lot of tweaking is really psychosomatic BS. Get a good sounding room and you will quickly get off the merry go round of a lot of snake oil garbage.
I also agree with you that it is fun to try different things. I saw an Anime where the cover of our superhero was a cafe which had a dozen different small tube amps, and I was really struck by the idea. Instead of trading big iron every six months, keep a few sweet sounding amps that do not look or sound alike so you can swap them in on a regular basis. Also, have an espresso machine.
The other option is run different hifis in different rooms. Then take your pick where to listen...different rooms provide different opportunities. Streaming and wireless technology opens up new options not possible in years past. Gotta think out of the box.
Thank you, good points! Once I try a bigger room, I am unwilling to go back to a smaller one. And I would not want equipment to spread too much; also I am unwilling to adapt the room too much. And no caves for me, please!!! Equipment must be neat enough to look acceptable in the living area, preferably good looking. If possible, no MDF paralellepipeds. I am willing to take sound into account in planning stage (I plan to build a house, land plot is waiting), but first and foremost I want clean architecture and proportionate design. I am willing to plan for appropriate volume and proportions, materials, drapes, carpets, most probably double height or cathedral ceiling, culd live with a huge chandelier or two if they improved dispersion and reflections, but not unsighty panels and traps, at least not from the outset. As for small amps, so far I like solid state better than tubes (have 300B SET, some older p-p EL84), and do not feel that more powerful amps are loosing smth. tangible compared to smaller amps. My current speakers have low sensitivities, 200W in 4 Ohm works, I do not look at less powerful amps.
Periodically changing out gear (4 amps; 2 different floor standers) works for me too, though I tend to go a few months in between. Keeps the sound fresh with, as you say, each "new" setup having its own virtues.
What is this need for novelty and change? The need for better I can understand. The need for change however, to be changing things just for the sake of change strikes me as so.... inefficient.
I have about 12 sets of headphones. They all sound different, and there are different things about them that I enjoy. It's nice to have options.
Of course in my main system, most of the components are a lot bigger and a lot heavier than a set of heaphones, so I'm less inclined to move things around for that reason alone.
I have more than one system, so I can move things around from one system to anotherif I want, and I have a couple of "spare" pieces, but I'd rather sell them and let someone else enjoy them than have them sitting around so that I can switch things up if the urge hits me. Reminds me, I need to take some photos and post some ads this weekend...
Part of my premise is a question if past some threshold we can meaningfully speak about “better”. There is a broad agreement on what sounds poor (for instance, we had Grundig “Party Center 2200” when I was a teenager; fine for radio news, orherwise crap). I recall Williamson did a lot to set benchmarks. Past that lies the land of diminishing returns, where different people prefer different things, and “better” becomes individual. If swapping into the system a different piece of equipment which was set aside for a half a year causes me similar [positive] emotional reaction as a new piece of equipment, I interpret it that I have reached a plateau. Most probably it is my hearing limitations kicking in, there surely are much better ears (I cannot sing, at least I dare not, and, more importantly, nobody asks me to)... but I am not so sure whether there is a strong correlation between good ears and audiophile hobby (that could be an interesting research topic). It is a scientific fact that people in average think that they are better than the average person. So audiophiles normally should believe that they (we?) have better ears than the average person. Before research, I have my reservations to agree to that (for one thing, I believe research consistently shows that women have better hearing than men). Moreover, if smb. hears a difference, and smb. else does not, it may just as well mean that the first person’s mind plays a trick - we often experience what we expect to experience. So those are my problems with subjective approach to sound quality - if I observe my own behavior, I conclude that I may be going in circles. I could knock myself out doing ABX comparisons, etc., but that is already done, results can be repeated, no need to re-invent a diamond frame bicycle. That being said, some subjective observations remain consistent, e.g., I consistently set aside Pass Aleph 4, and I prefer to it ML no. 27, 23 and even Parasound hca 2200 2. I like Aleph’s purist schematic and SE class A, but I prefer a different sound most of the time. I would not call my preference “better” though.
I have an abundance of gear and yes, I enjoy swapping components when the mood strikes. I have a Coda #16 SS amp, an Aric Audio Transcend Push Pull and arguably the best sounding, a Linear Tube Audio ZOTL40 which at about 20 lbs makes it very easy to move. I find this does help the craving.
I also can highly recommend a room with cathedral ceiling such as my living room offers. There is a positive effect on the sound stage that’s hard to explain.
@lancelock It’s an interesting amp, indeed surprisingly light (my “hificollective” Glasshouse 300B is some 25 kg/ 55 lbs; sturdy steel chassis, but the real weight is transformers). Thank you for the tip on cathedral ceiling. It must alter ceiling reflections and room modes - good to know that brings improvement. I guess I really need to turn to planning from acoustic perspective ... end result will be a compromise, of course.
Congratulations! You have discovered an aspect of audiophilia that is quite appealing to a subset of enthusiasts! These are the listeners who as a pursuit, a goal, seek variety.
Some of this is in my character, and I see it expressed in my life also in terms of motorcycles. I would rather have two fine motorcycles of quite different genre (cruiser/sport) than one considered higher pedigree. The excitement of the distinct difference in experience is better imo than being held to only one experience. I have no doubt that in the moment, riding a higher level bike would provide some unique experiences, however it cannot provide the variety of experiences. That is the crux of the dilemma; if you put your money to work in a restricted fashion, then you will not get the variety of experiences, or at least not when you wish.
I spent a long time searching for "The One", the one speaker, the one system that would ultimately satisfy. Because I always heard deficiencies in the sound regardless of what equipment was used, I finally realized the performance spectrum is SO wide, and the inability for any rig to capture a nearly perfect sound internet, that I started to expand my components and speakers. Over the years, the focus has turned solidly to speakers, because their physical characteristics are so varied that one simply cannot get similar sound from a different genre of speaker. I also learned that this does not change as one moves up in the quality of the electronics.
This has brought FAR more contentment, enjoyment, exposure to the experiences of the High End than any pursuit of The One. Variety is not a problem, but a great passion and pursuit. It is a legitimate means of enjoying the music, of course not for all, but every bit as valid as any other expression of involvement in the hobby, i.e. being a Mediaphile and focusing on collecting and curating media.
What level of equipment does one need to attain in order to not be plagued by perceived imperfections in the sound quality? That is for you to figure out; it’s personal. But, I attest that when one reaches a high enough level of sound quality with the capability of swapping around systems, it is a pleasure that nothing else in this hobby for decades provided.
Concluding, then, your post as stated in the title suggests that variety is a sign of some issue, problem. Not at all! It's only a problem if you are unaware of the vast spectrum of performance, cannot accept deficiencies in systems, and do not want to spend any money! If you address the realities of the process of setting up rigs and accept that it is a great alternative to anchoring to one expression of sound, pursuit of variety is fantastically fulfilling!
Swapping out components does make for an interesting time. Some items remain in the system for months. Other items are shelved in short manner. Some units thought as inferior, once replaced, are quickly returned to their original position.
The OP is right.... I just picked up a preamp , I really liked how my system's personality changed by swapping it out. I think I'm going to keep it in place for a while.. I finally have enough nice gear for two systems plus , but at the moment don't have space for two separate systems so ill pair this with thar, enjoy that combo and swap things around.
If you're not changing something, or planning to change something, or thinking about changing something, you're not in the hobby, you're just listening to music.
Of course, that "something" can be components, accessories, tweaks, room treatment, positioning, etc.
OP -- love this thread. I hear you, big time. I think rotating cartridges is one way to do it; I have a lot of fun with that.
I do believe there is such a thing as "better," I believe in some degree of objectivity, and I totally reject the notion that the difference between a $5k system and a $300k [well-balanced, well-chosen] system comes down to bling and casework (that's just demonstrably wrong). But two different high end, well-chosen, well-balanced systems in two different, acoustically-friendly rooms? Well, one's preference could come down to listening mood, chosen recordings, what you had for lunch, etc. And that's where I think a ton of fun can be had. But if I inventoried my purchases, sales, detours, and mistakes, I'd be forever-considered an idiot on these pages. So, I won't.
Sleeping princesses come in different guises. Also, I prefer princesses who are awake, enjoy a nice walk around the palace grounds, with a sense of humor, who are really comfortable with and unapologetic about the fact that -- by virtue of their royalty -- they kinda own me and the other dwarves.
If you’re not changing something, or planning to change something, or thinking about changing something, you’re not in the hobby, you’re just listening to music.
Of course, that "something" can be components, accessories, tweaks, room treatment, positioning, etc.
I am in this hobby...
I bought basically good piece of gear....It takes me many trials and errors in a 7 years period...
I stop buying when the chosen pieces were demonstratively and proved good basic audio gear...
I begun then to think and stop reading reviews....And i discovered that the rightfully working embeddings dimensions where operate any pieces of gear are at the number of three: mechanical, electrical and acoustical...
I devised at very low cost, and at sometimes no cost at all, my own devices and methods to adress these problems of embeddings controls...
Now my system is done.... Any upgrading of it, to be worthy, will cost me around 15,000 dollars.... It is a big difference between my 500 bucks system and this not so much appealing upgrade because my S.Q. is the best i listen to compared to what i ever listen to in my life...( i speak about mid fi ) Not 50,000 bucks and more....Is it possible that i create some other devices to improve? Yes but i dont think about that now...
And you said that i am not in this hobby if i think with my brain and dont throw money in the marketing elerctronic consumerism that consist in buying and plugging and dreaming to a future upgrade because some are unable to INSTALL their piece of gear in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical dimension and are always in frustration at some point even after buying the "best"?
Are you kidding me or are you serious?
If you are serious you have a problem, not me...
I will stay in this hobby on the side where are those totally satisfied who listen to music, not so much now to the sound.... My job is done and very well done at peanuts costs...
If i read your post, only those who upgrade frantically like a chicken turning around without head are in this hobby ?
Sorry but in this hobby some are not lost at all....
Rotation or even better more than one system and music in multiple rooms.
I can understand the NEED to listen music in different room with different systems if someone can afford it...
But it is not AUDIOPHILE MATTER basic... Only a luxury...
Audiophile basic is : how could i manage to make at least ONE audio system with the goal set toward his optimal working S.Q. ?
Confusing this problem with the urgency to upgrade or to the need by frustration to have many "not so well "rightfully embed audio system and moving the problem with our frustration around, is not an audiophile method...It is a chicken walking without head....Sorry....
It is one thing to own many audio systems because we can afford them and another one to learn and know how to rightfully embed each one of them and each specific room...
When all this will be done anyway for each system someone own, in many rooms, there will be AT THE END a better one, linked to the quality of the gear and the way it is possible to control the corresponding acoustic relation to this one specific system to one specific room.... Then the others system will be of no more great sex appeal sonically or only less appealing appendices...
One system rightfully done is enough....The luxury to own many systems is not an audiophile matters but only an economical one...And also a practical one, a bedroom or a bathroom or a living room cannot be dedicated audio room by definition, and music quality there will exist with heavy acoustical compromises...
Having music in all rooms is great but had nothing to do with audiophile ideal goal and endeavour...The reason is manifest and simple: ALL ROOMS CANNOT BE ACOUSTICALLY CONTROLLED....This will be absurd and preposterous...
I can connect my actual system to other pairs of speakers in all rooms of my house, but none will compare to the sound of my DEDICATED audio room....
All these thinking about "upgrading" urges and " rotating" or creating many systems, most of the times reflect our own impotence to create only one which will be very good and which will crush anyway all the others speakers in all the others non dedicated room...
Speaking like that reveal that some people have never own or listen to a rightfully embed audio system S.Q.
This is not a question of money first, but of knowledge first and last....
😊😁😊
The "need for novelty and change" which the OP spoke about must be someday no more about sound but when thing are done right about music listening choices....
Otherwise there are laid before us the road to conditioned frustrated consumerism by ignorance of electrical, mechanical and acoustical basic embeddings controls of the gear we already own... Plain and simple....
If your gear is already well chosen to begin with for sure....
Mature audiophile listen music itself through sounds, not to sound itself through any music like immature one....
Hmm well I am blessed and able to choose any of 6 rooms to listen in. Each has its own charms. But there is only one best sounding system, though a second is arguably pretty close. It does give me 6 different “labs” to experiment with and build and learn as I choose. Lots of flexibility. One is even outdoors. Plus each room sounds different not to mention pretty good. So sometimes you just never know until you try. There is always something there somewhere that can be improved if one so chooses. But most of the time I just pick my place, listen and enjoy. Your surroundings that you are embedded in while you listen can indeed greatly affect ones mood and perceptions.
Perhaps but the biggest trick in getting good sound is always how one applies the room. No two ever sound exactly the same. Variety is the spice of life. Nothing wrong with a little “novelty and change”.
I do not CONTEST the pleasure to enjoy music through many rooms or systems...
I contest that this is an audiophile goal....
The reason is basic elementary acoustic....
First: only one room in our house will be BETTER fit, geometrically, topologically, and acoustically more adequate with his materials content to be ideal and way more optimallly easy to control...The bedroom and the bathroom for example are generally not one of them...We must make a choice for ONE ideal room first....
Second : sound is not the end audiophile goal, neither is newer sounds, or change in sound....The goal is how could i manage my system/room to create OPTIMAL MUSICAL instrument "timbre" perceptive experience, imaging, soundstage and listener envelopment by managing all acoustical factors at play and controlling the relation between them ?
If it is done right in ONE room.... You will not look to transform all your rooms for some "differences" which CANNOT win soundwise over the main audio room....A piano filling the room and having a natural timbre is enough....
Luxury and distractions are very good, but are not an audiophile problems...
« If there is many pidgeon holes and only one pidgeon, dont look for it in each and every empty holes»-Groucho Marx 🤓
Just picked up a nice Fanfare FT1a tuner and I'm rotating that in place of my MD102.. I finally have enough nice gear for 2 systems . No room right now for two but I will keep rotating gear because its fun
Fun? I’m not reading where that is part of the audiophile equation. I might have to reconsider my choices of hobby. Or at least come up with some new name for it when fun is a thing.🧐
It was fun yes to rotate my headphones...Or my 2 Sansui amplifiers at some point in time...Or some pair of speakers or sone different facs, or different headphone amplifiers etc
But "fun" is not the right word for this acoustical natural extasy when things are done right...
I will not call "fun" my listening experience now....
i will call it love....
By the way audio was not after all a "hobby" mainly for me, but a critical and survival path for my soul to access music on higher level through a better sound quality....
I believe that "audio nervosa" is real and plagues hobbyists to the extent that it robs them of the ability to enjoy what the machinery they own can reproduce. I’m not following your peregrinations- every one of us who devotes time to consider, evaluate and address perceived shortcomings in their system has followed some path that, hopefully, has not left them at a dead end. There is certainly a need for incremental improvements, large and small. But, the constant need to exchange equipment (whether for novelty value or some other reason) tells me that there is something wrong in the combination of components, their set up or a budget vs expectation premise that involves too many variables to mention. (identify one system among any who have posted thus far that is identical, let alone set up the same way, leaving to the side subjective preference, room, etc.). There is certainly an analytical type of listening-for shortcomings or improvements in a system, or simply to compare two different pressings of the same record, but that’s work. Listening for enjoyment is something I equate with satisfaction, even if that is only a temporary state. But, despite however many decades I have been doing this, I haven’t been much of an equipment swapper on anything like a constant basis. I have a vintage system that includes components currently running that I was running as early as 1973-75 and my main system, which has benefitted from some modest tweaking (more in power supply, set up, augmentation of bass, positioning in a new to me room, etc.- in other words, the normal sort of set up and maintenance any hobbyist would perform) has otherwise been stable for more than a decade and a half. I use tube equipment entirely in both audio only systems, with the exception of some woofers and subs in the main system. If the question is how to get off the lab treadmill of churning equipment, I decided to explore my record collection. I had accumulated about 17,000 LPs over the course of decades of shopping in the States, Western Europe, and by mail and eventually the internet, worldwide. I supplemented where I had gaps, and eventually learned about whole new genres of music which now bring me great joy-- this is far different than listening to "reference" records to make sure everything is OK. And my focus is on what’s happening in the music; the tension that develops in a composition, the empathy or power a performer brings to the moment (and sometimes, particularly with live recordings, those are otherwise lost) and appreciating what all this "stuff" ought to be about. I’m not arguing against gear-head ism, to the contrary I love the artifacts (mechanical especially, though a clean circuit can be a thing of beauty, as can some old tubes), but that we ought to appreciate at least some portion of what these devices are capable of reproducing--if you have moments where you are transported, or otherwise go beyond the machinations of your brain on the "thinking" side, the music can satisfy on a more emotional, primal level. (I never really understood "intellectual" music--I have to be moved). Enough words. Bill Hart
Wow, 17K in media. My first thought is, "Oh, man, what a system that could have bought!" I have mastered the Mediaphlie impulse, and it’s a good thing, because my budget won’t support both the love for the variety of systems and the desire to curate a prodigious collection of media. Kudos if you can pull off both! Well, more accurately, I have chosen not to support a large media collection in favor of pursuit of the variety of systems. I do, however, budget monthly and have reasonably built up the system over decades. Like you, it has been a labor of love and consistent progress. :)
Imo, variety is a function of one’s budget. It’s tougher to climb the ladder of sound quality - I see you have your ladder in place! - when allocating the funds across several potential systems. Budget audiophiles are particularly constrained in that endeavor.
The Audiophile Nervosa that I suffered was due to not building a high enough quality rig; it was a byproduct of my artificial budgetary constraints on the system, yet hearing significant shortcomings. I sensed that it was a result of my artificial ceiling on spending, too, but did not wish to admit it at that time. It was self-fulfilling nervosa! LOL
Then, when one gains higher end sensibility, it becomes even harder to scratch the itch for variety because every form of system has to be of the same caliber! Consequently, two variables, both potentially impinging upon the wallet, are in play (But, I like a self-imposed challenge)! :)
In several respects, the quest for variety has been a quest for audiophile truths, and a test for myself to see how far I can progress within my budgetary constraints. I suspect that is a latent variable in most participants’ activity here. For several years I have kept a system diary wherein I meticulously note the systems so that I can return to the reference for any speaker. It also ensures progress, as I can return to the actual previous reference for comparison. My flavor of listening is actually a fair bit of physical work, as I am often moving speakers, amps, etc. It’s not a couch-potato experience. I’m not active enough to replace workouts, but perhaps switching speakers means a minute or two less on the elliptical. Really, that’s the only reason I do it, for exercise. ;)
Anybody who believes they have purchased the optimal combination of components for their budget, is kidding themselves. There is no such thing as an optimal system regardless of budget, and there is no system that cannot be improved upon by swapping a component.
Anybody who thinks his system is neutral and has no weaknesses; I have a bridge to sell you. A really big one.
Components have areas in which they excel, and others they do not. By swapping out components you are able to enjoy the different strengths that these components have and what these strengths bring to your system as a whole.
Maghister, you seem a little intemperate these days.
So answer me this: when was the last time you added any component to your system/room? "Component"=anything that is part of the audio system or part of the room's acoustical treatment.
When was the last time you moved or adjusted any component in your system or room?
When was the last time you moved or adjusted any component in your system or room?
One month ago...
I know what i could do now....I am no longer lost in my way and among too much possibilities ....Acoustic could be improved in my room like in ANY other room... But when the S.Q. reach some level, you listen music more than to the sound... It is my case now...
@tomic601 - you are always kind. Thank you. @douglas_schroeder - I love words. Using them in the right place is the challenge. You and I differ in so many ways based on what I've read of yours, but at bottom, we share the same passion and that is something that endures (I find myself more emotional in some ways as I age, and less emotional about life itself). Music is such a wonderful avenue of experience, technique, art + soul. It is great to share this.
I have a dedicated listening room with a lot of excellent room treatment. I have three Symposium equipment racks. And my main choice of loudspeakers are quite "full of character", Devore O/93's. My amp, an ARC 150 SE plays well with the Devores despite having 10x the power the O/93's need-no hiss or hum whatsoever with the volume turned up. But be that as it may, I get a big kick out of subbing a pair of Spendor D7.2's for the Devores. I rotate them every six months or so. The Spendors are great at imaging and detail, and don't have the slight flaw of a murky/woody upper midrange that I sometimes notice in the Devores. The Devores are kings of touch and timbre. The Spendors are vanilla in those two attributes but do just about all else very well. I am about to have a low powered SE zero negative feedback classic and overbuilt amp delivered, an Ampsandsound Nautilus. It has transformers rather than caps to input balanced signal from my true-balanced ARC Ref 6 preamp. I also have from time to time swapped in a McCormack DNA.5 and DNA 1 given the "Full Monty" upgrades by SMC Audio/Steve McCormack. I love being able to swap speakers and amps. I have four headphone amps (about to be five) and five sets of upper tier headphones for the same reason. Those who have weighed in that rotating equipment is silly and one "optimum" should be striven for confound me. Life is short. Changes are good. Would you want to live in a bubble where the sunrise, sunset, temps, and season remain static 365 days a year? It is bad enough that I am stuck with my wife of 33 years!
I certainly don't like listening to the same piece of music over and over again. I don't eat the same kind of food every day, for do I use the same fork.
I like being able to swap out amps/speakers so that I can change up my enjoyment. SEL-57's don't do "loud/intense/agressive" music so well. Vocal Jazz, acoustic instruments and some electronic music, different story. The Cornwalls as much as they can do acoustic music well, they do the big stuff really well.
Options are not bad things. I think that if you are in the mood for a particular sonic presentation of music you are wanting to listen to, then why not mix it up.
I so enjoyed the prose displayed in some of these posts. Wonderful lads. As one that also has had a long journey with many cycles as funds became available I too like variety. Accumulation of ’nice’ components over the last couple of cycles has meant that I have the luxury of many systems and swapping components around. They have different uses though, the living area system whilst i am cooking or working around the house. With a large area the system projects and fills the house with music to work with and also in summer drinking with mates and family as it extends nicely with quad sliding doors onto the alfresco. The master bedroom system is just to lie in bed in the morning and enjoy smooth soothing music. Yes i could upgrade one or 2 of the systems but to what end, they all sound good to me. I do have 2 nice stereo systems in my theatre/sound room and every other week play my 2nd stereo system as I like the change.
I am the same with guitars and amps, I have 5 core guitars and 2 amps set up in the sound room as well and each has a different personality and each is more suited to different styles of music. Yet when i go out for jamm I will take another guitar which can play a wider range of music and is lighter !!! So different personalities for different styles of playing to an extent is reflected in my hifi systems, 2 of my systems are stronger for vocals and jazz, whilst 2 are brilliant for harder driving music, such as rock.
Those who have weighed in that rotating equipment is silly and one "optimum" should be striven for confound me. Life is short. Changes are good. Would you want to live in a bubble where the sunrise, sunset, temps, and season remain static 365 days a year? It is bad enough that I am stuck with my wife of 33 years!
i understand that you need changes in your sound experience...Because none of your rotated gear satisfy you COMPLETELY, or because if they did, the "sound" must be changed and the change reveal to you the proper balance tones and frequencies of each speaker in your acoustical partially controlled room and reveal to you that none of your speakers satisfy you completely...
But without being "silly" i found an optimum yes in my own system/room....
And because there is no rule in audiophile world about the right or interdiction to rotate any gear, there exist rules though about the optimum way to embed acoustically any audio system... When this is achieved it is POSSIBLE if the resulting S.Q. is great to strive for the MUSIC varieties and no more for the SOUND in your need of variations ....
I am so glad with my 500 bucks rightfully acoustically embed system after 2 intense years of acoustical listenings experiments that it is me that judge "silly" the rotating idea FOR MYSELF...( my system is not perfect by all means but done acoustically right i am not envious of ANY system i ever listen to even of those which are better and many are better)
But at the end no one is "silly"....
SIMPLY when a system sound more than good because of acoustic done right changing it appear preposterous to the OWNER...
Inform yourself here and ask to those very FEW who own very good audio system that are ALSO very well embed mechanically, electrically and especially acoustically, or TOP one in TOP acoustical room...
Propose them a change in their gear...
Listen to their reaction... 😉😎😁😊
And by the way, in life, being stuck with a marvellous non aging audio system done right for all life is not the same than being stuck with an aging woman for all life...
And last but not least, i listen music through sound, not sound through music....
And let me say this to you: acoustic controls are so powerful that most people have no clue about this.... Read any audio forum : acoustic is secondary, all words go to some marvellous branded name piece of gear they just bought.... Thats say all....
Any relatively good piece of gear will sound marvellous in an acoustically controlled room and way less so in the opposite case... Simple....Choose first good components at the price you can afford, after that forget electronic and read about acoustic.... Simple....
And your need of variations will come from music not from moving the problem around with the moving gear and the moving of sounds...
😁😁😁😁😁😊😊😊😊
«If you dont want to complain about your aging future wife, pick first an acoustically controlled wife»- Groucho Marx 🤓
I forgot to say that there is a very important acoustical concept which is not about sound only but about musical perception at the same time : the instrument or voice TIMBRE perception and recognition....
When a room is rightfully acoustically controlled, the speech sound intonation of any accent tone, is clearly perceived and easily recognized...Same for the complex dynamical playing timbre of a piano for example which is very hard to have it right in a small room with all nuances and hues...
Then when you lived this experiencxe of a natural realistic timbre perception in a 3D filling room atmosphere with clear imaging and including the listener itself sometimes among the recorded musicians....
You dont want to change the sounds....Period.....
Simple....
But in a free country, if there is one, but it is another discussion, anybody is free to rotate his multiple gear in his multiple room, even in China....And anybody is free to be pleased by that... I dont object....
Have to say, I strongly disagree with that statement. I think the word "novelty" is trivializing the process by which some of us "mix it up". And how can change be over rated? If, things don't change, then nothing really grows. Is growth over rated?
If you had a button on your remote that let you switch between Gryphon/Dynaudio/Digital and Sugden/Harbeth/Vinyl or Radcliffe/ESL-57/R2R tape, would you not use it?
What is good about change? What is bad about change? What is good about not changing? What is bad about not changing?
If you had a button on your remote that let you switch between Gryphon/Dynaudio/Digital and Sugden/Harbeth/Vinyl or Radcliffe/ESL-57/R2R tape, would you not use it?
What is good about change? What is bad about change? What is good about not changing? What is bad about not changing?
At some point we must choose between very attractive changing or rotating possibilities and at some further moment in evolution we must concentrate on optimization...
This is true for any process at some point... Simple...
All people like changes including me...But i prefer now to change music than changing souds...
There is no mandatory alternatives forcing choices between changes or no change in sound and no audiophile law against it...
BUT there is the means anf knowledge if someone want to learn for OPTIMIZATION with acoustic controls or not.... And acoustic controls at his higher working quality level MUST BE tailored made for some SPECIFIC CHOOSEN speakers and piece of gear and no other one...Rotating has no more appeal here sorry, especially if your resulting optimization process is very successful like mine is for me....
Simple....
Dont create false alternatives like change versus no changes....Try to understand acoustic....
+1000 Doug Schroeder's and other's comments. Variety is the spice of life.
Ah, but there's the rub. Is it variety or is it nervosa?
Variety is when one understands and intends that what is happening is the "rotation" (as the OP put it) of gear for the sake of variety. Variety is consciously accepted as a value and goal.
Otherwise, it's not variety; each change is a stepping stone toward the "absolute" sound. (Makes me wonder if monotheism is ultimately to blame for audiophilia nervosa. Just one God? Really? Why? And....we're off to the theological debates! "Just one wife"...uh oh.)
Let's say that change is not seen as good. So that makes it a psychological condition; perhaps this might help: https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice?language=en TED TALK: "Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied." 15,945,296 views
As for Mahgister's comment about room acoustics ("embeddings!"), he/she/they don't really solve the issue. Because room acoustics can be constantly changed, right?
So, as much as he thinks he "solves" the question -- once again telling gear swappers that they need to focus on the room, baby, the room! -- one could swap and change embeddings and acoustical treatments with as much "nervosa" as others swap gear. There is no way to "rightfully embed" a system if one does not have a single acoustic "sound" they're looking for. He says "One system rightfully done is enough." The issue is "rightfully." So, no solution from the balcony.
(And Mahgister, look: I'm sympathetic with your critiques of consumerism but let's be honest -- no matter how many times you mention that your system cost $500 and everyone else is wasting their time and money if they don't tackle "embeddings" that does NOT address the issue that the OP stated. Because, it's quite possibly NOT about money or stuff or consumerism. It's about optimizing *experience.* Does the room matter? Of course. Could someone go crazy constantly adjusting and changing their room, even while spending no money, just because they cannot decide on what kind of sound they're looking for? Of course. Would that nullify arguments made on the basis of consumerism? Yes, it would. )
As for Mahgister’s comment about room acoustics ("embeddings!"), he/she/they don’t really solve the issue. Because room acoustics can be constantly changed, right?
Thanks for your excellent post....
But you forgot ONE thing...
Room acoustic is an optimization process with a guiding rule and acoustically very precise ideal goal :
TIMBRE perception and actual natural instrument timbre recognition....This is an objective concept.... I dont change my acoustical settings without a guiding and ruling phenomenon to enlighten my perception....It is not ONLY my taste that rule my acoustical choices, it is the way an instrument must sound in a natural way...So imperfect my ears are for sure....
I dont change and dont want to change my actual generally complex acoustical settings.... Refining something yes, but a slight refinement is not a change....
If the piano sound like a real piano in your room thats it...
For consumerism i dont criticize people who can afford very costly gear.... I approve them... I would did the same if i could...
I criticize pavlovian condtioning marketing consumerism hype AGAINST knowledge of basic acoustic in audio threads...
Simple.....
For the philosophical part of your post:
I can say that i prefer Peirce pragmaticism to James pragmatism... 😊
And in the law of three for Peirce semiotics there exist a universal optimization process from the one to the many and from the many to the one....No need to choose between changes or no change but the need to OPTIMIZE this relation in synchronization with the universal optimization process...And All is one element BEFORE being many in a concrete world...And we must CHOOSE among many audio systems our OWN audio system before changing it OR before improving it by changing the acoustical dimensional controls...And it is clear that if we are pleased with the results after a successful optimization process we are free to listen to music and forgot about sound....Like we are free to buy 3 systems in three different rooms and optimize each one.... But how many will do that? And is it reasonable to profess that this rotating rooms systems are the audiophile goal?
Anyway at the end ONE of these three perfectly oiptimized audio system in his rightfully acoustically controlled room will be beter than the other 2.... Why?
Because of acoustic law governing audio system embedded in specific room with digfferent geometry, topology and different acoustical content... Then the owner of this 3 rooms/systems will be please with one over the other two because of his SPECIFIC hearing apparatus in synchronization with one among the three perfectly optimed rooms/systems...
Do I incline more toward impressionism or post-impressionism today? A guitar in a Renaissance picture looks like a guitar. So does one in an early Picasso. There’s no simple answer to the question, "What should a guitar look like?" when the goal is "to have an aesthetic experience."
Do you see how it's the same with "timbre"?
You imagine you’ve answered the question posed by the OP because you’re sticking to the view that there is one right timbre, one optimal room ideal, etc.
You imagine you’ve answered the question posed by the OP because you’re sticking to the view that there is one right timbre, one optimal room ideal, etc.
But that’s exactly what is in dispute.
Dont create a trap to put me in after you design it yourself...There is no dispute .... Rotating is pleasing but at the end acoustic optimization of all rooms make us choose one to be winner FOR US not for all... Simple...
I NEVER profess or say that timbre perception experience is OBJECTIVE... It is subjective...
But the acoustical concept is objectively defined in experiments and guide us in our own experimental settings...
There is no optimal SMALL room for ALL ears and ALL audio system...All small rooms are ALL different for each pairs of ears...
The ONLY optimization is optimization for SPECIFIC ear and SPECIFC audio system in a SPECIFIC room...An optimized room/system will not be for another pair of ears than mine by definition of the optimization process well understood in psycho-acoustic...
I dont imagine to have answered a false alternative you just created: rotating for the pleasure of change or non rotating...I dont want to enter in the false debate you just create for the sake of philosophical debate like the one and the many... i am with Goethe in this philosophical problem whose semiology even win over Peirce...
I answered the OP urge to rotate by saying that when one enter in an optimization process for his SPECIFIC ears in a SPECIFIC room with a SPECIFIC audio system, rotating is counter productive for the end result when the basic gear is well choosen to begin with... And i added that if the optimization acoustical process is done right, most people would listen to music at some point in time and would be less OBSESSED by sounds quality...They will pick the system that will be better for them...They will end rotating or upgrading hype...Even if they can afford it...
ASK successful audiophiles who KNOWS how to embed rightfully their audio system in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical dimensions if they need to change the sound for the pleasure of changing the sound.... They listen music when the process is complete sometimes for the first time in their life and dont want to change anything soon... They only change IS the music they listen to now....
Then no need to read William James to understand that....Only need to study physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
