Hell, despite my years at this, I need access to info and support. Nobody knows everything.
But, it’s fun learning, isn’t it? Your post are wiser because for sure you are right... Too many tastes,ears and variables... But when this is said... My point about what are the 3 problems someone must adress to increase the S.Q. of any audio system before UPGRADING anything is always valid... Without adressing mechanical vibrations controls, electrical noise floor controls and especially passive acoustic treatment and active acoustic control nobody knows what the gear he already own is able to achieve on S.Q. level... And these embeddings controls on all three dimensions will need to be implemented one way or another... This is my only discovery in audio.... And these necessary controls are valid nevermind the pieces of gear or the musical taste... All system and ears are different but the ways to controls vibrations and acoustical settings are INDEPENDANT of our chosen gear and particular taste... It is possible for example to tune a speakers/room system to any liking....introducing more dynamic or less etc... But anyway i speak here because the pandemic and my retirement let me alone.... I dont want to convince anyone and only hope to be helpful to at least one... Your post is wise and tactful and very interesting... I thank you very much and give to you my utmost respect... |
But, even assuming a level of competence, there will be no consensus on the choice of equipment among different people. So powerful are embeddings controls, especially the acoustical one that the choice of gear is SECONDARY, especially if we chose a "relatively good" system which you can afford to begin with...( and for some slow brain here NO i dont means by that, that all electronical design at low price are equal to those that are in another price scale) Like you just said there is no CONSENSUS on any piece of gear...But there is a consensus in the NECESSITY of scientific mechanical controls, in electrical noise floor decreasing methods or in acoustical passive treatments and active controls... But most people have only some experience in rotating gear or upgrade a piece of gear... They cannot imagine the HUGE increase in S.Q. from one chosen system before and after installing mechanical,electrical and especialluy acoustical controls... I am practically the only one to say that in all threads here... If there is others they are silent or very few indeed... Most people tried many piece of gear, almost no one invest time and thinking about how to control the working dimensions of these piece of gear... Almost all thread are linked to these obsession about some sound quality imparted by some new electrincal piece of gear... Amazingly all people put on their eyes the marketing blinders...This is the reason why most are resigned to a not so good or satisfying S.Q. thinking that it will cost too much money to begin with... This is false...Mechanical,electrical and acoustical controls cost me peanuts... My best to you and deepest respect... |
After someone ask me to be shorter in my words count i think a lot...
The result:
Variation is great and pleasurable but not at all cost and especially not at the cost of optimization of the chosen system...
Finally he was right i wrote too much...
😊😊😊😊😉😊😊😊
|
Thanks
tomic60
for your post... I like it a lot... To meditate.... |
I think as room size varies, so do the possibilities of equipment variation while achieving "full" optimization in the room. The possibilities are potentially endless and we then can argue the merits of particular boxes, wires and source type and material. There are people that doing this for a living. You are perfectly right for sure... But you forgot that acoustic and psycho-acoustics laws or principles and methods apply to any room and any system, these laws and methods are one of the main sources of optimization for a system/room/ears... Never mind the chosen system, sometimes a low cost system can beat a costlier better one because the better electronical design is badly embed, or uncontrolled in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical working dimensions... We could learn many things rotating our gear, but at the end the essential is how we must learn to control the final chosen gear especially in the acoustical dimensions... My best to you.... |
I gave a reasonable response to magister and it was removed. Well argued, whoever. Not. I am sorry for this.... I cannot read it....Please feel free to give it to me privately... I know that you could be reasonable if you want... I apologize anyway for the censorship discomfort our discussion out of my own will gives to you... |
You are asserting there is ONE optimization for a user and all I’m saying is that for the very same reason that one might prefer Italian food for one dinner and French food for another, there is no *one* optimization -- for dinner, for acoustics, etc. When i speak about One acoustical optimization process i refer to ACOUSTIC SCIENCE linked to a CHOSEN audio system ... I dont critic people who rotate gear, i myself rotated headphones in the past with great pleasure and i discover many things doing this... All I’ve said is that you’ve not offered an argument for why there can only be one optimal set up. And the OP is asking about rotations of different sounding acoustic experiences. Now you distort my words.... i never said that there is an optimal set-up gear system... I said that for any CHOSEN system acoustic laws give us rules and experimental settings process that is universal, never mind the system... For example Helmholtz method...And also psycho-acoustical science discoveries... For example the discovery of the link between the timing of back and front waves and direct and reflected waves in a small reverberant room...At the end any system being acoustically optimized give his optimal S.Q. for a pair of SPECIFIC ears...Is it not simple even in my "heavy" syntax? I cannot spend more time reading your very long and convoluted answers. Done with back and forth with you on this thread. You’ve drowned me in verbiage. If you edited your posts for clarity and concision, I’d be in for a longer back and forth but I cannot stick with this element of this thread. I’m done. When you have no more argument you accuse me to have too long posts...It is the FOURTH TIME that you accuse me of this in many other threads... i give to you that i am perhaps too long in my explanation but WHY do you always feel the right to insult me in a subtle way and after that quit without argument? If you hate someone dont answer to his post and dont say it loud ... I am done with your way of giving to me syntax lesson instead of arguments....And anybody love rotating gear, why accusing me of negating that and putting what i never said in my mouth? We are here to discuss, and i am not a native english speaker... If others can understand me why not you? Keep your lesson if you cannot argue properly and go over my posts without using subtle insult like "verbiage" Acoustic is not verbiage...Helmholtz method is not verbiage.... If you are not able to attack the content of my posts dont attack my "heavy" syntax because you dont have ANY other arguments... |
Ok M but The op asked about novelty and change. Not about a higher level of acoustic experience. So what? The simple answer to the ops question is of course a simple “yes”.
Funny how people cannot even agree on something as basic as that. You just said that the question the OP state is an evidence without the need to be discuss or even oppose... I agree with that because changes is in itself pleasurable...But it is a common place fact thats all... And now you reproach to me to start from there , these upgrading and rotating pleasurable changes, to go for a more deep question linked to some other changes, i called acoustical OPTIMIZATION, which are not the rotating nor the upgrading changes? Try to be coherent when you oppose to someone post.... 😉😊 Or are you here for the pleasure to oppose to someone ? My best to you.... |
The simple answer to the ops question is of course a simple “yes”.
Funny how people cannot even agree on something as basic as that. Everyone like you wisely said agree that a change is good if positive...Even me...After all i rotated with pleasure all my 7 headphones for years in many mods. experiments... My point is only that rotating gear CANNOT be a basic audiophile rule nor principle to reach a higher level of acoustic experience...Optimizing the working embeddings dimension of the gear could be.... Is it not simple to understand? My best to you... |
@ mahgister
You have beyond a doubt the most bizarre system I have ever seen. The copper pipe fittings with crystals are something I am acquainted with. Someone markets a more sophisticated rendition as a tweak and you decided to make your own. I gotta admit, I did the same. They did di nada. But the fans, hubcaps, bags of shells, and by all means, the gas can???
EVERYONE on this board owes it to themselves to check out mahgister’s system. What Country are you in mahgister? Why do you list "N/A" for your Country in your profile? Are you perhaps an alien as in "outer space" and UFO’s?
And last, forgive me for asking, but do you live in your mother’s basement? First the photo of my system are already old and all my acoustical devices, the more powerful one, are not there... Second you attack me ( "do you live in your mother’s basement?") tactless and with a "strawman argument"... His system is cheap, he stole ideas... Third all my devices are my own ideas sometimes inspired by other "tweaks" like the use of crystal for example on a Schumann genarators grid which is an original idea of mine entirely, on which i used also a "golden plate" a device also totally of my own design... My most powerful acoustic device is of my OWN DESIGN also and come from Helmholtz scientific acoustical method... I gotta admit, I did the same. They did di nada. You never did the same, why do you lie? If you are ignorant and stupid i cannot help you.... Many of my devices like my mechanical controls of vibrations with dyssemetric compressing load of springs on my speakers and a grid of 40 Helmholtz resonators and difffusers with some located a few inches from speaker drivers and tweeters for very precise psycho- acoustical reason are my OWN IDEA...My acoustic material treatment is of my own at peanuts costs... Then a last word: i dont like to be insulted by an ass...., who oposed insults to argument and mock my low cost audio system because it is his ONLY one argument..... F....k Y......f Is it clear or do you need a private translation? By the way i live in Canada and i am 70 years old .....My mother die 10 years ago and i quit my father house at 24 years old... Do you want to know something else? « An innate idiot cannot understand but will not attack you because he know he cannot understand complex ideas like others do, but wicked minds will attack you without knowing they are not innate but professional idiot»-Anonymus Smith |
In a word:
There is MANY better upgrading gear choices but there exist only ONE process of optimization...
It is better to complete the optimization acoustical process in one case than rotating gear in a uncomplete acoustical process or in an acoustically uncontrolled room...
No debating with common sense and acoustic is possible here...
And the trivial fact that many speakers for example are better than mine cannot contradict what i just said.... |
By the way the only thing i rotated for years are my 7 headphones system because not one of them ever please me completely even after all my successful improving modifications in each one of them...
So good they are, headphones cannot compete with very good speakers acoustically controlled....Think about that simple fact: i can listen to my speakers in near listening location and in regular listening position and the 2 position are amazing in their own.... This fact ONLY is impossible to have with ANY headphone...I will not discuss here the other acoustical concepts in relation about headphone and speakers though: timbre,imaging,soundstage, dynamic, listener envelopment, details retrieving...Speakers acoustically, mechanically and electrically well embedded dont lost on all these counts and at worst they are on par if not better on any of these factors...
All that rotating urge end completely when i take few years using electrirical minimal controls experiments and mechanical minimal controls experiments and ESPECIALLY acoustical controls experiments in my own hands so to speak....
Simple...
Now if you define change by the idea to upgrade my speakers... Give me the money and i will optimize anew my room in relation to these news peakers and i will love them without searching for new one....
I like change when it is an improvement....This is not debatable....
Keep rotating if you want instead of optimizing acoustic and i will keep my actual system though....
And yes a 500 bucks system is enough to be in heaven after simple acoustical studies...I NEVER boast like some about my branded name gear choices though , i only CLAIM the amazing power of acoustic and psycho-acoustic science... Period...
Read all audio threads, all is about gear marketing almost nothing about acoustic, and mechanical and electrical controls... It is why i felt obligated to name myself "embeddings controls" the device and method we MUST use in audio instead of the pejorative and misleading calling of "tweaks"....
It is way easier to BUY a good system than installing it in his optimized working dimensions... Period....
It is more easier to pay than to study.... |
And people here only need to read LESS reviewers advice because reviewers, remember, are first sellers of their new fad discovery...Acoustician by contrast dont give a dam about changing gear for the sake of it....
Choose your system gear well and study acoustic instead of dreaming about new gear to rotate....This is my advice... No debate here....We cannot ALWAYS debate about common sense....We are not in quantum physics here where common sense is of no help...
Or anybody is free to install 3 systems and rotating them or changing itself his chair from one room to another without being ever in the obligation to kick his own ass to create a superior one in one room with all these components distributed in three rooms...By definition of an optimized acoustical process one system will win over the others in some SPECIFIC better room FOR OUR EARS at the end of the process ....
BUT no debate here we are all free....
Optimization though has his own rules and we must STICK to a CHOSEN system for the sake of COMPLETING an optimization process...It is a common sense rule....
No need to read Kant here or James...
I suggest Goethe.... 😊
If you like philosophy i will say that the idea of change or rotating pleasure by itself may be an abstract possibility that impede the CONCRETE process of optimization, and anyway contadict the common sense and the inevitable acoustical fact that our own ears will ALWAYS choose a winner at the end among many rooms/system ...Why not then create our optimal system now with acoustic instead of buying new gear?
Then your debate is a proposition constructed on the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"....
The misplaced concreteness here is the false alternative between the pleasure of change "per se" versus a concrete acoustical optimization process...
And any way change in sounds are one thing and change in music files another possiblities of change and i prefer this one in my acoustically optimized room/system/ears ...
«According to Alfred North Whitehead, one commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion, or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality: "There is an error; but it is merely the accidental error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete.»
|
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... 😊 |
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... Simple enough? |
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.... |
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....
|
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 🤓 |
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... My best to you from my heart... |
Audiophilia is a journey, not a destination. Love is at the same time a journey and the destination... Audio is the same... Read someone post with open heart not only brain to rightfully guess what this person speak about... My best to you from my heart... |
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.... |
Ok if you say so. I dont say so.... Like your mother said so.... Or your boss... Common sense and acoustic say so..... I dont race to win an argument here.... i wanted to correct a misconception.... |
You are BESIDE the essential acoustical point....
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 🤓 |
Blessed you are.... enjoy...
But for each one of us only ONE ROOM can be acoustically OPTIMALLY dedicated... If not divorce await you....
|
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.... |
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.... |
I think the idea of rotating gear like upgrading reflect a failure to understand and master acoustic between others embeddings working controls...
I dont feel this need at all .... Even if i had the money...
If acoustic is the "sleeping princess" any rotating gear is like the 7 working dwarves, dwarves are replaceable, the sleeping princess is not....
😊
|
