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).
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.»
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....
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....
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. Oh well. Carry on. It is what it is. Hifi fans are indeed an opinionated bunch.
@
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?
@ 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
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....
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 ?
make us choose one to be winner FOR US not for all... Simple... There is MANY better upgrading gear choices but there exist only ONE process of optimization...
I'm not trapping 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.
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.
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.
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...
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. I certainly have some equipment that has proved enduring but also have plenty of "classic" hi-fi that is dormant. (An ARC 75a that I bought new with a full complement of parts to update it), a pair of Decca Ribbon Tweeters that need attention, and plenty of tubes of differing eras. A few years ago, I put back into the vintage system a 1961 pair of Quad IIs (sympathetically restored/updated by Bill Thalmann with NIB GEC KT66 glass) that outperform what it ran in the seventies-- mainly ARC amps and preamps up to the Sp-10mkii. We all have our favorites, past and present. Used equipment used to represent a bargain. Viewed from my vantage point, the market today is high for enduring pieces--unless it is something like a Craigslist thing, not through larger "audiophile" market channels. Bitching about price is something that seems common among audiophiles but it is a reality. Budget often imposes limitations in more than one area. I think as long as a listener is informed-- and sometimes this can come from reactions of other experienced listeners to your room (that made you reflect and perhaps changed something largely by effort, not money), the balance---between the time spent mucking about the system and actually enjoying it- is a very personal one. There have certainly been times when I lived and breathed it, but like not seeing a forest for the trees, that can be a problem and can also create a level of anxiety/frustration which takes us back to the starting premise.
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...
There is always a different sound to any amplifier or speaker and finding that magic combination can be difficult , but having kept all the amps helps in that regard, and like i say if you get rid of a good amp, you will not get back what you liked about it because they are all so different. As for preamplifiers, more of the same, and finding a magic preamp is even more difficult than a magic amp.
@mahgister said: "[Y] ou 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... I probably should have expressly called out "the room" but assumed that whoever is doing the rearranging and set up had the necessary tools and knowledge to do so. But, even assuming a level of competence, there will be no consensus on the choice of equipment among different people. I think we then come back to expectations v reality, and the extent that is dictated by budget, access and exposure. If someone is unsure that they have assembled and set up the best possible system available at the time of purchase, the perceived need for change of gear, if not set up, is likely to be greater. But, since I'm not a constant gear swapper, I'll defer to others on that subject.
Unintentionally I've arrived at the position where I satisfy my need to upgrade by having a few sets of different tubes for my amplification and DAC. (plus some speakers choices). I'm about to change back to some tubes I took out a few weeks ago. I didn't like them much before but who knows now.... And it's a change to explore again....
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...
@mahgister: one of the difficulties of discussing system attributes, including identifying problems, trouble shooting and the like is that we aren’t in the room to hear it for ourselves and use our own intuition--we are at a remove, and as I think Mapman’s comment about words evidences ("words, words, words"). all we can do at best in this medium is talk in terms of practices, specific areas where a problem may exist or ask questions that better direct the inquiry. In this respect, the Internet is cumbersome. To me, the process often starts when a listener complains about shortcomings in their system and often, the discussion focuses on gear as well as set up practices. But, that means that the listener has expectations-based on hearing other systems, or simply based on what they want to hear in their mind vs. what is being reproduced by the system they are using that seems deficient. In short, for one reason or another, the user is saying "is this all there is here? I expected more!" I know many happy users of systems that are world’s apart in concept, design and execution. And in that, I mean that there are many ways to achieve an optimal sound from a given set up in a room; moreover, if the room size is larger, there is more flexibility. I grew up with The Absolute Sound and Stereophile when J.G. Holt was writing and publishing it-- and there, I think we Americans were shortchanged by not learning about developments in the Far East using high efficiency horns (which were all but dismissed until, in my estimation, Avantgarde put them on the map in modern mainstream high end audio in the U.S., the KLIPSCHORN being treated as a relic from the past), until the US audio press (through people like Art Dudley) gave attention to high efficiency/low power SETs which reached mainstream readers in the U.S. at least. (I acknowledge that there was knowledge in this area on the "fringe" but it was not part of the mainstream mantra- ask about an A7 VOTT and you’d typically be dismissed as a deadhead or worse. I remember an old Kondo review of something that delivered 20 or so watts a channel at a cost of $80,000 and it was subject to ridicule in some circles rather than saying, "hey, what is this about?). To me, there are so many ways to reach sonic nirvana, which depends in part on the individual’s preferences, taking into account room, budget and sorting through the myriad alternatives in hardware and content delivery method, that it is almost impossible to describe an acceptable basis for "True Sound" (I treat this as an undefined, and meaningless term since it varies from listener to listener). Somebody who wants to listen at a metal at 100db is a different buyer than someone who wants to listen to chamber music. I’m hardly a purist in the sense that I just want it to sound good. My choice of cartridge these days makes no claim to "neutrality" but I like the vivid aliveness of the horn experience, underpinned by controlled deep bass, with transparent midrange. I play LPs as my main source, and a lot rests on the phono front end. Even cheap-ish digital sounds good on the main system, and I can imagine how much more I could improve in that area. There are so many branches to this hobby, and different sub-strata that is almost impossible to catalog the equipment that would meet a listener’s criteria in a given room. But we can make an approximation based on the known character of commonly available components, and typical combinations (X brand amp with Y brand speaker with Z brand wire). Beyond that, the variables become immense and almost unworkable. I’ll give you an example and then close. I made a lateral change in phono preamp some years ago that dramatically improved the imaging and overall body of the instruments in their presentation. The dollar cost was incremental compared to what I had been using. Likewise, by adding a fresh pair of subwoofers, and changing cartridges from one high end line that is very well regarded as neutral (Airtight) to another which, while famed, has always had this technicolor reputation (Koetsu stone bodies) gave real gravitas to the bass (which the new woofer set up helped deliver). I am now in happy land. And this, with a system that has otherwise remained largely unchanged for, as I mentioned, better than a decade. I did change rooms when I moved, and paid a lot of attention to the power system, starting at the service entrance. I played with positioning. I took advantage of DSP for the new woofer system. But, most of the "improvement" was not the result of any one tweak; instead, taking advantage of the dimensions of the "new to me" room, I set up the system accordingly and, over time dialed it in. I assume, as I said earlier, that the competent audiophile can do this themselves (I’m neither engineer nor acoustician), but there are people to help. And at worst, rather than spend X thousand dollars on an equipment upgrade, having the right person consult on equipment set up and layout in a given room is often well worth the cost. I really have no agenda to promote- I don’t make money from consumer audio but, like quite a few readers here, have been "around the block" a few times. I think I have realistic expectations for what a good system can deliver, and my personal taste may or not reflect what others prefer, given their listening habits and preferences. That’s why I’m pretty agnostic on brand promotion, though I respect known synergies among certain components. I do think that high end audio costs more in real dollars than it used to, and part of that has to do with the commercialization of everything. That’s just the nature of the world we live in; to replace certain tubes in my main system, I paid more for the same thing than 5 years ago. For someone first venturing into these waters, there’s a lot to learn, a need to get solid information and the ability to compare with their own ears (very difficult, but not impossible) and access to information and support. Hell, despite my years at this, I need access to info and support. Nobody knows everything. But, it’s fun learning, isn’t it?
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...
Rotation is effective since our ears can be trained to decrease or eliminate repetitive sounds. It works on me from time to time.
Mahgister is also correct, not to mention the bravest one here on Audiogon. My take is that mood plays a role in the enjoyment of music. How do you choose what clothes your wear or what music you listen to everyday. Do you decorate your house or would you leave it gray and looking like cinderblocks. Hence, the pride in building an audiophile room, or its effect on mood, or just its basic appearance of how well your system is "embedded". Ever notice that often the effort and time put into cooking a meal makes it taste better and in turn you feel better. Analogous to the time it takes to prepare your turntable and vinyl disc. I will also add for those that require measurements, cluttering and crowding the room with furniture and decorations improves the sound by eliminating unwanted reflections.
Maybe you should direct that nervous energy instead into the exploration of genres of music and the wide range of artists and performances within each? That could take a lifetime and yet you would only be scratching the surface.
For example, I have 12 different interpretations of Giovanni Batista Pergolesi’s “Stabat Mater”, etc.
"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".
"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."
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.
