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 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."
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.
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.
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...
@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?
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...
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....
@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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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 ?
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....
@ 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
@
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?
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.
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....
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...
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.
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...
+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. )
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....
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?
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 🤓
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.
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 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!
@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.
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...
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?
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.
