the process is more challenging than the result


it is my hypothesis that the process of "perfecting" or attempting to attain a specific "sond" from one's stereo system is more challenging and enjoyable than listening to the stereo system after a particular "result" has been acieved.

while it is enjoyable to listen to music on a stereo system, the steps taken to satisfy your sonic goals are more interesting, self-actualizing and "fun", than passively listening to music.

as has been said, one can get most of the benefits of listening to music on a table radio, that one gets from listening to music played through a well set-up stereo system.

there is no substitute for experimenting, tinkering,trial and error ,experiencing new "sounds", and hopefully,achieving the type of sound one truly desires.

such a quest, could be the reason so many used components are available for sale.

many are in this hobby because they are chasing their dream of sonic utopia, rather than strictly to listen to music.
mrtennis

Showing 5 responses by shadorne

MrT,

I suspect that it is a "gear thing" - boys and their toys and they always want new toys no matter how good the old one sounded. A'gon is geared for that - you only have to look around at systems and absolutely anyone, no matter where they are on the "gear pyramid of greatness", will always find something new or different to drool over.

The truth, however, is reflected in the regrets stated by some wizened old users who really wish they had never sold such and such a piece of gear, AND by the fact that some audiophiles simply never stop changing gear (despite statements that what they had only one year ago was the "greatest thing they ever heard").

For me, I try to stick to a technical approach to purchases - I buy what I can justify to myself from a sonic improvement perspective and something that will be reliable and give years of enjoyment. This means products like ATC and Bryston are high on my list - ugly but technically functional with a track record stretching back years and years: products with a long list of professional users (demanding/discerning ears) that continue to support these products and therefore make spare parts/repair a non-issue (a stark contrast to the latest and greatest models that change each year).

Sure I would get a kick out of the latest and greatest aesthetic looking stuff but that merry-go-round tends towards products that emphasize one thing or another - products that are simply not "all-rounders" and have there day in the spotlight (when everyone wants one - like an Apple iPhone). For example, Quads or Soundlabs might be the ultimate statement in midrange purity/clarity - however could I live long term with their obvious remaining shortcomings - NO.

I can well understand that without some "control" of the selection process then the gear thing can be a neverending journey in experimentation. To me there are two things that drive this:

1) Fear - some audiophiles are in constant fear that they are missing something. This fear stems from clever marketing by savvy audio manufacturers. This has got to the point that people are trained like Pavlov's dog to lust over high $ items that make little sense (usually tweaks with inexplicable near magical qualities). Like in the House of Usher - the slightest change in presentation becomes hyper-exaggerated (whether it is relevant or not).

2) Collecting. Like those who collect and build cars - the fun is in each project of constructing a new sound - rather than the long term daily enjoyment of well reproduced music on an "all-round" satisfying setup (for the sake of music alone). Rare and extremely expensive items (that very very few people will buy) become a source of pride for the collector. They revel in their collection of gear that few can match and the acquistion of new "coveted" items.

I guess I agree with you MrT - but not quite in the way you put it.
When you read the interviews in Stereophile of well known people in the music industry, either performers or production people, it is notable how many of them do not have audiophile systems as we might describe it.

If you make or record music it likely changes your perspective. The equipment you are using at work is often so good that you would not dream of trying to duplicate this at home. Although some of the wealthiest (those most likely to be interviewed) have built their own studios so they can work at home in a palatial surrounding. Often these stars will rely on an army of pros or techies to handle these projects for them - acoustic technicians and such - the equivalent of Rives but for the pro studio market.

So you can see their approach will be completely different.
the quest implies a journey to achieve a sonic result.

Some people may describe it that way (implying they have somewhere in their mind's eye what is "perfect sound"). When in all honesty, it often looks like a random walk. The quest is not actually to go anywhere - but to enjoy each leg of the journey and to take a turn and stop for a while whenever the view takes our fancy or a direction seems promising.
once the stereo system has been configured to satisfy the requirements of its owner, if it is feasible, the quest is over.

This assumes that the requirements are well defined and not a moving target!

IMHO, the only known cure for the endless audiophile gear merry-go-round compulsion is Norwegian Blue Tack.
True across the board improvements are hard to find. I find components like Sugden, McIntosh, or Tannoy comforting. Same basic design for 30+ years. Just goes to show real improvements don't happen that often and are usually a sum of many smaller improvements.

Quite true but shh don't tell anyone - some of that vintage stuff sounds WAY better than the new expensive latest and greatest....Sssssh...let's try and keep it that way.