2. best-of
  3. 165248-110812

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).
inefficient
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,209 posts
 
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...

😊
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,209 posts
 
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.»
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,209 posts
 
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....
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,209 posts
 
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....
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,525 posts
 
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. 
More to discover