Can the need for novelty and change be mitigated by rotation?

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 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....

@clearthinker   

"Novelty and change are massively over-rated."

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?

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....

+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. )

We're at a philosophical fork in the road. Is the good One or Many? Well, it depends: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_04.html