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
13,011 posts
 
@ 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's avatar
mahgister
13,011 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.
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....

Is it not simple to understand?

My best to you...
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,189 posts
 
Ok M but The op asked about novelty and change.  Not about a higher level of acoustic experience. 
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,011 posts
 
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 ?

My best to you....
hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,974 posts
 
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.
More to discover