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




More to discover