The need for variety and endless search for new details


Humans often crave variety. In our plays, books, hair cuts and even cooking. Reliable is good but there are usually some areas where we simply don’t want the same thing every time. The same dish at the same restaurant every day would sadden most of us. The same hair cut every time for many leaves us depressed. We don’t feel the same excitement the second or third time we leave the salon.

The problem comes in the illusion of new details I often read about audiophile writers chasing, especially in speakers, combining with our desire to hear more and more.

IMHO there are good and bad ways to create more detail. Bad way are to use uneven frequency responses which tickle our ears differently than whatever we were last listening to. "I’m hearing things I’ve never heard before!" is a key phrase. The problem is that it’s not really better, it’s just different. It’s a game of rock,paper, scissors played with large, heavy and expensive objects with explanations easily found in ragged mid and treble responses.

Legitimate ways of creating more detail IMHO are to improve room acoustics and or tailor dispersion to control reflections. This includes horns, planar speakers and wide-baffle speakers (Snell A/III, SF Stradivari, etc.), line sources, D’Appolito configurations, open baffle designs, etc.

I’m not against tone or loudness controls, at all. I’m concerned about fellow enthusiasts chasing an illusory "better" without fully understanding what they are looking for. For some of us, maybe we are better off with multiple amps and speakers we can cycle through rather than replace in order to find long lasting happiness.

erik_squires

You make some great points.

I think detail chasing can be a fools game. Although it may simply be the first stage of pursuing high quality audio, along with slam. In many ways the most obvious characteristics. Once you get lots of detail… and these days it can be gotten pretty cheaply, many folks move on to the the many numerous other characteristics that one needs for a system to sound great. There is a great amount of experience needed to figure out what you want… so some changing is required the get the experience.

For me, knowing what I wanted came from steeping myself in live acoustic music for over ten years and listening to it like an audiophile. Not everyone has the time or interest to do something like that. But for me I don’t want my system to sound different… I worked for decades to get a system that sounded exactly like it does. This by no means is this right for you or anyone else… it’s just me and my personality. There are lots of ways to enjoy this pursuit.

I really like the idea you brought up about variety. In the days when buying an album was a significant investment. I remember times when I would look forward for a week or two to going out and buying an album I wanted. Greater appreciation of the small library you owned could be a driving factor or system change… making the library new. An artifact of music ownership.

Now with virtually unlimited access to music with streaming, I find that I get tremendous variety through new music… in fact I seldom listen to music more than two or three times any more.

 

@erik_squires

I hope you don’t mind me addressing only the variety question.

In the recent thread-war between those arguing about whether streaming is better than cds, a comment was made by one of the streaming advocates that denigrated those who favor physical media for being content to listen to the same music, over and over again. The implication seems to be that we must be mentally deficient because we are somehow content without constantly being inundated with mass quantities of new music. We’re too dumb to recognize that more is better.

There have been, from time to time, guys who’ve reported they’ve abandoned streaming because over time, they became like people who never sit down to a full meal; who simply snack on this and that throughout the day. In other words, these guys claimed streaming had habituated them to listening to tracks, rather than albums, and in the process, listening had become much less satisfying.

There is a part of the brain that, given free reign, will obsessively seek out a quick fix, and will never be satisfied.

I’ve mentioned before that with age, I’m finding it harder and harder to find new music that really grabs me. I spend a couple hours each day on Spotify exploring unfamiliar artists and it’s rare that I encounter anything I like enough to buy. One reason for this is my demand like any album please me in its entirety. If I feel.ambivalent about two songs out of twelve but love the other tracks, that won’t keep me from buying it, but that’s actually pretty rare. I wouldn’t buy a book of art reproductions, a novel or a book of poetry if I didn’t like it in its entirety, either. Nor would I patronize a restaurant and order a plate of food if I only some or what was on the plate. Just the way I’m wired.

 

@stuartk  Indeed, services like Spotify have really changed music culture, without a cultural reason.  The way Spotify and other streaming services work is based purely on the economics of the owners.

Like Ticketmaster, middlemen who don't actually make value are telling the world what to listen to.

@erik_squires

I forgot to mention that that part of the brain that habitually seeks one quick fix after another actually gets in the way of my listening to what I already have. It will "tell me" there’s nothing on the shelves in front of me that will satisfy me -- that I’m thoroughly bored with it all-- when in fact this is simply not true! I find that if I pull out something I haven’t heard in a while, it will be usually be gratifying. I’m not at all convinced that fueling this part of my brain with more and more "variety" would be a positive thing. At the same time, I'm not suggesting this syndrome affects others. 

Like Ticketmaster, middlemen who don’t actually make value are telling the world what to listen to.

Just like social media moguls who are solely focused upon content that attracts the most "likes" regardless of how much "value" such content offers or indeed, regardless of how damaging it might be?