Is it better or just different?

[Ultrafast69]

Here is one for you...

We all wonder what change will bring in our Audio Systems, but is it better or just different?

Comment at will!

 

[cjfrbw]

The ear brain is mysterious. My own belief is that eventually, no matter how good a system, your brain will 'learn' it's specific character and tend to generalize it to a lower level of attention and even consciousness. Then, a system/component that is 'different' but catchy might suddenly seem better because you are paying attention again in a way that you didn't before. This can be more diversion and distraction from what you are used to that appears as something more revealing, but just being different from what you have gotten used to, not necessarily better.

I guess this would be 'audiophilia inurement' with nervosa following.

I change things up with tubes and sometimes amps to keep my inurement a moving target and to satisfy nervosa. It seems to work (for a while, anyway, Hah!).

 

[the sound of Tao]

This very issue is of course what keeps the drive of system development such a financially beneficial one for the industry.

Our gear purchase trail can tell a fascinating story and even change itself can become addictive.

When we know we are not happy with where we are at and don’t have a conscious process of review to help clarify and support the direction of change people can easily just get lost in at times almost desperate attempts to throw money madly at the system to FIX the problem without knowing what the problem is.

This is when even just different can seem like better... well at least in the short term.

I find living with components ideally for 2 or 3 weeks to a month helps clarify if the change is a long term better rather than just an exciting kind of different experience that may not lead to a real and lasting improvement. This is why I am always wary of when people hear a bit of gear once and declare a new king.

A key indicator for me is in the record of the music that I end up playing and how does it make me feel. Does the system engage me in the whole diversity of the music that I love and does it make me continue to look forward to playing whenever I can. Then finally how do I feel after playing the system as well.

For example if the experience is ultimately tiring because there is say an imbalance of details to flesh in the music that makes my attention constant then while tantalisingly different it might be but long term good maybe not so much. This is just one example of a seemingly attractive difference that may then not lead ultimately to a better experience of anything.

When you see guys selling off their crazily expensive systems because they are just no longer interested in playing music then that is quite a scary indicator of things gone very wrong in the quest.

Chasing different without understanding what we value can be an expensive habit for even the most seasoned of audiophiles.

 

[Al M.]

Actually, I do think all my upgrades were for the better, not just for the different. I take unamplified live music as a benchmark, and while I am acutely aware that no system will ever sound as live (among others, also because microphones 'hear' differently than humans), I do think that a system can sound more and more believable.

I exchanged components because I thought, and still think, the newer ones sound more believable. More recent upgrades have also resulted in more resolution (timbral resolution and separation of instruments), but resolution is not a virtue for its own sake. If it is not coupled with believable tonality, dynamics, presence it can quickly lead you down a blind alley of artificiality, and then you exchange components because you look for something 'different'.

However, in order to free a path to ever more believability, you need to get the room acoustics right so they do not stand in the way. I have probably spent more time and energy (even though not more money) in the last 6 years on improvements of room acoustics than on improvements of gear. I will, however, concede that not all rooms are as problematic as mine was and thus need the same attention as mine did.

***

Art Noxon of Acoustic Sciences Inc. (famous for his Tube Traps) has this to say (link), emphases added:

"When an upgrade is made in a system a perceptible improvement in sound quality is usually delivered to the listening position, which justifies the investment. As the upgrade process progresses, eventually a better piece of electronics that "should" have made a noticeable improvement, doesn't. Here's where the evolution of the audio system often grinds to a halt.

"Product reviewers may have given a new piece of gear raves, but what happens if it doesn't make any difference at home? Is there a problem with the equipment, manufacturer, dealer or reviewers? Probably not, but the audiophile may have reached a performance plateau. From this point on any further electronic attempts to improve a system will remain inaudible.

"Lacking the ability to detect any further improvements in their system, audiophiles frequently resort to entertaining upgrades that may not necessarily "improve" the system's performance, but do create detectable changes in the performance. However these artifact styled "improvements" become boring after a while, because they add the same accent to all music, making it sonically one-dimensional." (End quote.)

Note the terms "improve" and "changes", which well relate to the thread title. Art Noxon then goes on that you have to improve the room if you want to really improve the sound rather than just have something 'different'.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Believability is a great point to raise Al... the suspension of disbelief is a sign that no part of the sound is troubling us and the mind is at ease because what is heard is in relative accord with the benchmark of previous experiences of sound that the mind pulls up as references to better identify and then understand what the brain is hearing.

Does the sound seem expected and natural as opposed to synthetic or out of accord. The brain alerts us to whatever the mind can’t accept or perceives as a threat... like pop music lol.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

our ability to move our systems and rooms in a forward direction comes down to our references, and the care we take to advance them. i have hundreds of reference cuts of music i use to plot my point on the path, and if i go too long without getting my bearings prior to a change, i have to stop and spend time getting my references in line. i also need my head clear and not stressed to be effective in this process. for me it is a bit of an out of body experience that i find very invigorating and satisfying.......getting lost in my references. done with the right approach i just love doing it.

when i'm casually listening with zero agendas sometimes stuff will just 'pop' and get my attention as different, better or worse. i consider that a data point to consider. it might drive me to dive into my references to see if that data point holds up.

right now i'm in a quandary about an issue and need to investigate the whole difference/better question. but i've not been in the right mind set to go there as i realize how much focused time it will take. i'll get around to it soon.

 

[JackD201]

While hallelujah moments happen where everything is better across the board, the vast majority of the time swaps for me have been just different. Better in some respects, not as good in others. What's rarest of all IME is "same". LOL

 

[ddk]

I find that very, very few pieces of gear are actually of a higher level and that most equipment irrespective of price are basically the same thing only slightly different presentation. Also that certain types of products, no matter how different are predictable in their contribution to sound, positive or negative is a matter of perspective but they're predictable. The same is true for some materials IME.

david