The brain/ear interface!!

[Gordon Steadman]

Is it just me or does everyone's opinion on various equipment change from time to time.

A while ago, I changed from a belt drive Origin Live based TT to a Sansui engined DD and was convinced that I had made a major improvement.

I changed the CD player from a Phillips something or other to a Pioneer stable platter and again, thought it a major improvement.

So.....I was in the middle of rebuilding my original TT for a friend and so sat down to audition it and ......WOW..........how could I have thought the other one was better??? I got totally lost in the music and sat for about four hours playing LP after LP. This means that it has to stay (sorry Alan) and I must think again.

Likewise the CD player, the Phillips is back in and I'm enjoying it more than the Pioneer again.

This is wierd and I reckon shows the futility of constant box swapping as 'diiferent' doesn't mean 'better'.

I'm going to stop playing with the main system (as has been the case for many years) and if I need a 'play' stick to the other systems dotted around the house.

Now the TT is back to its best, it seems to me to be several miles ahead of the digits still.

So system is now TT - Creek phono amp - Creek passive pre - Stereo 20 - Quad 57 with a CD player and Mac Mini for 'non serious' duties!! For some, I am sure that this is not exactly 'hi end' but its musical as hell and I have yet to hear a more satisfying sound in my home (s)

[CageyH]

I often think that a change is as good as a break.
I'm not sure if "better" is a good description, but I do think you latch on to the difference in sound.

[Oldpinkman]

You rascal Gordon. You're setting me up. You know my views on that one.

However, since all my voodoo and rabbits foot touching has failed me, and my printer has packed up 30 hours ahead of the deadline, and I have to let it cool...

The phenomena you describe is not unique to you. It is not down to sawdust in your ears. I experience it. Others I know experience it. It was one of the reasons we relied on blind tests at PT. It is dead normal. I have done tests where we know we have changed nothing, and yet auditioners report hearing differences. A lot of it, I wonder, might be to do with how we concentrate and what detail we notice, and in my locked thread had hoped to explore the idea it might be to do with left and right brain diferrences.

I said "I know nothing changed". Of course, I knew no such thing. As Marco would point out, I have no means to measure that the sound pressure waves in the room were identical every time, so maybe the exceptionally acute auditioners were right after all (erratic results suggest otherwise, but). I know we changed nothing, but the crystals in the copper could have aligned themselves differently, for sure the atmospheric pressure and moisture content of the air being compressed into sound waves could have changed. But I was happy to accept the conclusions of my colleagues at the time, (who were quite bright chaps) that well documented science regarding the brain and perception were responsible for the auditioner hearing differences between equipment we had not changed and believed to be identical.

I'll stop here cos I can sense Marco poised to wring his hands in despair at a circular argument.

And my printer has cooled down

[Ammonite Audio]

I think that many of us are guilty of changing so many things over time (and often simultaneously), that we lose our reference point in terms of where we started from. So, one 'improvement' after another does not take us in a straight line going forward, rather a random meandering path that could easily lead us behind the point where we started!

[belloire]

my take on it is you get used to the sound of a system when it doesn't change for a while, and so any change, as long as it isn't obviously detrimental, is normally percieved as improvment as it's different to the norm.

if you change back in 6 months you'll probably feel the same thing again

[MartinT]

I think that many of us are guilty of changing so many things over time (and often simultaneously), that we lose our reference point in terms of where we started from. So, one 'improvement' after another does not take us in a straight line going forward, rather a random meandering path that could easily lead us behind the point where we started!

Agreed, Hugo. I have learned not to rush an upgrade but to listen carefully over a number of days to a single change only. The outcome usually creeps up on me by either making me want to play more music or getting bored with it. It's the former that determines an upgrade path for me now.

[Haselsh1]

I personally think that this is because none of these are 'better', they are merely different and once you have become accustomed to a certain set of sounds and parameters then a change back reinforces what you know is true. I could well be wrong but who dictates what is better or worse...? These sounds are very different and familiarity breeds a kind of nonplussed contempt. A change really is as good as a break I reckon.

[Ali Tait]

For me, I'll listen to something new for a while, then swap back to what I had originally. Seems the best way to judge things to me.

[MartinT]

who dictates what is better or worse...?

We each do, of course. I'm the only person who can say what sounds better to me!

[anthonyTD]

Yep,
Totally agree with Ali, IMHO its the only way. I get this a lot with Musicians who swap out equipment, they sell their reference equipment to buy a replacement, but then have no reference to go back to when they are unsure if they have indeed made an upgrade or not.
A...

For me, I'll listen to something new for a while, then swap back to what I had originally. Seems the best way to judge things to me.