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.

[Marco]

What Ali has outlined is the tried and tested procedure I've always used, and which has served me well for years! :)

Marco.

[nat8808]

I like "different"..

Perhaps the folly is in setting out to decide if something is "better" from the outset. Maybe it's enough to enjoy the differences and then later on the difference you prefer will reveal itself.

I guess that's is only possible on the secondhand market unless you can get semi-permanent loans from dealers.

[Reffc]

I had a musician contact me today wanting work done on his speakers. He's a pro and plays mostly classical in a large well regarded symphony orchestra. When I asked him what his reference point was, the response was "I don't need a hifi reference point. I know what an orchestra sounds like and I don't want that in my living room!"

What he valued in hifi was tonal accuracy (his other comment was "I want a small string section to sound like a small string section, a trumpet to sound like a trumpet and a Piano to sound like a piano), so his test is to take several very good recordings known well to him and listen. His tweaks over the years have been to get that realism in tonal accuracy and to forget the real scale, ambience (presence) and all the other nonsense we crave, often without really understanding the true nature of what it is we're claiming (because it's quite literally impossible to get that in any living room).

I believe our reference is whatever we justify it as. Like others, I try and move forward in little steps, changing one thing out at a time, listening for several days and replacing with the original, then listening again and making notes of subtle or key differences. Like my musician friend, I value tonal accuracy. I make notes because unless you have a direct AB comparison, the brain is very poor at discerning subtleties in differences and it only becomes a reliable means if there are more obvious (usually detrimental) differences.

[MartinT]

forget the real scale, ambience (presence) and all the other nonsense we crave

Nope, I want those things too. I may not be a musician but I've attended hundreds of concerts and know what the instruments should sound like - including the scale. That's exactly what I want my system to approach.

[Marco]

That's exactly what I want my system to approach.

I think that "approach", as opposed to 'achieve' is the correct word... I'm not sure how close we can *actually* get to realising that goal.

In essence, however, I agree, and set out for my system to approach the same ends :)

Marco.

[MartinT]

I think I've said elsewhere that you can take a single instrument like a sax or a trumpet and have someone play it in your listening room. The visceral nature of the sound produced has to be heard to be believed. It is immediately sobering when you realise how far your system is away from being able to reproduce the sheer complexity and scale of the sound created. However, I want that sense of scale, or as near as I can approach within reasonable means.

[Marco]

I However, I want that sense of scale, or as near as I can approach within reasonable means.

+1 :)

Marco.

[Pete The Cat]

I don't think that my listening is always the same day-to-day and suspect that differences which I perceive between minor changes in my system hardware are sometimes down to whether I have a cold (or at least the status of my sinuses / inner ear that particular day) or am tired or simply my general mood.

Sometimes when comparing turntables, arms and cartridges I resorted to recording 20 second sections of tracks onto CD-R then transferring these sections to a new CD-R along with recordings of the same pieces from the other equipment. Listening to them without gaps, with the CD-R jumbled so that I didn't know without checking which was from which source, helped me to be certain of the differences that I was hearing. Clearly I lack golden ears and had too much spare time.

Pete