It's All About Increments


I have been changing and upgrading for 8 years now. It is an interesting and sometimes exciting process. The exciting part is when I make a change or upgrade that results in more than I expected. But, in most cases, what I have done to improve SQ has produced simply incremental improvements. I discussed this years ago with Paul Kaplan, and it has always stuck with me.

Because it's true. When you look at your own system, and all the changes and upgrades you've made over years, how many of them resulted in more than an incremental improvement in SQ? And for each non-incremental improvement, how many increments did it take to get there? Let's be honest with ourselves. We don't like to admit that the $5000 we just spent on a power conditioner or amplifier has not brought us $5000 worth of improvement in SQ. But, most of the time that's the reality, no matter how we rationalize that the $5000 was well spent.

What often happens is that we are really happy with the change -- but then revise our opinions once we get to the next level. It is all a matter of perspective and cumulative experience. This is equally true when it comes to the murky world of cables. Maybe more than equally true. And, as regards room treatments, in my opinion it takes more than many folks think it may take to "get there". No single room treatment covers all the bases. Each addresses one facet of the puzzle. Maybe two if you are really lucky.

Thankfully, there have been a few instances where improvements to my system have actually turned into breakthroughs, invariably when I got lucky after a series of "incremental purchases". The breakthroughs in my system were the Atma-Sphere S-30 power amplifier, Audio Horizons TP2.3 preamp, Raidho C1.1 monitor speakers, PS Audio PerfectWave transport, NAD M51 DAC, Monarchy power regenerator, medical grade isolation transformer and David Elrod cables. Most of these breakthroughs were preceded by many less-than-stellar antecedents that were inevitably put up on the auction block to make way for the next entrant. One increment after another -- one step at a time.

This process of increments and breakthroughs has finally culminated in a beautiful sounding system. Since I am an inveterate tinkerer and tweaker and do a lot of special DIY things with my system, this has been a painstaking process -- but also a labor of love. I continue to make changes to my system. A new component, some new cables and some room treatments are in the works between now and next year. But I am winding down after all these years, having come to the point where I am more than happy with the sound my system produces.

How about your system? How has it evolved over the years?
sabai

Showing 6 responses by sabai

Ivan_nosnibor,

The only AMD product I tried were the little boxes with the crystals inside. I found they did not bring a significant improvement in SQ to my system, so I moved on.

At the present time I am doing a lot of DIY modding of power cords and speaker binding posts. I am also doing DIY room treatments. My experience has been that one size does not fit all. We have to discover what works best for our system. This takes a lot of time and patience, but not necessarily a lot of money, thankfully.

For me, the key is getting to a point where you are happy with the sound of your system and no longer feel the urge to make further changes. I'm getting closer and closer to that point this year. The key is that the sound now exceeds my earlier expectations. So, whatever improvements may be in the offing will be icing on the cake.

I agree with you that, with most manufacturers of power conditioners, it is a matter of variations on the same theme or themes. You have to be a bit creative, and also a bit lucky, in this area to get good value for your money. It's all about value -- how much you are willing to spend on a small or a big incremental improvement. In my experience, the incremental sonic improvements brought by most changes in components and cables have not represented good enough value for the dollars invested. I will not mention any manufacturers by name here because I don't want to go where that will lead.

What kinds of improvements did you notice with the Hagerman FryBaby?

Mulveling,

In my experience, in my system, hearing something new in a familiar recording as a result of an upgrade or change has usually signaled an important step up in SQ. I agree with you that if there is a trade-off then the "improvement" in SQ may not be what one will choose to live with in the long run.
Nonoise,

It doesn't matter if it's life-changing or a bit better. What matters is what to cost to get there. As you point out "therein lies the rub".

Dbphd,

As you point out, buying used to maximize value is vital. Getting caught up in the soup-de-jour syndrome can be very costly.

Ivan_nosnibor,

Do you have a link for Alan?
Mapman,

There are a lot of systems that "sound good". That does not make them "high end", IMO. How do you define "high end"? For the answer, do you turn to the audiophile who says his/her system is "high end"? Or, do you turn to companies that call their products "high end"? I am not talking about a "best sound" or an "ultimate sound". I am talking about a comparatively "high end" sound. Comparatively. Here's what I am getting at.

What would happen if you got together a group of folks for a listening session. In the theoretical listening room you would have 5 theoretical systems representing 5 levels of "high end" audio equipment. Let's say the theoretical folks in the listening group consisted of newbies, seasoned audiophiles, dealers, manufacturers and reviewers. You might want to add others.

At the end of the listening session a vote would be taken: which systems produced "high end" sound? Grade the 5 systems from 1 to 5 in this regard. Each person would then be asked to explain their vote. Which systems sounded "high end" and which did not. Or which sounded more "high end" than others. Opinions would be solicited as to the why and wherefore.