Can the need for novelty and change be mitigated by rotation?

If you had a button on your remote that let you switch between Gryphon/Dynaudio/Digital and Sugden/Harbeth/Vinyl or Radcliffe/ESL-57/R2R tape, would you not use it?

What is good about change?
What is bad about change?
What is good about not changing?
What is bad about not changing?

At some point we must choose between very attractive changing or rotating possibilities and at some further moment in evolution we must concentrate on optimization...

This is true for any process at some point... Simple...

All people like changes including me...But i prefer now to change music than changing souds...

There is no mandatory alternatives forcing choices between changes or no change in sound and no audiophile law against it...

BUT there is the means anf knowledge if someone want to learn  for OPTIMIZATION with acoustic controls or not.... And acoustic controls at his higher working quality level MUST BE  tailored made for some SPECIFIC CHOOSEN speakers and piece of gear and no other one...Rotating has no more appeal here sorry, especially if your resulting optimization process is very successful like mine is for me....

Simple....

Dont create false alternatives like change versus no changes....Try to understand acoustic....

+1000 Doug Schroeder's and other's comments. Variety is the spice of life.

Ah, but there's the rub. Is it variety or is it nervosa?

Variety is when one understands and intends that what is happening is the "rotation" (as the OP put it) of gear for the sake of variety. Variety is consciously accepted as a value and goal.

Otherwise, it's not variety; each change is a stepping stone toward the "absolute" sound. (Makes me wonder if monotheism is ultimately to blame for audiophilia nervosa. Just one God? Really? Why? And....we're off to the theological debates! "Just one wife"...uh oh.)

Let's say that change is not seen as good. So that makes it a psychological condition; perhaps this might help:
https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice?language=en
TED TALK: "Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied." 15,945,296 views

As for Mahgister's comment about room acoustics ("embeddings!"), he/she/they don't really solve the issue. Because room acoustics can be constantly changed, right?

So, as much as he thinks he "solves" the question -- once again telling gear swappers that they need to focus on the room, baby, the room! -- one could swap and change embeddings and acoustical treatments with as much "nervosa" as others swap gear. There is no way to "rightfully embed" a system if one does not have a single acoustic "sound" they're looking for. He says "One system rightfully done is enough." The issue is "rightfully." So, no solution from the balcony.

(And Mahgister, look: I'm sympathetic with your critiques of consumerism but let's be honest -- no matter how many times you mention that your system cost $500 and everyone else is wasting their time and money if they don't tackle "embeddings" that does NOT address the issue that the OP stated. Because, it's quite possibly NOT about money or stuff or consumerism. It's about optimizing *experience.* Does the room matter? Of course. Could someone go crazy constantly adjusting and changing their room, even while spending no money, just because they cannot decide on what kind of sound they're looking for? Of course. Would that nullify arguments made on the basis of consumerism? Yes, it would. )

We're at a philosophical fork in the road. Is the good One or Many? Well, it depends: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_04.html

As for Mahgister’s comment about room acoustics ("embeddings!"), he/she/they don’t really solve the issue. Because room acoustics can be constantly changed, right?

Thanks for your excellent post....

But you forgot ONE thing...

Room acoustic is an optimization process with a guiding rule and acoustically very precise ideal goal :

TIMBRE perception and actual natural instrument timbre recognition....This is an objective concept.... I dont change my acoustical settings without a guiding and ruling phenomenon to enlighten my perception....It is not ONLY my taste that rule my acoustical choices, it is the way an instrument must sound in a natural way...So imperfect my ears are for sure....

I dont change and dont want to change my actual generally complex acoustical settings.... Refining something yes, but a slight refinement is not a change....

If the piano sound like a real piano in your room thats it...

For consumerism i dont criticize people who can afford very costly gear.... I approve them... I would did the same if i could...

I criticize pavlovian condtioning marketing consumerism hype AGAINST knowledge of basic acoustic in audio threads...

Simple.....



For the philosophical part of your post:

I can say that i prefer Peirce pragmaticism to James pragmatism... 😊


And in the law of three for Peirce semiotics there exist a universal optimization process from the one to the many and from the many to the one....No need to choose between changes or no change but the need to OPTIMIZE this relation in synchronization with the universal optimization process...And All is one element BEFORE being many in a concrete world...And we must CHOOSE among many audio systems our OWN audio system before changing it OR before improving it by changing the acoustical dimensional controls...And it is clear that if we are pleased with the results after a successful optimization process we are free to listen to music and forgot about sound....Like we are free to buy 3 systems in three different rooms and optimize each one.... But how many will do that? And is it reasonable to profess that this rotating rooms systems are the audiophile goal?

Anyway at the end ONE of these three perfectly oiptimized audio system in his rightfully acoustically controlled room will be beter than the other 2.... Why?

Because of acoustic law governing audio system embedded in specific room with digfferent geometry, topology and different acoustical content... Then the owner of this 3 rooms/systems will be please with one over the other two because of his SPECIFIC hearing apparatus in synchronization with one among the three  perfectly optimed rooms/systems...

Simple enough?

Room acoustic is an optimization process with a guiding rule and acoustically very precise ideal goal : TIMBRE perception and recognition....

"A" guiding rule and one goal? That’s where I think you’re missing the different value system articulated by the OP, @douglas_schroeder and others.

After all:

Which timbre?
Perception and recognition -- how?

I’m in Washington DC right now, near the Philips gallery. There are many ways to have an "accurate" portrait. https://www.phillipscollection.org/collection

Do I incline more toward impressionism or post-impressionism today? A guitar in a Renaissance picture looks like a guitar. So does one in an early Picasso. There’s no simple answer to the question, "What should a guitar look like?" when the goal is "to have an aesthetic experience."

Do you see how it's the same with "timbre"?

You imagine you’ve answered the question posed by the OP because you’re sticking to the view that there is one right timbre, one optimal room ideal, etc.

But that’s exactly what is in dispute. 

You imagine you’ve answered the question posed by the OP because you’re sticking to the view that there is one right timbre, one optimal room ideal, etc.

But that’s exactly what is in dispute.

Dont create a trap to put me in after you design it yourself...There is no dispute .... Rotating is pleasing but at the end acoustic optimization of all rooms make us choose one to be winner FOR US not for all... Simple...

I NEVER profess or say that timbre perception experience is OBJECTIVE... It is subjective...

But the acoustical concept is objectively defined in experiments and guide us in our own experimental settings...

There is no optimal SMALL room for ALL ears and ALL audio system...All small rooms are ALL different for each pairs of ears...

The ONLY optimization is optimization for SPECIFIC ear and SPECIFC audio system in a SPECIFIC room...An optimized room/system will not be for another pair of ears than mine by definition of the optimization process well understood in psycho-acoustic...

I dont imagine to have answered a false alternative you just created: rotating for the pleasure of change or non rotating...I dont want to enter in the false debate you just create for the sake of philosophical debate like the one and the many... i am with Goethe in this philosophical problem whose semiology even win over Peirce...

I answered the OP urge to rotate by saying that when one enter in an optimization process for his SPECIFIC ears in a SPECIFIC room with a SPECIFIC audio system, rotating is counter productive for the end result when the basic gear is well choosen to begin with...
And i added that if the optimization acoustical process is done right, most people would listen to music at some point in time and would be less OBSESSED by sounds quality...They will pick the system that will be better for them...They will end rotating or upgrading hype...Even if they can afford it...

ASK successful audiophiles who KNOWS how to embed rightfully their audio system in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical dimensions if they need to change the sound for the pleasure of changing the sound.... They listen music when the process is complete sometimes for the first time in their life and dont want to change anything soon... They only change IS the music they listen to now....

Then no need to read William James to understand that....Only need to study physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic...

😊