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
In regards to the above, I suppose what I'm getting at as well is that all the AMD gear has changed things for me. I should point out that I regard it as a different animal than power conditioning. Electrical noise is basically infinite...and in ways that are rather random in nature. Squash it in one place and it pops up in another. So, no matter how many different products you apply, or how much money you spend, there would still be electrical noise present. But, power conditioning can only reach a point of saturation after which performance is either curtailed or it begins to introduce a negative impact on the sound - weird tonal balances, lack of dynamics and so forth. So, with power conditioning there will always be the law of diminishing returns on your investment whereas with electronic noise reduction there is no technical limit to the amount you can spend...it simply becomes a practical matter of how much you prefer to spend. If the amount you've spent brings you a satisfactory level of sonic improvement, then that's all you need to spend. And if in the future you should change your mind, you can always add more (that may be a blessing for some and a curse for others, I suppose). Also, in my view, from what I can see of it, power conditioning makers like to spend most of their time stealing each other's ideas and rebadging them as their own, anyway. So, I'm not exactly surprised whenever someone says what you have about the ubiquitous $5k all-in-one-box conditioners out there that everyone seems to have these days.

All of that is on one side of it for me. But, the other side of it is that I'm supposing what you could be bumping up against is the failure of the high end in general. If that's true I imagine that may well bare out for a lot of us. Many cite high-end greed and the willingness of many companies to sell one (ultra-expensive) piece of gear versus several less expensive ones as exactly what's killing Audio for the rest of us, and so on. If we end up with that discussion, then the best answer I've found (apart from AMD) is for me to mainly look hi and lo for upstart companies that appear to offer some worthwhile innovation...ones that do not yet have the visibility in the audiophile community to start commanding high prices. The only problem is, of course, that I must be willing to be a little adventurous and take the risk on an untried product, not waiting until it is the next big thing. I could buy used, but there's often a lot of recent technology that is left out by doing so. But, I'm increasingly indisposed to behave, as a buyer, the way high-end companies expect me to behave - to come to someone highly visible...just because it's presumed I want to play it "safe" with a well established (and nameless, faceless corporation of an) audio company. This is where I know I'm getting hosed and feel that I should likely be out there putting my 40+ years of experience in this hobby to better use than that. I don't know how to exactly quantify all that, but that's about what it may come down to for me. In any case, I may just have to be prepared to take the alternative route, whatever that may end up being for me. But, I find the AMD works so positively and is such a game-changer that I can concentrate on a lower end of the market and not run into the problems you describe - or, the ones that are usually associated with less expensive gear either, I've found so far, anyway. Although, like I said, I don't have an unlimited budget, but I have every reason at this point to believe this will be the last system for me, and by far my best. And beyond what I've already outlined for myself, I don't see much of anything that will need to be revised, but we will see...there's always the unforeseen isn't there? But, I've generally welcomed my re-evaluations of what it means to "get there" whenever things have gotten to the next level...but...somehow, I remain committed to my original goals more or less. I think that's where the comparison to live music comes in. It's that the sins of commission are invariably 'unmusical' and being as free as possible from them goes a long way for me, even if the system is not mega-expensive or ultra-high-end. We may disagree on where "there" actually is, but this is what does it for me.
Even an incremental upgrade would be something, when stacked in series. But all too often what this really means is an improvement in some areas and a downgrade in others, with the appealing "newness" of the new component winning out just long enough to convince us it was all an upgrade -- rather than (more realistically) a lateral move or even an outright loss. Chasing the latest trends and flavor-of-the-month is far more likely to keep you in the neutral/negative side of these transactions -- all the while burning money and patience.

Sometimes a new component's over-emphasis on one particular area can result in the "wow, I never heard THAT instrument in this recording before!" phenomenon. No, you just never had it stand out enough to be noticed all on its own before -- go back and listen again with your old gear; you'll certainly hear it this time. Hard to say which rendition is more accurate without a good reference system already in place. If your old gear is truly obscuring entire instruments (even in the background at low levels), then it's flat out broke.

That said, there are true upgrades to be had in this hobby, for all levels of systems. The hope is that as you gain experience (the kind more deep than a 5-minute audition), and as your reference system truly improves, you will become far more effective at sorting out real upgrades from impostors. Then you can go about your business of confidently building a wonderful system at the "next level" (whatever that means to you).
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.
Once we get used to an incremental change for the better, we tend to downplay it's benefit: "It can't have been all that good", "It was only a small step".

How wrong we are. If something sounds better, does it really matter if it's life changing or "just" a bit better?

When something sounds more authentic as a result of a simple fix, I'm all for it as it allows me to enjoy it all the more. Big step or small step, I'll take it. Like most here, I draw the line with expense and therein lies the rub, with most.

All the best,
Nonoise
Sabai writes, "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 agree that's the key, and I think I've pretty much reached that point. Nevertheless, next week I plan to replace a Sony XA5400ES that sounds very good in the system with an Ayre C-5XEmp. I hope that results in an upgrade and is the end of the upgrades.

The most efficacious upgrades have been replacing KEF 104/2s with KEF Reference 107/2s and replacing a Cary Cinema 11a with a Parasound JC-2, the speaker upgrade resulting in by far the greatest improvement in sound quality, but the JC-2 lifted a veil. Nearly all my components were bought used, so the value is high.

db