Audiophile Depression

ludavico · « **Reply #20 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 01:34 am »

Ernest...Been there done that. I was climbing up the Naim ladder of addiction to active six-pack, external power supplies-out-the-wazoo lunacy.

Man, that gear porn can really grab you.

Thankfully, one can get over it! What helps a lot is reading these forums and learning how to get really good stuff for a whole lot less $$$, and learning about great new music.

Here is one I think you might enjoy: The Flying Neutrinos, "The Hotel Child".

Dude, if you turn that off before its over...in fact, if you can sit still through any of those songs, yous dead.

Ingrid's gonna make you forget all about your hardware.

Ta,
John

PS How 'bout them stillers?
PPS - I grew up in Pgh., went to school at CMU.

denverdoc · « **Reply #21 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 11:05 am »

This is simply a great thread--seldom is there much on the dark side of our hobby--obsessing to the point of preoccupation, spending vast amouts of money for small and ephemeral changes in sound quality, the neglected kids, ignored wife, etc, etc.

As a psychiatrist who treats both depression and addiction. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth. First of all this in no way meant to be judgmental or derisive of those who engage in what clearly can be defined as addictive audioholic behaviors. I have been there, and done that, my particular pinnacle having been reached in the late 80's when I owned a pair of IRS Betas, nice valve preamp. and a Koetsu rosewood cartridge. That system could sing, but considering it was worth twice my annual salary at the time as a post doc, was it rational to own?

Never bothered to ask myself that question as I was hell bent on buying some really good monoblocks and a dac that would make CD's enjoyable to listen to. Later changed to Thiele 3.6 then Dunlavy SC-IV, etc, etc, etc.

Makes me wonder how long the average high end component is even used. Or more to the point, are we all suffering from a shared delusion that significant differences exist among well designed electronics. Or why is that a component that grabs your attention and thins your wallet in the beginning sound hum drum just a few months later, requiring yet another fix?

Some interesting findings from the study of cocaine addiction may be applicable here, namely it has been demonstrated that simply the anticipation of using cocaine lights up pleasure centers in the brain of experienced users nearly to the same same extent, albeit briefly, as the actual use of the drug. Moreover this effect grows over time, even as the effects of the drug lose their initial potency--that is, when the chase is on, using ever larger amounts in the fruitless pursuit of producing the initial big bang.

So called process addictions like compulsive shopping, sex, gambling are more elusive to study but clearly have much in common with audioholism.

My guess is that these upgrades in sound quality we so rabidly insist are present after swapping component b for a, are a bit like those anticipatory cocaine effects and as mind altering agents produce the illusion of a big change in sound, even when are spouses are friends can't really hear the difference. Tin ears the lot of them?? More likely we are laboring under our own delusions as music, more than sight or smell is capable of producing powerful emotional responses believed to reside in the limbic part of the brain. The placebo effect has been used in this context, and probably in my business has received the most study of any branch of medicine as any pill will bring about a marked reduction of symptoms in roughly a 1/3 of the population.

Why is that these supposed vast differences in sound quality between 2 amps for instance, nigh impossible to demonstrate under blind and matched level conditions? There is a good thread over at AA under philosphers and wisemen if one is interested, but the upshot, somewhat disappointing to the subjectivist camp, is there is no documentation anywhere after 20 years of abx testing of identifiable differences between well designed components that are reasonably flat and of similar output impedance.

Anyway just a few notions--some excellent suggestions have been made as to integrating sound into your life and away from the solitary pursuit of audio nirvana in special rooms with obscenely expensive gear that is nearly as bad in resale value retention as the average car. Does the magical sound quality that was raved about by the audio press somehow get lost in use?

So buy good used gear and go DIY where your skills are up to the task, XM is great and I love the DVD-A audio system in my new acura TL. And f you're still depressed, see me or a colleague.

woodsyi · « **Reply #22 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 03:02 pm »

In some cases, audioholism can be lesser of the two "evils." I used to play golf after work, weekends, road trips, etc. Marriage, dog and child have conspired to end my addiction to golf. Along came this music thing with its own versions of irons, woods (metals), putters, balls, gloves, shoes, spikes, and even natty cloths. My wife actually approves the change since I spend more time with my daughter who is growing up with music. I build castles with Legos and she plays with my CD's (she loves stacking them up just to push them over) while we listen to good music. I listen at a level as if I were sitting in the middle rows at a concert hall for unamplified acoustic/vocal concerts. Downside is that my handicap just when double digits, but what can I expect when I play only once a week! (First tee time; back home by 10:00 AM to join in for Sunday brunch)

audiojerry · « **Reply #23 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 03:50 pm »

Excellent post, Denverdoc,

The thought of being obssessed over achieving audio nivanna is scary, and I often question my own motives and what is actually driving my passion with this hobby. I think many of us may be too afraid to confront the issue - are we really being rational in our pursuit of newer and better gear, or do we really have a serious problem? It's almost like a gambling addiction, and as we keep pouring money into our systems, some of us may even be jeopardizing our financial security and futures.

If we can learn to control our passion, and make reasonable decisions working within a pre-defined budget, I still believe the audio hobby can be rewarding and satisfying. In many ways it’s not that different from other hobbies, which can also be expensive and carry similar pitfalls. I believe that most of us got into audio because we were motivated by the music first. We love music for music’s sake, and the goal of trying assemble a system that will recreate as much as possible the glory that music holds is a worthy pursuit. To me music is more than just pleasant experience. It can be highly moving, emotional, inspirational, and even religious.

I admit that I still enjoy trying out new and different components in my system to see how they perform and whether I believe an improvement can be discerned. This is not an easy process and takes extensive listening over a long period of time. I do believe that as dedicated (and addicted) hobbyists, we do develop and refine our listening skills, and can discern subtle nuances in the characteristics of different components and cabling. Some differences are subtle while others are rather obvious. This doesn’t mean we all hear or value the same qualities equally. But there is often common ground – even between guys who have strong philosophical differences in what is most important – such as accuracy vs euphonic, or analytical vs musical. That’s part of the fun of this hobby.

When the pleasure of the musical experience is lost, though, then the fun of trying different gear, and the pursuit of audio excellence becomes meaningless, and depressing, as Ernest has shared. I think if Ernest still finds music involving and exciting outside of his system, then he still can justify the desire to build a system that can connect him to these musical rewards. Ernest, you may want to start over by selling off your current system, and start over, but work within a reasonable budget. There is so much good gear out there at very affordable prices. The trick and the fun is in carefully building a system that recreates music as you want music to be heard. Let your music steer your decisions, not a bunch of audiophile clichés.

Personally, I believe your answer lies in tubes.

PS: that's a nice system you've assembled there, Woodsyi

warnerwh · « **Reply #24 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 11:17 pm »

My personal opinion of myself this is nothing more than a hobby and I love to hear music on a good system. I only buy what I can pay cash for. I spend alot of time reading and learning and to me it is an escape like any other hobby. If someone actually gets depressed then they need to see a doctor. No hobby is worth that much stress to put upon themselves.

rosconey · « **Reply #25 on:** 3 Dec 2004, 11:55 pm »

my system is used for stress relief-
i deal with no brain contractors all day who dont do a thing right

, when i get home its either kick the dogs or crank some tunes and have a smoke

-well since bolth dogs are over 110lbs i crank tunes

denverdoc · « **Reply #26 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 01:18 am »

Just a little clarification--in no way would I ever suggest we give up audio or even the relentless pursuit of better sound; I'm half crazed by my current notion of selling everything, getting a DEQX, some decent but inexpensive digital amps, and building a dipole line array with some good drivers and composite materials---and I have owned my current speaker system less than 60 days. But as Patricia Barber so beaytifully sings, "the thrill is gone." I think it is going to be intimately more rewarding to design and build a system essentially from scratch, making use of the huge advances DSP have made available, and believe from the growing numbers of converts who
have said after a taste of dipole sound (like the Orions of S Linkwitz), there is no going back to boxes of any kind. I'm betting a substantial amount of money that electrostatic/ribbon immediacy with the big dynamics, and low distortion of a dynamic line array are gonna keep me from needing to do much tinkering for a long time to come. We'll see,
John

Rocket · « **Reply #27 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 03:15 am »

Hi,

I usually go thru the guilt process after i have succumbed and bought a new piece of hardware, then i go thru another process of justifying why i spent so much money on it.

After a few months i seriously become bored with the sound of the system and then look at my next upgrade. At the moment i have a bit of cash spare and i am looking at a new amplifier.

Regards

Rod

denverdoc · « **Reply #28 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 04:41 am »

Rocket,

Now there's a ballsy admission--but who hasn't been there. One question I have for those who trade-in a lot, how much do you spend in relative terms for software; do you listen to the radio at all, or do you tend to gravitate to a select few premium recordings that really float your boat?
Curious,
John

DVV · « **Reply #29 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 07:19 am »

Quote from: denverdoc

This is simply a great thread--seldom is there much on the dark side of our hobby--obsessing to the point of preoccupation, spending vast amouts of money for small and ephemeral changes in sound quality, the neglected kids, ignored wife, etc, etc.

As a psychiatrist who treats both depression and addiction. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth. First of all this in no way meant to be judgmental or derisive of those who engage in what clearly can be defined as addictive audioholic behaviors. I have been t ...

Not a word about angst, gestalt, etc? If you want to see the placebo effect at work, you are in the right spot. Note that many dealers use it to sell you the lastest.

Try a small test - ask somebody what is the proportion in cost of their hardware (gear) to their software (music media). I think you'll find that most people who change a lot will have gear costing at least twice what their music collection costs, and often more to much more than that.

I have seen people who own no more than 5-6 CDs - but have and change their audio gear very regularly, all of it well into four figure territory, the first number being 5 or over. Compulsive.

Is it an accident that one of the greatest Sci-Fi writers ever, the late Philip K. Dick, was a professional music reviewer in LA?

Cheers,
DVV

Watson · « **Reply #30 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 08:37 am »

Audio is very prone to this kind of behavior, because of one simple fact: often after your system gets better, some of the music you like to listen to sounds worse. The specific reason why this happens (most recordings are "poor" quality, CDs sound too harsh, tweeters are too "good" and revealing, SS is too gritty, tubes are too tubby, traditional speakers are "boxy", etc.) is up for debate and doesn't really matter. It's just a fact that it does tend to happen. IMO, this is why you see so many guys who used to listen to classic rock start listening to relatively benign stuff like Diana Krall after they upgrade their systems. The classic rock in comparison is now unlistenable. Most people put up with this and accept arguments like "the majority of recordings are bad" and "the handful of truly good recordings I have now sound truly great." But how relevant is this, really? The whole reason the classic rock guy wanted to upgrade his system in the first place was to listen to classic rock! Now he finds that it's not enjoyable any more. No amount of rationalizing solves this. It just tends to set off a desire for yet another upgrade that will finally make everything sound better, putting the poor classic rock guy on an impossible, endless upgrade treadmill.

Such negative reinforcement is what is so prone to turning music lovers into gear junkies. I've been there myself. I think it's worth questioning whether a set of speakers or a new amp that tends to make 65% of your current music collection sound worse is ever truly an "upgrade." It may be, or it may be not, but we need to realize that when some of one's favorite recordings become unlistenable (even if a handful of other recordings become great), the power of negative reinforcement is at work.

eric the red · « **Reply #31 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 09:25 am »

Posts like the following wouldn't possibly have anything to do with the reasons for this discussion now would they

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/355179.html
Mu Metal shielding

denverdoc · « **Reply #32 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 10:32 am »

Quote

Such negative reinforcement is what is so prone to turning music lovers into gear junkies. I've been there myself. I think it's worth questioning whether a set of speakers or a new amp that tends to make 65% of your current music collection sound worse is ever truly an "upgrade." It may be, or it may be not, but we need to realize that when some of one's favorite recordings become unlistenable (even if a handful of other recordings become great), the power of negative reinforcement is at work.

Great point. And maybe why so many expensive systems end up outfitted with tubes and vinyl, to make a broader range of recordings listenable, but still with the emphasis not on great music so much as ear candy like Krall. As an aside it's wonderful to have brilliant improvisationalists like Patricia Barber make such well recorded/mastered recording. Anyone know where a good compilation of great recordings and music might reside on the web? Might help us all get more pleasure from our rigs.

And yes with all the fuss about ac receptacles, power cords, and line conditioners, why not just get off the grid entirely and buy a stack of car batteries and some step up transformers?

J

Rocket · « **Reply #33 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 11:08 am »

Hi Guys,

I think this is a pretty good thread and provides an insight into our obsessive nature regarding hifi equipment (whether we believe it or not we are obsessed!).

I don't have hundreds of cd's or lp's but i do find that i try to find reasonably good quality recorded material. I am a classic rock person who has migrated to different forms of music in the search for better recordings, although i still don't listen to classical music.

I have recently purchased a good quality turntable and a reasonable phonostage as i find many rock lp's sound better than many cd counterparts. Although i have recently purchased a few 60's cd's which are recorded by abkco.

Regards

Rod

bkwiram · « **Reply #34 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 04:39 pm »

I wrote a column on this very subject that ran in Bound For Sound, issue 152 (October 2003). I'd paste it here except I doubt Marty would be happy with me! Anyway if you're interested in a detailed analysis of the equipment neurosis phenomenon & its psychology, you might check the piece out. It's easy to get back issues from Marty.

I too have enjoyed this thread. Lots of thoughtful contributions.

best,

Brandt

nathanm · « **Reply #35 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 05:00 pm »

Quote from: Watson

Most people put up with this and accept arguments like "the majority of recordings are bad" and "the handful of truly good recordings I have now sound truly great."

That's true, but I never really bought that line myself. The majority of recordings are good, but it's just like the music itself - certain production values might appeal to some people more than others. There's no SINGLE correct way to record an instrument. There's only a small number of titles in my collection which I think have "bad recordings" and of those most are not TECHNICALLY bad, but they just used techniques which I dislike. There aren't a whole lot of commercially-released albums recorded with a boombox or anything.

Take for example any modern pop vocal Top 40 stuff. They're excellent recordings for their purpose. They made an artistic decision to make them sound super sizzly on the top, stomach-churning bass, compression to shove everything 'forward' in the mix etc. It's not "wrong" or "bad" it's just that I don't like what they're doing with the sounds. So then take one of those pop divas and send her to Pierre Sprey. You're going to get the exact opposite kind of sound. Which is "right"? Well neither IMO, it's up to the listener to decide.

denverdoc · « **Reply #36 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 05:18 pm »

Guess it depends on how you define good--I like my music naturally rendered. Most of the mainstrean stuff when played back thru high rez system painfully reveals the artifice used during mixing/mastering, may as well go to the dentist for recreation.

Another aside: An interesting demo done at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest used 5 channel plus subwoofs DSD recordings done at some local venues--one could literally walk around the room as if in the original (albeit smaller proportioned) soundfield--that was truly mind bending, and would love to see the high res multichannel formats take off!!! The small amount of ambience played thru the rears (all Avalon monitors BTW--colorado is smoking for high end audio these days) made for a huge difference in the palpability of the recording--so guess I am not in agreement either with the premise that re-creation of the original event is impossible. With eyes closed, literally transported to the cathedral.

nathanm · « **Reply #37 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 07:16 pm »

'Good vs. bad" I define as difference between an technically competent recording and a technically incompetent recording. The difference between a studio job and something like a bootleg from a live show recorded by a guy holding a cassette recorder in the air with a crinkled tape and low batteries.

"Good" can be either a recording made in a million dollar studio with vintage tube condensers with boosted EQ and compression to exaggerate certain tonalities in the voice, stuck into Pro Tools and various plugins used mash the dynamics, multiple takes composited together to make a flawless track or it could be what Sprey does live with two mics on a baffle. Either method is technically competent and professionally done with a desired intent even though we may love or hate the end result. The 'good or bad' part part is all technical, the latter is purely a taste issue.

I feel there's a lot of recordings that may not fit the audiophile taste, (i.e. room reverb, minimal electronic effects added etc.) but I don't think that in itself supports the idea that the majority of records out there are "bad".

If one's stereo causes such a rapid, dramatic shift in your tastes as given in the Classic Rock\Krall example I'd say the whole exercise of buying the fancy gear is a pointless one. Whenever I see people write stuff about "ruthlessly revealing" and "made my favorite album unlistenable" I have to ask, what is the freaking point? If 20 grand worth of gear makes ANY music "unlistenable" then I can't quite imagine why anyone could justify keeping it. In that case "audiophile depression" would be a blessing rather than a curse!

csero · « **Reply #38 on:** 4 Dec 2004, 07:38 pm »

Quote from: denverdoc

Another aside: An interesting demo done at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest used 5 channel plus subwoofs DSD recordings done at some local venues--one could literally walk around the room as if in the original (albeit smaller proportioned) soundfield--that was ...

You don't need multichannel recording for that. It was done with the JVC XP-A1010 in a spectacular way using normal stereo recordings good 10 years ago. You have to be a hardcore audiophile not to admit it is better than 2 channel reproduction...

doug s. · « **Reply #39 on:** 5 Dec 2004, 01:42 am »

i don't think 'bad recordings' have much at all to do with audio neurosis. there are wery few recordings i have heard that are really so bad as to preclude my enjoyment of the music, even on an extremely revealing audio rig. i have *never* had an upgrade lead me to non-enjoyment of software i used to enjoy.

i think the internet has led to much audio neurosis, tho - you can now find out more about new equipment in a week, than you would be able to discover in a year, before all this stuff has become awailable on the web. this is what leads to the neurosis, imo. how much time do we all now spend on the net, looking for stuff, & talking (emailing) about it, vs yust listening to it on yer audio rigs?

used to be, ya mite get one or two audio rags a months; which ya mite pore over for several hours. if ya were really obsessed, mebbe ya also had a subscription to audio mart, which was the "underground" used equipment guide. it also would come once a month, & ya would pore over it to look for that next bargain piece of used gear ya wanted to try, but couldn't afford to buy it new. now, w/audioshopper, audiooweb, audiogon, ebay, etc, plus all these forums, ya can spend literally *hours*. EVERY SINGLE DAY!

me, i am addicted to tuners.

but, it only actually wastes my time - all this searching, buying & selling *does* take time. at least, it doesn't cost me any money, as i almost always end up selling 'em for what i paid for 'em. and, every once in a while, i will actually make some money on a particular item. but, that's not why i do it, i do it cuz i love to listen to the radio; there's a couple stations that occupy *at least* 50% of my critical audio listening. and, i enjoy comparing different tuners, always in search of *the one* that will transform the airwaves into real-live 3-d musicians in my room!

there is no cure!

doug s.