But before we switch to the RMAF Show channel….

The reason people have so many problems with upgrading their systems in an orderly fashion is due to a lack of discipline…

We are all human… and being responsible for upgrading our systems, our human frailties impact the result.

1. Something is wrong… which component is doing the stinky? You, Sir CD Player, ARE the Weakest Link. [Human managed SA Optimization]

2. Someone else’s system sounds better in some way…. What can we purloin from their system to make ours as good in this way as theirs. Pardon me Sir, can you spare a Pair of 300B tube-based Single-ended Triode monoblock amplifiers? [Human managed Genetic Algorithm]

3. There is a sound that you dream about, a sound that is the ultimate sound. . You know what you want, and you, all the time, search and think about how to get there. Imagine if you will (and we all do), a music that is so pure, it takes your problems and makes mincemeat of them; so intricate and self-consistant it reduces reality to a charactercher of itself; … sound of thunder, speed of lightning, …. welcome to… the ‘Upgrade Zone’. [Goal directed A*Star Optimal Path Searching Algorithm]

Anyway, part of recognizing these approaches for what they are and looking at the correspondingly more disclipined, algorithmic apporaches is to try and prevent us from making as many natual human mistakes when we upgrade our system, to achieve a more gratifying result.

OK. Lots more to say – but for now… Hope you all enjoyed…

In summary, then, we have:

I. Simulated Annealing – When some number of the system’s components judged the weakest get replaced.

II. Genetic Algorithms – When the system ‘mates’ with another system that sounded good and so ‘inherits’ components from that system creating a 3rd child system. (Thanks to Steve O. for this one).

and I want to add another:

III. The ‘A Star’ (often written ‘A*’) optimal path finding algorithm – in this case from the original system to a better system.

The A*Star algorithm searches for the best, most direct and cheapest path by looking at paths that appear to be in the direction of the goal. This algorithm presupposes that there is a goal in mind.

I think one of the other of these three algorithms are executed, subconscously, by people on the system upgrade path. That III is going to be more successful than II, and II than I, seems to be a truism.

—————————————————————–

It might be an interesting thought experiement to think about how, for example, a computer program that took a database with information about all known components, and, starting with your current system, could map out different systems that would improve the system, in the direction you want it improved, for each given price point.

I.E. What Neli does when you call her up (because we are comfortable recommending things we don’t sell)

This database would store information about each component, its warmth, its ability to control the bass of a speaker, its micro, midi and macro-dynamic capabilities, every sonic attribute we can think of. In effect, it would map each component’s location to a point in an n-dimensional space.

1. First the person using this computer program would type in all their current components. The program would then plot out the location of where their system is.

2. Then, the hard part, the person using this computer program, would have to pick a point in this n-dimensional space as the place they would like their system to move to eventually, how they would like their system to sound in the best of all worlds.

3. Finally, they would type in the amount of money they would like to spend, and perhaps other contraints like keeping the number of tubes below, say, a dozen, for heat reasons.

4. Then, pushing a button, they would get a graphic showing the systems that matched their monetray requirements along the path from their current system to the ultimate goal.

[Think of it as on Star Trek; with a million planets, how do they pick which one to go to for their shoreleave? They are going to need to use a program like this – can’t just go to Riisa all the time 🙂 ].

In the Audiophile’s Guide to the Galaxy, we have mapped some quadrants in this space: Impressiveness, Enjoyability, Emotionality, Magic… next we have to map out the stars and planets.

Audio Trek.

The questions posed in the last post are difficult questions… well, the answers are difficult, anyway.

But there are a few guiding principles we think one can use to navigate the process of system evaluation and upgrades:

1. Recognize the absolute failure of magazine reviews and online forum consensus to consistantly recommend components of a high quality.

There are a lot of reasons behind these failures… we mentioned a few a couple of posts back.

2. Most components are good at ‘something’ – just make sure you know what that something is and how it relates to #3

3. Understand your personal preferences and trade-offs – and understand that they will change both with life maturity and as the number of your audiophile experiences increase.

Nobody is rich enough to buy the perfect system. No, even hiring a live bands won’t give one a ‘perfect sound’ [for example, Jimi and Mozart just ain’t gonna be able to make it that early in the day, sorry].

So there ARE going to be tradeoffs – things that you will have to accept which are not going to be perfect. Know which things are OK for you personally if they aren’t top-notch.

.
.
.
.
.

How does one know what sound one really, really, really wants?

Saying it is the absolute sound (of a live acoustic instrument) is a cop out. For one, many of us like amplified music – which often sounds ‘better’ in our homes than it ever did live. Second – where are we sitting at this acoustic event? A close-mic’d recording would have us sitting in Yo Yo Mah’s lap.

Besides, do we even like Cello music? At what time of day? Do we like it as loud as it is live? Louder? Do we want the player to play with experience or with passion? Do we want them to play without mistakes – or do we want to feel like the player is extending themselves and makes a few mistakes in order to reach heretofore unheard of heights of skill with their instrument?

But all this is perhaps irrelevent.

What we really want in a sound is governed by how we want it to impact us.

Sometimes we want it to stir up the adrenaline – to make us feel bold and powerful.

Sometimes we want it to remind us of the beauty that still exists in this world.

Sometimes we want it to surprise us.

Sometimes just to entertain us.

Always to make us FEEL SOMETHING.

What do we want to feel? How can we tell? Is it like food – do we need a well-balanced diet of musically-induced emotional / psychological experiences? How do these interact with /affect / get affected by / replace feelings we get from other experiences in life?

I’ll say one thing – musically-induced experiences seem to have a higher quality, a more aesthetically pleasing as well as a ‘higher consciousness’ if you will, about them than the everyday events in our lives. Well, I find that to be true in my life anyway 🙂

[It is my opinion that most high-end systems and components target the listeners who they think want to be impressed by the technical aspects of an audio reproduction system – so that often a system does not induce any deep, complex responses in the listener at all – nothing except an appreciation of the technical wizardry of 21st Century humans and a latent feeling of annoyance with a dash of mild headache].