How Decide Where to Settle on the Sonic Indifference Curve?

[Ron Resnick]

In economics an indifference curve* is a graph showing different combinations of two goods that provide a consumer with the same level of satisfaction or utility. This means the consumer has no preference for one combination over another -- the consumer is “indifferent” between them.

Let's say you are evaluating in your system two line stage preamps. Both of them sound fantastic in your system.

One preamp is slightly more resolving and incisive and dynamic. The other preamp is slightly more "musical." While each preamp has slightly different strengths and weaknesses, you happily could live with either of them.

Each preamp gives you the same overall level of musical enjoyment, but in slightly different ways. So both preamps are, for you, on the same indifference curve, but they are at different points on the curve (different points on the graph).

How do you decide which preamp to buy, and which preamp to return? Where do you settle on this indifference curve?

*Indifference curve is a part of every basic microeconomics class. It is a simple concept which has a lot of explanatory power in many areas.

 

[PeterA]

Personally, I would return both preamps and continue my search for one with fewer compromises.

Others might prefer to keep one of them and then tune the rest of their system to compensate. But this is also an approach I would not pursue.

If you told me I had to keep one of them, I would attend a bunch of live string performances in chamber settings, and then ask myself which preamp in my system more closely resembles what I heard live. In other words, the theory that one is completely indifferent about which he prefers when the hobby is so subjective, does not really make sense to me. Complete indifference also implies that differences in price and aesthetics and functionality have also equalized.

Given the hypothetical scenario you lay out, I would continue searching for a pre-amplifier that breaks the indifference curve.

 

[Bobvin]

Seems like a commodity decision, other aspects aside (aesthetics, form factor, number of boxes) if I could happily live with either I’ll most likely default to the lessor priced component.

(Posted just immediately after Peter's reply, I didn’t see his response.)

 

[PeterA]

Seems like a commodity decision, other aspects aside (aesthetics, form factor, number of boxes) if I could happily live with either I’ll most likely default to the lessor priced component.

(Posted just immediately after Peter's reply, I didn’t see his response.)

Not being an economist, I don’t know if this satisfies Ron’s condition of being completely indifferent.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

In economics an indifference curve* is a graph showing different combinations of two goods that provide a consumer with the same level of satisfaction or utility. This means the consumer has no preference for one combination over another -- the consumer is “indifferent” between them.

Let's say you are evaluating in your system two line stage preamps. Both of them sound fantastic in your system.

One preamp is slightly more resolving and incisive and dynamic. The other preamp is slightly more "musical." While each preamp has slightly different strengths and weaknesses, you happily could live with either of them.

Each preamp gives you the same overall level of musical enjoyment, but in slightly different ways. So both preamps are, for you, on the same indifference curve, but they are at different points on the curve (different points on the graph).

How do you decide which preamp to buy, and which preamp to return? Where do you settle on this indifference curve?

*Indifference curve is a part of every basic microeconomics class. It is a simple concept which has a lot of explanatory power in many areas.

in the natural progression of the motivated audiophile system development process we come to a fork in the road where we want to hear less of the gear signature, but still like our brands and want hold on to our biases. one part of that is finding a less is more preamp. less noise, more tone/textures, more dynamics, more musical touch and flow.

24 years ago i had a beautiful but opaque sounding ML No. 32 preamp, and found that my Tenor 75 watt OTL monoblocks (with passive on board volume pots) sounded much better without the No.32. kicked it to the side of the road. eventually used the passive Placette RVC for a few years and tried a number of nice preamps until i tried the darTZeel in 2006. it touched me. still being touched by it (Mk2 version) today.

i'm not indifferent at all about it.

you got to choose. and sometimes less is less. it's hard to find your own less is more preamp with a difference and a worthwhile distinction. but they are out there.

Personally, I would return both preamps and continue my search for one with fewer compromises.

agree with Peter.

additional note; sometimes the point of system development you are at can obscure preamp performance. not pointing that at you......more of a general comment. so system synergy is big. you drive 47 foot interconnects with your preamp. that is one of those synergy things which can matter in preamp purity perception. it might be interesting to experiment with locating the preamp and one source near the amps temporarily to see how that sounds. i know that sounds radicle but worth trying.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Indifference curve is a part of every basic microeconomics class. It is a simple concept which has a lot of explanatory power in many areas.

Yes, it is true. What are you plotting in each ax?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes, it is true. What are you plotting in each ax?

This is an excellent question, professor!

X axis and Y axis could be resolution versus musicality. It could be transparency versus dynamics.

It should be whatever is each audiophile's two most important sonic cues.

 

[andromedaaudio]

This is a problem which i had untill 2010.
Non existent these days.

There are several pre amps that give you all you need for music .

CAT R KODA ARC VTL no need to compromise here

 

[thedudeabides]

In economics an indifference curve* is a graph showing different combinations of two goods that provide a consumer with the same level of satisfaction or utility. This means the consumer has no preference for one combination over another -- the consumer is “indifferent” between them.

There's no objective nexus to emotional connectivity in the above scenario. Do you really believe you are comparing apples to apples? I think not.

 

[PeterA]

This is an excellent question, professor!

X axis and Y axis could be resolution versus musicality. It could be transparency versus dynamics.

It should be whatever is each audiophile's two most important sonic cues.

Even embedded in the naming of the title of the thread is a compromise. The word "settle" is just that. Why not forget the analysis and move on to something that is not about trade-offs? This is the classic set up resulting from the reviewer or audiophile breaking down music into sonic attributes rather than viewing music holistically. I look for a natural balance in the presentation, regardless of the level of the component or system. This way, the presentation can always be engaging with nothing sticking out or calling attention to itself. The focus will be on the music. And the better the component or system, the higher the level of engagement and realism. The less the listening experience will be about the sound of the component or system, and the more it will be about the music. I find it is best to avoid "settling" for compromises as described in the premise of the original post and in this post about transparency versus dynamics. Why not keep looking for a good balance of both? Of course, I am just describing one approach to the hobby. Others prioritize certain attributes depending on their own preferences and goals, and that is fine.

 

[bonzo75]

So are people on the forum now debating indifferences, instead of differences of opinion?

 

[microstrip]

This is an excellent question, professor!

X axis and Y axis could be resolution versus musicality. It could be transparency versus dynamics.

It should be whatever is each audiophile's two most important sonic cues.

Ok, I see you are just playing with a concept that does not apply to write an introduction. IMO subjective properties are not quantifiable like burgers or pizzas. And no high-end choice can be stated as a two variable problem - although I could consider bias and expenditure as an interesting subject for your analysis.

 

[Johan K]

”” indifferences ”” LOL !!

 

[hopkins]

Even embedded in the naming of the title of the thread is a compromise. The word "settle" is just that. Why not forget the analysis and move on to something that is not about trade-offs? This is the classic set up resulting from the reviewer or audiophile breaking down music into sonic attributes rather than viewing music holistically. I look for a natural balance in the presentation, regardless of the level of the component or system. This way, the presentation can always be engaging with nothing sticking out or calling attention to itself. The focus will be on the music. And the better the component or system, the higher the level of engagement and realism. The less the listening experience will be about the sound of the component or system, and the more it will be about the music. I find it is best to avoid "settling" for compromises as described in the premise of the original post and in this post about transparency versus dynamics. Why not keep looking for a good balance of both? Of course, I am just describing one approach to the hobby. Others prioritize certain attributes depending on their own preferences and goals, and that is fine.

I'm not sure things are always that simple. Some (many?) audiophiles enjoy having multiple systems, each able to provide engagement and realism, but slightly differently. You also play around with different components. It's interesting, and can be fun.

To put it in a different way that you may relate to, it's like choosing seats in a concert hall. Some may stick to one preferred seat, and others may change. They are all hearing the same performance, but slightly differently.

 

[PeterA]

I'm not sure things are always that simple. Some (many?) audiophiles enjoy having multiple systems, each able to provide engagement and realism, but slightly differently. You also play around with different components. It's interesting, and can be fun.

To put it in a different way that you may relate to, it's like choosing seats in a concert hall. Some may stick to one preferred seat, and others may change. They are all hearing the same performance, but slightly differently.

Oh, I can relate, but Ron’s whole exercise, as I understand it, is built on the premise that you’re returning one preamp. Both are compromised, but you are equally satisfied with them. One must choose which to keep. There is no keeping both to play around with different presentations. He’s asking the reader to explain how he makes a decision to keep one and dump the other.

Your response is a completely different topic and avoids the topic of the thread.

 

[Tangram]

I think if it’s that close between two components, then keep the one that “speaks to you.” I’ve been in this position several times. Ultimately, one of the two choices keeps me listening well into the night, an unusual occurrence for this creature of habit. It’s the one that finds me emoting (head bobs, air guitar, whatever) more than normal. It brings a smile to my face more than the other because it does things to the music that brings me joy. While this all may sound very woo woo, ultimately the only thing I care about is how the sound makes me feel. Now, hopefully components that speak to me do so because they do most things “right”, but even then, I’ll take emotion over accuracy or resolution all day long.

 

[microstrip]

Even embedded in the naming of the title of the thread is a compromise. The word "settle" is just that. Why not forget the analysis and move on to something that is not about trade-offs? This is the classic set up resulting from the reviewer or audiophile breaking down music into sonic attributes rather than viewing music holistically. (...)

Here we go again .. Evaluating two components holistically just for musical enjoyment needs a very long time too become statistically valid and a complete absence of bias - the famous blind conditions. Analysis is surely a compromise, but is a method that speeds the process and gets a more reliable result for a broad type of music and recordings. Surely most of us aim at musical enjoyment ...

 

[tima]

So are people on the forum now debating indifferences, instead of differences in opinion?

Who cares.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

agree with Peter.

additional note; sometimes the point of system development you are at can obscure preamp performance. not pointing that at you......more of a general comment. so system synergy is big. you drive 47 foot interconnects with your preamp. that is one of those synergy things which can matter in preamp purity perception. it might be interesting to experiment with locating the preamp and one source near the amps temporarily to see how that sounds. i know that sounds radicle but worth trying.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[ravenacustic]

I hate living in a world of A/B-ing. What sounds good on one recording doesn’t on another. We all do it but it can drive me nuts. I don’t need help with that.