The Noob Linearity factor

[JackD201]

Thank you Carlos. Sincerely, thank you.

 

[the sound of Tao]

We have been on a trailblazing acronym roller coaster ride. There was SOD (Suspension Of Disbelief) and then WUOTS (Walk Up On The Stage) … so in fairness to Ked NOOB (Neurologically Opposite Of Bonzo) is (in linear terms) something of a relatively natural progression.

 

[PeterA]

We have been on a trailblazing acronym roller coaster ride. There was SOD (Suspension Of Disbelief) and then WUOTS (Walk Up On The Stage) … so in fairness to Ked NOOB (Neurologically Opposite Of Bonzo) is (in linear terms) something of a relatively natural progression.

I find all three to be rather clumsy and awkward phrases.

 

[Kingrex]

NOOB (Neurologically Opposite Of Bonzo)

I was wondering what it meant.

 

[Kingrex]

Is Bonzo saying that growth or evolving means change to something different. Or we need to strive to achieve some other persons goal of say, recreating the original event, or live or natural like that is the correct goal and path and others need to follow it. Which goes back to Growth. Why do I have to change my personal pleasures to something someone else likes to be engaged in growth or evolving my system and taste.

 

[bonzo75]

Is Bonzo saying that growth or evolving means change to something different.

As I said unless you figured out everything in your early exposure years, I don't see how not, unless you are one of the lucky few.

If you think from your early hifi shows, or visiting the big dealers in your local area gives you what you want, then fine.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I was wondering what it meant.

Rex even if Ked had said NEWBY (Not Employing What’s Best Yet) it still was bound to have worked… such is the powerful karma of audio wordsmithery.

 

[Kingrex]

If listening to music comes down to a goal of creatimg a sound, then your listening to gear, not music. If your simply listening to music, then use the gear that helps you to be comfortable and happy while immersed in a song.

 

[XV-1]

We have been on a trailblazing acronym roller coaster ride. There was SOD (Suspension Of Disbelief) and then WUOTS (Walk Up On The Stage) … so in fairness to Ked NOOB (Neurologically Opposite Of Bonzo) is (in linear terms) something of a relatively natural progression.

perhaps the next progression is KABAS.

Ked actually buys a system

 

[andromedaaudio]

Does he even have a pair of your speakers?? …will wonders never cease…

That would fall under the new category Sound of Tao just invented.
Newby.
Not employed whats best yet

 

[Ovenmitt]

I’m confused… Is this like the kid in middle school who gets turned on to Led Zeppelin, and then “discovers“ Aerosmith, then Metallica, then Red Hot Chili Peppers …….and as a 50 year old middle aged overweight dude living in his mom’s basement, just realized that Muddy Waters invented rock and roll?

 

[bonzo75]

I’m confused… Is this like the kid in middle school who gets turned on to Led Zeppelin, and then “discovers“ Aerosmith, then Metallica, then Red Hot Chili Peppers …….and as a 50 year old middle aged overweight dude living in his mom’s basement, just realized that Muddy Waters invented rock and roll?

no. Very different.,

 

[the sound of Tao]

For me, the Noob Linearity is a phenomenon where the person even after 20 years or more of experience then just thinks a linear progression on the initial upgrade impression fronts will add more. More price, more size, more subwoofers. 45s instead of 33s, not appreciating other nuances might exist in mastering. More powerful SS stereo with more expensive valve preamp! In short, there is no real change from the Noob jump. It is just assuming linear progression on the lines of the initial upgrade impressions will get us more. The audition music, CDs and records stays round about the same through this journey and style of audition never really changes. Thinking there is a difference between 4 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet of speakers in getting us closer to the scale of a real orchestra, or adding 6 subs instead of two will give us more realistic weight. Thinking our next upgrade, because of the “up” in the word, has to be more financial outlay on similar lines to get you more of the same thing. Because your last digital jump was more organic, obviously spending more on digital will get you analog. d-oh

While you might disagree with some of the examples, the NL ™ point is more about the fact that of your assumptions, how many come from an early stage of exposure curve and which come from the latter stage, and were there significant changes in strategy over the curve. If all you did was upgrade the same speaker (style of speaker) throwing more money and just go to bigger sized electronics and sources over the years, you are at an early stage.

in other words, it is not be about number or size of upgrades but also no. of system strategic/philosophic changes

It’s interesting that you identified this as a linear growth pattern Ked… in resource planning linear processes traditionally have an Achilles heel in that linear growth models are ultimately unsustainable due to us often keeping at it till hitting inevitable resource boundaries… audiophile behaviour exemplifies that reality that our desires are infinite and resources finite.

The high end model of vertical sales and exponential upgrades is completely a testament to our old school addiction to linear processes.

 

[bonzo75]

I think Bonzo is simply suggesting that not everyone is an expert.

Sorry but my post had nothing to do with that. My post simply was some people form conclusions when they are inexperienced (and lack of experience in the majority cases would lead to some conclusions that could be improved on). And then 20 or more years later they are jus throwing big money after those conclusions formed in their early stage and defending them. Hence linear progression from noob days.

 

[bonzo75]

It’s interesting that you’ve identified this as a linear growth pattern Ked… in resource planning linear processes traditionally have an Achilles heel in that linear growth models are ultimately unsustainable due to us keeping at it till inevitably hitting resource boundaries… audiophile behaviour is very much that our desires are infinite and our resources super finite. The high end model of vertical sales and exponential upgrades is testament to our addiction to linear processes.

By linear pattern, I mean that, taking my own example, I found B&W floor stander to be better than the standamount that was better than small speaker they used for surround sound. After that, adding their subwoofer to the floor stander further improved sonics. So I conclude that bigger speaker, plus subwoofer, gives me more weight, stage, scale, hence brings me closer to orchestra.

Now, if many years later, I conclude that XVX, Arrrakis, 4 tower something, etc etc with 4 or 6 subs will obviously bring me even closer to the orchestra, that is just me drawing a conclusion using a straight line from my early experience days. Obviously as these are more expensive and bigger, they should be be even better than the B&W plus 1 subwoofer and should be the ultimate. Other such examples are in my opening post.

 

[andromedaaudio]

SOT Sound Of Tao i know another one .

PTB Price Tag Buyer .

 

[Chop]

To be clear up front I have come to value Ked's perspective on audio and recordings. I also believe sometimes he is just provocative for the sake of stirring up an argument.

I'm afraid I don't understand what the debate on this thread is about. We ALL have Ked's NOOB Linearity in our DNA.
We ALL heard something from some kit at some point in our early days & that got us pulled into this bizarre and expensive hobby. Of course progression from there was linear to some extent. Whatever we heard that we liked we built on over time, by exploring more of similar component types: its very logical to want to build better on top of what we have discovered, yes?

FWIW my ah ha moments came at different times from individually hearing original Pye HF12 amplifiers, a Verdier Platine, Quad ELS speakers and early 60's Tannoys. I got into triodes very early. Now, if we stay remotely interested in kit as well as music (Surely we all do or we wouldn't be on this forum) then over time we discover different pieces of kit which change our perspective AS WELL AS add to what we already know. We then build this into our thinking. PeterA is possibly the best (and most extreme?) example of this fresh thinking.
Despite hearing these early speakers early in my journey the building block of my system for the last 23 years has been Avantgarde Trios. Go figure.


What am I saying... aren't each of us in our own way like chefs building our best meal from what ingredients we have?
IMO I think Ked has missed out not having this experience of living with a system and developing. I think Ked is more of a restaurant critic.

 

[bonzo75]

To be clear up front I have come to value Ked's perspective on audio and recordings. I also believe sometimes he is just provocative for the sake of stirring up an argument.

I'm afraid I don't understand what the debate on this thread is about. We ALL have Ked's NOOB Linearity in our DNA.
We ALL heard something from some kit at some point in our early days & that got us pulled into this bizarre and expensive hobby. Of course progression from there was linear to some extent. Whatever we heard that we liked we built on over time, by exploring more of similar component types: its very logical to want to build better on top of what we have discovered, yes?

FWIW my ah ha moments came at different times from individually hearing original Pye HF12 amplifiers, a Verdier Platine, Quad ELS speakers and early 60's Tannoys. I got into triodes very early. Now, if we stay remotely interested in kit as well as music (Surely we all do or we wouldn't be on this forum) then over time we discover different pieces of kit which change our perspective AS WELL AS add to what we already know. We then build this into our thinking. PeterA is possibly the best (and most extreme?) example of this fresh thinking.
Despite hearing these early speakers early in my journey the building block of my system for the last 23 years has been Avantgarde Trios. Go figure.


What am I saying... aren't each of us in our own way like chefs building our best meal from what ingredients we have?
IMO I think Ked has missed out not having this experience of living with a system and developing. I think Ked is more of a restaurant critic.

I really don't see why you need to progress only with ingredients in the house and not go out to buy new ingredients. As an Indian, I see many Indians forever going out to eat Indian food only, no matter how far the restaurant from authentic Indian and bad, and cooking Indian at home, because that’s what they grew up with. They are being NL

I began to experiment with cuisines immediately when I landed in London, and outside am always eating varied cuisines. At home I mainly follow the Mediterranean style on a staple basis. If I want Indian food in London, I go to a Sri Lankan or Pakistani restaurant as they make it more the authentic style. When I was in Dubai I ate a lot of Indian, because the Indian there unlike the US or the UK, is briiliant.

There is an increase in the number of audiophiles breaking their linear progression. That is a good thing.

 

[zerostargeneral]

Bonzo,

How does one escape the linear progression?

Why are most components very noisy?

Are Fone recordings any good?

Is Bernstein the Goat?

Do you like field coil onions?

Kindest regards,G.

 

[abeidrov]

By linear pattern, I mean that, taking my own example, I found B&W floor stander to be better than the standamount that was better than small speaker they used for surround sound. After that, adding their subwoofer to the floor stander further improved sonics. So I conclude that bigger speaker, plus subwoofer, gives me more weight, stage, scale, hence brings me closer to orchestra.

Now, if many years later, I conclude that XVX, Arrrakis, 4 tower something, etc etc with 4 or 6 subs will obviously bring me even closer to the orchestra, that is just me drawing a conclusion using a straight line from my early experience days. Obviously as these are more expensive and bigger, they should be be even better than the B&W plus 1 subwoofer and should be the ultimate. Other such examples are in my opening post.

I think you are over complicating things. Most people, who are here, are quite experienced and have had exposure to different types of speakers and electronics like boxes and horns and sets, but there are many other factors in play here that prevent them / us from changing direction. Lack of space or lack of money or wife and kids etc, or simply lack of access to a certain brand or product.