You ever compared the source upgrades you made

That fulfils my philosophy.  I never listen to 'better' equipment unless I can afford to buy it.

And as regards your question ... I always (where possible) compare the old and new before making a decision.

When I upgraded from a ND5 XS to a 272, I had both for a short time; so I connected the ND5 to the analogue input of the 272.  The 272 won fairly comprehensively.

Putting an external PSU on both widens the gap still further.

Streaming source components yes:

When I added XP5XS to ND5XS, not having auditioned first, it was a barely perceptible improvement (so after about six weeks I sold it)

Adding Hugo to ND5XS was a distinct improvement

Comparing Audirvana on Mac Mini with ND5XS (both into Hugo), Audiv was distinctly worse. It would have gone, but a £120 fix I had heard of (Gustard U12 isolator) was worth a punt - and transformed it, to sound better than the ND5XS - not hugely better, but enough, so the ND5XS was freed up and went.

Then after an in-shop demo of HugoTT and Dave against Hugo I had them all at home for an extended comparison over a couple of weeks - trying to persuade myself that the definite but small improvement with TT over Hugo, combined with its other advantages, was sufficient for me and that Dave wax not woth double the cost. I failed! Dave was too much better. And I agree with the philosophy of not hearing what you can't afford (or at least that you can't see a realistily affirdable udgrade plan to reach) - I would not have liked to have heard Dave and had to walk away, even though Hugo sounded avery bit as good as it ever had.

Before all that, I compared my second (last) CD player directly with my first one, concluding great similarity (which was enough, the change being purely because the otherwise very satisfactory old one was in its dying throes and rarely played for more than about half a disc.

And in vinyl days I never directly compared cartridges or arms, while the one turntable change I made was so immediately audibly better (rumble gone!) that I didn't need to with that.

Yes, always made the comparison directly, but not until I was prepared to spend the money.

Doesn't stop me listening to more expensive components in the context of hifi shows and dealer demos though, as the comparison is not direct

Dungassin posted:

That fulfils my philosophy.  I never listen to 'better' equipment unless I can afford to buy it.

I totally agree, safe that I correct – for the case of myself – it in 'unless I want to afford it'. I've been working for almost 40 years, I have saved something and could buy cash a much better system that the one I have. Only, I don't think it is worth it.

I once had an idée fixe I tried to elaborate here occasionally, but it has always proved that this was the most obviously wrongest place: that there's a limit to how much it is sensible to spend to reproduce perennially identical to themselves sonic postcards: CD or LPs. To me, today, a mildly discouraging equation is valid and, so far, not disproved: the amount of quality needed to enjoy reproduced music is inversely proportional to the amount of money we're told we need to spend to reach not the quality, but the enjoyment. This is the giant hoax of Excellent Audio.

Nothing personal or regarding you or your choices, D., of course.

One of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that when I upgrade, for a while everything sounds better and more enjoyable, but after a few weeks the new sound just becomes the norm and in enjoyability feels much the same as before the upgrade.

However, if I don’t listen for a while (e.g. go away on holiday) on my return all the extra enjoyment and wonder at the music has returned.  Perhaps I ought not to bother with upgrades any more.

I have no plans ATM for any changes.  But, I would like a couple more guitars, although I think SWMBO  would strangle me if I got any.

Dungassin posted:

One of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that when I upgrade, for a while everything sounds better and more enjoyable, but after a few weeks the new sound just becomes the norm and in enjoyability feels much the same as before the upgrade.

So true and after a while shortcomings, no matter what the system, will eventually reveal themselves. No system is prefect. Once you accept that shortcomings in hi-fi replay are inevitable you can begin to relax and enjoy the music for what it is.

I've given up on chasing higher level hi-fi and now focus on maximizing the musicality from my current level of gear. Optimization of an existing system is often overlooked for want of better gear. Ancillary weaknesses (racking, cable dressing, room treatment, sockets, power strips, etc.) in an existing system will only become more apparent with gear upgrades and should be addressed to the fore.

Two very sound previous posts. I’ll go a step further, after downgrading the decrease in quality is noticeable but again ‘normalises’.

Funny isn’t it? How the brain equilibriates - maybe that’s why A-B comparisons can’t be done (one finger in cold, one in hot and the brain feels... warmth).

Consciousmess posted:

I’ll go a step further, after downgrading the decrease in quality is noticeable but again ‘normalises’.

I’m not so sure it “normalizes” to the same thing, though.

Like others, I feel like the upward initial  “wow” fades after a while... but it always seems like I’m now just used to “better”. When I reverted to using my smaller / lesser amp in my main system, I really noticed the change and didn’t really have that satisfying feeling over the six weeks I used it... it didn’t gel with the speakers and I didn’t just get “renormalized”. Upstairs, it’s a good thing; downstairs not so much.

I’m kind of in the camp where long term impressions are a better arbiter if what I’m hearing and how I’m responding; more complicated than just A-B-A, which is still how we (most often) make our choices and decisions... but I think there is incremental and real improvement in enjoyment with most upgrades and that is more than simply getting used to a given sound system or component. Contrary to what the “measure it, know it” scientist in me wants to say, but truth from my perspective and experience. 

Regards, alan

alan33 posted:

I’m kind of in the camp where long term impressions are a better arbiter if (of) what I’m hearing and how I’m responding; more complicated than just A-B-A, which is still how we (most often) make our choices and decisions...

I completely agree that long-term listening is a must and to take it a step further I'd add that listening to a wide variety of recordings with varying sound quality is equally important. Too often it seems folks do gear comparisons using only their favorite, top-notch recordings. I think it's also critical to demo some of your enjoyable but lesser SQ music; otherwise, you run the risk of limiting satisfying replay to only your best sounding albums. A high quality source is great for high SQ music, but can be brutally revealing, possibly dismissive, of lesser SQ albums. Maybe you don't want to go too high on the source upgrade path?