Live data from Hacker News

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

library.oapen.org

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#121
As someone who's battled Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS), I've learned that fixating on the latest tech often hinders progress. Instead, I've found success by embracing effectuation principles:

1. Use what you have: Start with your existing tools and resources.

2. Take action: Begin immediately, rather than waiting for the "perfect" setup.

3. Adapt and learn: Iterate based on real-world feedback.

This mindset shift can lead to more meaningful progress and innovation. When you catch yourself obsessing over new gear, try this:

1. Pause and reflect: Is this acquisition essential for immediate progress?

2. Reevaluate: Can you achieve your current goals with what you already have?

3. Focus on action: Use your existing means to take concrete steps today.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#122
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did this with shoes. Bought 4 pairs of the shoes I liked. Right on schedule, they discontinued them, and I was so happy I'd done so! And then when after about 5 years I said "hey, these shoes are getting pretty worn, time to move on to the next pair", I was 43 years old, and lo and behold ... my feet had widened and I couldn't even get my feet into the brand-new shoes. I had to put them in an expanding last for alm…

Next time don’t store the old shoes - rotate wearing them so at the end of (shoe_lifetime * number_of_pairs) years you’ll have a number of pairs of evenly-worn shoes :)

I actually did this not too long ago and observed an interesting phenomenon that I had kind of noticed over the years, but never really tested.

I found a pair of shoes that I liked, but they wore out quickly with daily use (3-4 months). I bought 3 more pairs and rotated them and those three lasted for like 2 years.

As silly as it sounds, I wonder if there is something about giving shoes a "rest" that makes them last longer.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be good at something to do it. What is good or bad anyway? It's comparison with others. If you enjoy it, it doesn't matter if you're good or bad at it, if joy itself is the aim. If your aim isn't joy, but success, then of course you'll lack joy. It is very liberating to do something, knowing you're "bad" at it, but doing it only for enjoyment.

I relate strongly to the comment you're replying to, and I can tell you that it's very frustrating to have a vision of something you want to create and be unable despite struggling towards that goal for a long time. It has nothing to do with other people. My art doesn't live up to my own standards. That's frustrating as hell! It's not a simple as comparison to others -- who cares about them if I just can't seem to cr…

> All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.

- Ira Glass

I very much suffer from the same thing when it comes to music. I'm a pretty decent guitar player, all round - but I still struggle mightily to make music I'd want to listen to. But such is life, I guess.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#124
post #2

It's a big problem for photographers too. Especially with the rapid progress of mirrorless cameras there is always the next camera or lens you need to get. I have bought lenses and never used them. I have also spent more time on looking for accessories for my 3D printer than actually using it. Not sure how to combat GAS. I feel for people with a full time job it somehow compensates for the lack of time working on one…

I haven't dabbled much in photography lately, but when I was active in it, budget was a strong constraint. These days my GAS is mostly for synths and budget is less of a constraint, thanks to the full time job you alluded to. I think this phenomenon of having money but no time leading to GAS is pretty common, from what I've seen. In my case, I often avoid it by challenging myself to use whatever I have at hand to try to recreate what I'd be getting with the new gear. Its often a fun exercise even if I don't succeed.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#125
Honestly my GAS subsided when I realized most of my favorite records were made with affordable or off the shelf gear. So many guitarists on the 80s used JCM800s because that was what Marshall was putting out. Eric Clapton’s Stratocaster wasn’t vintage when he bought it, it was just an off the shelf guitar! Same with most amps, instruments, keyboards, synths, drum machines, even samplers which are hailed as legendary because they have higher bass and a lower bitrate (an effect you can get with a one-knob EQ and a bit crusher, respectively). The artists were just using the tools available to them because… they were available.

I have simplified my recording and production setup to mainly just a computer, 10 channel audio interface, a 90s mackie mixer because it’s big and fun and sums neatly to the 10 channels (8 busses + master 2 buss), and whatever bits of quirky and fun gear I can find.

My GAS left when I realized I don’t need any of it. I could make music on just a laptop if I wanted to, I could just play my guitar and resample it for synth sounds if I wanted to. Plenty of iPhone producers out there who just make weird sounds with their mouth. It’s all relative. People will say you’ve Got to have at LEAST one analog mono, one poly, a digi, a sampler, and an endless supply of grooveboxes, but computers are truly more than capable. “Analog sound” is just an EQ away. Just focus on the creative aspect and the gear aspect diminishes and becomes yet another source of creativity - find quirky pawn shop stuff that makes you smile when you play it. Even if you don’t record it, you don’t feel like it’s GAS because it brings joy.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#126
Hobbies I geek out on gear: fountain pens, coffee, backpacking, tools (especially fine woodworking or cabinet making).

Hobbies where my skills have reached a point of equilibrium with my gear: bikes, photography, electronics, knives, auto detailing, cars.

For me it has a lot to do with disparity between my current ability level and being able to recognize whatever a realistic upper end is to my potential (80th percentile). Basically, if there's a skill-gap, I'm more likely to fall prey to "better gear" rather than gear that solves a specific problem.

When I recognize my skills have reached ~80% of my potential, I lose interest in new gear and either work around specific gear limitations or understand what is possible within the limitations and embrace the constraint. Beyond that, I only acquire new gear to solve hyper-specific problems w/o reasonable workarounds, or if there's some super-specific niche/quirky/vintage thing that I have an emotional attachment to or otherwise identify with.

Conversely, if I have an unrealistic perception of my potential, then, well... there's probably lists of shiny things to show for it.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#127
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a lot of 30-50 year old camera lenses. Stuff was just built better back then. None of all this plastic jiggly crap.

Funny because 30 years ago (1994) we used to say the same thing about stuff built in the 50s :)

Really? Photography changed a lot from 1950 to 2000. I'd be very surprised if anyone would've preferred the 1950 grayscale and gigantic photography equipment over the 90s-2000 variants

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#128

It's funny to see it framed in the context of music when it's a pretty universal behavior, essentially limited only by how many cool upgrades exist for a particular hobby. It's a particularly common affliction for photographers (better cameras, better lens, studio lighting, etc), but the same happens in lo-tech fields - say, woodworking (check out my premium chisels!) or even lawn care. In most hobbies, it's just a m…

From the research:

> The last fact worth mentioning is that the phenomenon is not limited to music. GAS occurs in many areas of everyday life. In music, it can be observed in hi-fi audio culture (Schröter & Volmar 2016), record collecting (Shuker 2010), home re- cording (Strong 2012) and jingle composition (Fisher 1997). Outside music, GAS occurs amongst photographers (Arias 2013; Kim 2012; Sarinana 2013), aquarium hobbyists (Wolfenden 2016), amateur astronomists (Chen & Chen 2017), cyclists (Peters 2013) and eBayers (Zalot 2013). Despite its high prevalence in contemporary culture, the phenomenon has hardly been researched.

Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome

#129
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny because 30 years ago (1994) we used to say the same thing about stuff built in the 50s :)

Really? Photography changed a lot from 1950 to 2000. I'd be very surprised if anyone would've preferred the 1950 grayscale and gigantic photography equipment over the 90s-2000 variants

There were a lot of amazing advancements from 1950 to 1980. After 1990 and autofocus the build quality of lenses started going downhill. The plastic focusing mechanisms negated a lot of the otherwise good optics.

The affordable category of lenses today also don't gave good optics. While there are good modern optics used in higher-end lenses, it's easier to get better used old optics that outperforms shitty modern optics at the same price point.

There are some nice lenses made today but they are extremely costly. A Sony GM 300/2.8 costs $6000. I got my late 70s Canon SSC Fluorite 300/2.8 for $400 and it's tack sharp corner to corner, and considering I paid only $400 for it, I'm not too worried about taking it everyhwere.

A Sony GM 50/1.2 costs $1900. I paid $300 for my Nikkor early 80's 50/1.2. For f/1.2 portraits sharpness isn't the thing you're usually after, and mine gives absolutely spectacular results.

Back in the 50s-80s almost every lens was built like a tank and they are now available used at a fraction of the price of modern equivalents. If you don't give a crap about autofocus (studio portrait, macro, landscape, product photographers all don't need autofocus), it's a very good deal. Plastic started to show up in the 90s and killed everything.

(If you're shooting sports and wildlife, yeah, prioritize autofocus, but that's not what I do.)

Post reply on HN