You hit the point of diminishing returns when you want to justify not spending any more money. |
Remember, one mans 10% is another man's 1000%. I'm not a member of the "this gear blows that gear out of the water", or "this cable makes that cable sound broken" clubs. There are many in this hobby who love to over-react, and overstate gains, been there, done that. Until you have been up and down the mountain you cannot judge it's full scale. It always looks big when you are simply climbing. Agree! Precisely what's diminishing returns for one is increasing returns for another. Sorry, that seems like too much work, and I'm not looking to damn any products. Let's say the old big rig (circa 2008-2009?) was 17% speakers, 24% electronics (including phono stage), 18% analog front end, 6% digital (more of an analog guy, still am), other 35% was cables, power cords, power conditioning, tweaks and accessories. A list of major components will provide some context in your results. NP! |
08-20-14: Knghifi
Unless your methodology is throwing darts at recommended list with your eyes closed, no way a $25K is 90% to a $125K rig IMO. Remember, one mans 10% is another man's 1000%. I'm not a member of the "this gear blows that gear out of the water", or "this cable makes that cable sound broken" clubs. There are many in this hobby who love to over-react, and overstate gains, been there, done that. Until you have been up and down the mountain you cannot judge it's full scale. It always looks big when you are simply climbing. Just curious, can you list the major components of your $25K and $125K rigs? I have an open mind ... maybe I can replace my $100K+ with a $25K rig and get 85%? Sorry, that seems like too much work, and I'm not looking to damn any products. Let's say the old big rig (circa 2008-2009?) was 17% speakers, 24% electronics (including phono stage), 18% analog front end, 6% digital (more of an analog guy, still am), other 35% was cables, power cords, power conditioning, tweaks and accessories. |
It turns out there is no point of diminishing returns. The Taliban invented that whole concept because they hate our freedoms. |
I didn't just go from a $25K rig to a $125K in two weeks and proclaim a 5% or 10% upgrade. I'm talking upgrading fuses, yes a 4% improvement, upgraded power conditioner, 5% improvement, upgrade power cord, 5% improvement, upgrade phono stage, 10% improvement, upgrade cartridge, 10% improvement....etc., etc., etc.... Unless your methodology is throwing darts at recommended list with your eyes closed, no way a $25K is 90% to a $125K rig IMO. Just curious, can you list the major components of your $25K and $125K rigs? I have an open mind ... maybe I can replace my $100K+ with a $25K rig and get 85%? |
Philosophical, or possibly a rhetorical question.....definitely a question with no absolute answer. |
I suspect you maybe meant to say "philosophical question" not "metaphysical question." Metaphysics is an interesting subject all of its own.
Metaphysics is interesting but doesn't pay the bills. - A. Einstein |
this is one of those essentially unsolvable metaphysical queries with no right or wrong answers. i sort of agree with knghifi--where and whether one has hit the point of diminishing returns is ultimately up to the person writing the check. the way i look at it, while you certainly can objectively measure aspects of audio performance (e.g. signal-to-noise ratios, distortion levels, etc.), it doesn't necessarily follow that you can measure "improvement" on such basis, since so much of audio appreciation is inherently subjective--i.e. a component with "better" measured performance may not necessarily sound better to you for a whole host of reasons.
i'd also submit that people tend to fix their point of diminishing returns on the bases of their budgets. for example, i maintained for a long time that while the sonic differences between, say a $300 cdp and a $2000 cdp were very significant, the difference between that $2000 cdp and a $5000 cdp were only incremental (and, in my opinion, perhaps not cost justified). undoubtedly, if i had had more disposable cash, i would feel otherwise, and would set the point higher.
back to the mill..... |
@Douglas_schroeder, I was reffering to dozens and dozens of "upgrades", maybe even a hundred, over a period of 15 years. I didn't just go from a $25K rig to a $125K in two weeks and proclaim a 5% or 10% upgrade. I'm talking upgrading fuses, yes a 4% improvement, upgraded power conditioner, 5% improvement, upgrade power cord, 5% improvement, upgrade phono stage, 10% improvement, upgrade cartridge, 10% improvement....etc., etc., etc....
So if all of those perceived improvements were actually real, or calculated correctly, then how come undoing it all only set me back to 90%? I am not saying that the incremental gains did not exist, only that they were probably not nearly as big as I thought they were at the time. Perhaps what I was thinking was a 5% improvement, was in actuality only a 0.25% improvement.
Yes, this is all said in hindsight. Obviously, if I had known that quadrupling the outlay would only increase performance by 10%, perhaps I would not have travelled that road. I may have just spent that money on some more exotic vacations. ;^) |
Macrojack, perhaps you should quit while behind and stop further embarrassing yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you and you don't get to dictate what's ABSOLUTE.
Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not going to work. There's NO best in audio! |
Macrojack, from my perspective you are the one who seems not to be able to get it. The law of diminishing returns is simple; we get it.
What you don't seem to see is that you have set the point of diminishing returns painfully low, and others disagree, and you have no way to demonstrate that we are wrong. Your opinion on where the law of diminishing returns kicks in is not absolute; somehow you seem to think it is. It is nothing other than your opinion, "...beyond a given point in your refinement trajectory you will pass a point beyond which further improvements come at an ever increasing cost ... that the reward will not be commensurate with the outlay." I have been trying to tell you that you are declaring what cannot be proven.
Jmcgrogan2 gets it, as he points out the same thing, that you are appealing to an absolute which does not exist.
Jmcgrogan2, I find your logic strained. Now that you left the $125K rig you state that the incremental gains didn't exist because you built a rig that's 90% as good? I would suggest you were doing things wrong then, when it came to your high priced rig, because at that point - at any point - one should not settle for a 2%, 5% or even 10% gain/improvement, but more like a perceptual 25% or 50% improvement. It is not worth a lot of money, if I were to state what I consider diminishing returns from a perspective of performance, to gain only a perceived 2% or 5% improvement, so if you were spending big dollars and content with that, I suggest you were vastly overspending to improve your rig. As a consequence, I can see why you think diminishing returns sets in quickly. However, I think it had more to do with your methodology of system building than anything else.
Simply building a lower cost rig that beat the prior higher priced one assembled does not demonstrate that generally lower cost rigs come oh, so close to higher priced ones. If you now nullify your previous impressions/conclusions about the $125K rig you had, distrusting them, how are we supposed to put confidence in your declaration that the lower end rig is so much better? Maybe if you went back to a $125K rig you would change your mind again!
But, you are correct in concluding, "since the return (musical satisfaction) cannot be quantified, whether it is diminishing or not cannot be measured." |
I understand the definition of Diminishing Returns. My main point is if you can't measure reward, diminishing returns is up to the person writing the checks to decide. |
I agree with you Macrojack, I feel that diminshing returns hit very hard and very early in this hobby, earlier than most here would agree with.
That said, there is one flaw with your logic, the sentence "that reward will not be commensurate with the outlay". The main problem is that while the outlay can be measured, the reward cannot be measured. So while some may say they spent 50% more money and improved their sound by 100%, others may say they spent 100% more money and improved their sound by only 5%. The money can be measured, the satisfaction gained from money spent cannot be measured, so diminshing returns will mean different things to different people.
I've stated my case. My current $30K system sounds about 90% as good as my $125K system was. So that is my reasoning behind believing that diminshing returns hit hard and early. I'm sure that a nice $5K system could give my rig a run for it's money.
However, back when I was assembling that $125K system, I swore that each little upgrade was adding another 2%, 5%, 10% improvement to the sound. It was only after tearing the system down and rebuilding a much less expensive system that I realized that all of those dozens and dozens of 5% improvements could not have really existed if a $30K system was 90% as good as a $125K system.
Point being, since the return (musical satisfaction) cannot be quantified, whether it is diminishing or not cannot be measured. |
From your responses, I gather that a goodly number of you are unable to grasp the concept of diminishing returns. I know that this failing is not due to lack of information because the essence has been explained in this very thread.
The Law of Diminishing Returns does not state that no further improvement can be attained. It says that beyond a given point in your refinement trajectory you will pass a point beyond which further improvements come at an ever increasing cost ... that the reward will not be commensurate with the outlay. It has nothing to do with your audiophile justifications or your arbitrarily assigned philosophical contrivances. In fact, it may have nothing to do with many of you at all. In a nutshell: your "bang for the buck" is headed for the red. However, the person who started the thread wants to know if he has passed that point and I say he has. I am not saying that he should or should not continue his pursuit from a hobbyist standpoint but I will continue to assert that, from a purely economic perspective, he like the rest of us has stepped off the deep end and is drifting ever further from shore. |
I think the main menu is that no system will never reach the pinnacle. There is always more to be done. The problem is making the best possible choices within our budget to improve the sound quality. Diminishing returns? You never know till you add the next element to your system. You may be surprised, maybe not. I do not subscribe to the notion that returns begin to diminish after such and such a point in time. |
So what does it all mean? Hobbies such as Audio, Automobiles ... where results cannot be measured or quanified, law of diminshing returns or increasing returns don't apply. Results are all SUBJECTIVE ... SQ NOT a function of price. Now if you have a farm growing crop where results can be MEASURED. You hit law of dimishing return when it doesn't increase the crop size by adding more fertilizer. My .02 |
Knghifi, I know another Audiogon member who sold his Andra II's for speakers that were less than half the price of the Andra II's, but much better sounding in his opinion. Spending more money can get you better sound quality, spending less money can get you better sound quality. So what does it all mean? |
Last year I replaced Eggleston Andra II, bought new retail for $21,000 with TAD Evolution One also bought new retail for $30,000. After a year of ownership, I concluded there's NO diminishing returns. My subjective algorithm is, ZERO buyer remorse, BEST the Andra in every way ... NO contest!, SQ still surprises me every time I play music and one of the best and most satisfying audio purchases ever.
TAD is not 1.5X superior than Andra but much much much ... higher IMO. Microjack, ... what's your algorithm to computing diminishing returns? I want a definitive number. |
Douglas_schroeder,
You stated "Yet, we have mass delusion in this hobby in that everyone thinks their rig is right at SOTA sound. No one wants to admit they are a long way from the upper echelon." Your statement is a slight exaggeration. Yet there is a lot of truth in it. At each level it is difficult to imagine things sounding any better. This is normal. Yet there are always improvements that are possible within budget constraints -- if we dare to push the envelope a bit. |
I drive a Toyota Camry, and I'm happy with it. Thus, there is nothing more to gain by buying a fancier, more sporty car.
This is infallible logic, as applied in this thread to audio systems.
Of course, this vehicular and audiophilic logic is driven (pun!) by one thing, a desire to save money. When the OP's question is viewed in this fashion it becomes immediately obvious that one's current satisfaction with the sound has no relation to potential for improvement of a rig, nor to the cost of the system as an absolute predictor of sound quality.
Yet, we have mass delusion in this hobby in that everyone thinks their rig is right at SOTA sound. No one wants to admit they are a long way from the upper echelon.
I'll go on record with this one, given how many CD Players and DACs I've used, old and new; the OP was told in a nutshell that what he's got is good enough. Ok, that's a 2001 era 108kHz 24 bit player - not bad! However, If he takes that advice, he'll neglect the fact that he could go out now, and for about $1-2K, and some at $300-$500, get a 32 bit/384kHz or better DAC that would blow the doors off of the MF player. Have heard it? No, and I don't need to, as my opinion is that having heard it against several 24/192 players/DACs holistically the technology is so far superior to the old that one can nearly universally be assured that the new DAC will vastly outperform, with of course consideration needing to be given to the tonality of the particular DAC as it's integrated into the rig.
Oh, my, that's a real budget buster, an example of what would likely be less than what he spent on the MF player, and a boatload of improvement!
And that is but one example of the types of improvements - enormous improvements - he could have had. :(
Now, if the OP's left the building, taking along the smug assurance that he needs never look again for something better, he'll miss out on it all. Ignorance is bliss, right?
Yeah, he's got his "Camry" and there's really nothing better in terms of performance out there. :( |
I would respectfully disagree that improvement means spending a lot more.
Its more about getting the right stuff working the right way in your space. Lots of ways to do that and it can even end up costing less over time, especially if one takes an immediate plunge into the high end audio deep water. |
The point of diminishing returns starts with your very first system. I have always belived in the doubling rule, you need to double the price to get a clear audible improvement. It's a crude generalisation I know.
I have another suggestion. If you have a system you like, try to improve what you have. It's depressing I know, but you need to factor in tweaks to system cost. Unfortunately, price matters hear too, you seem to need to spend a significant amount for a good improvement. Here are some I have found very helpful:
First, a good power conditioner and power cables. I use a Bybee stealth and lessloss and Sablon audio power cables. You really don't have to struggle to hear the improvement.
Second, supports, a good rack and isolation devices are a must. I use Stillpoints, but Herbies'S audio lab has a good range of effective, low priced devices.
In no paricular order, here are some other Gizmos I have found, work for me:
Nordost Quantum QX4 or 2
Bybee golden goddess speaker bullets
Stillpoints or Track Audio feet under the speakers.
All these I found worked in my system. They may not in yours. Try and borrow them from a dealer or buy second hand.Some have clealy given equivelant improvement to a new, more expensive amp, CD player or speakers. |
Excellent post Macrojack. I also agree with your first paragraph. No way Stringreen was addressing Joecasey. I'd bet one of my four "brokerage accounts" on it. Sheesh. Hey Timmy, sure you can afford to lose your lunch money? |
20k upgrade would be good. |
Once you have purchased and installed a basic system that conveys the sounds to you intelligibly, you have reached the point of diminishing returns. If you choose to follow the audiophile nonsense beyond that point, you have voluntarily entered a place where your further investment is rewarded at a lower rate. This puts you on a curve whereon you receive ever less for your dollar as you progress. Whether you feel justly rewarded by your outlay or not, does not alter the economic reality of what you have done from an investment standpoint. Philosophical renderings aside, you have not invested well. Now, of course, the option to pay more money for less improvement is an option afforded the hobbyist and it could be argued that act defines the word " hobby". Who could argue that point? Excellent post Macrojack. I also agree with your first paragraph. No way Stringreen was addressing Joecasey. I'd bet one of my four "brokerage accounts" on it. Sheesh. |
Macrojack, I agree with you on your position concerning diminishing return in audio. If one wants to make improvements on a current system, the desired outcome need to be defined and addressed. |
I was pretty sure I was at the point of diminishing returns until I plugged in a pair High Fidelity interconnects. Those cables are the real deal. |
08-08-14: Macrojack
Joecasey - it appears to me that Stringreen was addressing the originator of the thread, not you. Perhaps if you read the whole thread and allowed for the possibility that it was not all about you, the same opinion would have kept you from embarrassing yourself. Macrojack, Perhaps you should allow the possibility it was addressed to me and not embarrass yourself? I can't ask Stringreen to clarify? As you can see, I have an insecurity problem. |
Joecasey - it appears to me that Stringreen was addressing the originator of the thread, not you. Perhaps if you read the whole thread and allowed for the possibility that it was not all about you, the same opinion would have kept you from embarrassing yourself.
As for this elusive point of diminishing returns that has a number of you stumbling all over yourselves with absolution and compensatory illogic, here is the hard to swallow truth:
Once you have purchased and installed a basic system that conveys the sounds to you intelligibly, you have reached the point of diminishing returns. If you choose to follow the audiophile nonsense beyond that point, you have voluntarily entered a place where your further investment is rewarded at a lower rate. This puts you on a curve whereon you receive ever less for your dollar as you progress. Whether you feel justly rewarded by your outlay or not, does not alter the economic reality of what you have done from an investment standpoint. Philosophical renderings aside, you have not invested well. Now, of course, the option to pay more money for less improvement is an option afforded the hobbyist and it could be argued that act defines the word " hobby". Who could argue that point?
So, I would submit that what I said earlier stands. We all passed the point of diminishing returns long ago. The question now is: Do you care? And each of us will have to answer that one for ourselves. It would seem that none of us cares enough to stop - so that means do whatever the hell floats your boat now and keep a bucket handy for bailing.
Personally, I have an eye toward downsizing. Reading online audio threads has me believing I am not alone in that thinking. In other words, I am interested in moving backwards toward the original diminishing returns threshold. Anyone else? O.P.? |
08-07-14: Stringreen
If you can't articulate what if anything bothers you about your system, you are at a loss to "improve"it. Take your money to Fidelity and have them invest it for you. You talking to me? Read the WHOLE thread before offering advice. You're in the WRONG context. BTW, I have 3 brokerage accounts investing all the $$ MYSELF. Otherwise all I can afford is Anti-Cables. |
If you can't articulate what if anything bothers you about your system, you are at a loss to "improve"it. Take your money to Fidelity and have them invest it for you. |
I realize my rig is a bit dated, but it sounds great.
It sounds great until you hear something better. Try a new dac. The Chord Hugo opened up my eyes/ears. |
The law of diminishing returns to me is when you aren't gaining more enjoyment listening to music through upgrades even though they may be improvements. I don't believe there is any way to quantify it or measure it. At some point, different for some than others, it simply comes down to whether or not it is worth spending the money for the gain. When the point is reached where spending more isn't worth it, if ever (we are audiophiles after all), the law of diminishing returns has arrived.
As far as your system goes RlB61 only you can answer that question. If you are throughly enjoying the music your system makes it might be better to leave it alone until that stops happening. If you are not satisfied about something and are distracted because something doesn't sound right you have NOT hit the point of diminishing returns. Thanks Tubegroover, this is what I was TRYING to articulate but failed miserably. :-) |
I personally do not nor have nor ever had the ability in assigning a numeric value to an increase in performance. It either is one of two things
1) a lateral move, maybe different but not and improvement but may initially be perceived as an improvement because it's different.
2) an improvement that can vary from small but noticable to substantial but is quite apparent.
I have had conversations with a manufacturer that places a numeric value on the % of improvement he has made on his products. He actually told me that I could expect a 135% improvement over what I had to what the current model was. I think he just added up these improvements over the years and came up with that number but it meant absolutely nothing to me other than I could expect a BIG improvement.
The law of diminishing returns to me is when you aren't gaining more enjoyment listening to music through upgrades even though they may be improvements. I don't believe there is any way to quantify it or measure it. At some point, different for some than others, it simply comes down to whether or not it is worth spending the money for the gain. When the point is reached where spending more isn't worth it, if ever (we are audiophiles after all), the law of diminishing returns has arrived.
As far as your system goes RlB61 only you can answer that question. If you are throughly enjoying the music your system makes it might be better to leave it alone until that stops happening. If you are not satisfied about something and are distracted because something doesn't sound right you have NOT hit the point of diminishing returns. |
Jmcgrogan2, no I was referring my question to the OP. I should elaborate that in my experience, going to tubes and vinyl was a game changer in bringing up many levels of enjoyment. There are too many threads regarding the virtues and trade-offs of this approach to elaborate here, but it would be worth at least casual investigation if someone's exposure was limited.
I think that a really highly capable system can be had for the $30K level you mention if you can find the right used components. |
08-06-14: Truemaineiac
Have you ever spent time with a good tube and analog system? I assume you are talking to me? If so, yes, my whole system is tube based, phono stage, preamp and amp, and vinyl is my primary source. My point is simply this: I have owned $125K system previously, but due to economics, I have cut back and I am currently running about a $30K system. Was the previous $125K system better? Yes. However, if one were to try and quantify the difference, which I agree Joecasey is ludicrous and ridiculous, there is no way the $125K system was even twice as good. I would say maybe 10-20% better....for 4X the cost. That, in my humble opinion, reflects the point of diminishing returns. I have also heard quite a few less expensive systems, and the only way something sounds twice as good, regardless of price, is if one of the systems is defective. Now I know that many folks will quantify improvements they have made in their systems over the years, this was a 5% improvement, that was a 10% improvement, heck, I even used to do that myself. However, after disassembling my $125K rig and going back downstream did I realize that those dozens and dozens of 5-20% improvements I heard over the years were mostly imaginary. Since I could scale back to less than 25% of the cost and only lose a small percentage of performance. I was quite stunned actually, to find out just how good a much less expensive system could sound. |
Take this advice for what it's worth-
i have a much bigger and more expensive system than you do, and it sounds
very very good. but... i still look around at new gear and would love to check it out anyway. but other than a nicer looking pair of speakers or some other aesthetically attractive component, there is no SONIC rationale for spending any more money. once you have a combination of "sweetness" and functionality, you're essentially done. OTOH, you "can" get a more "startling super-realistic" sound that sweeps you away, but it could also get tiring after awhile, or reveal
subtle flaws in source material you were better off not knowing about.
a system should help you relax and enjoy the sound. Funny, when i had a mid-fi
set-up years ago (SAE-2 electronics, a Thorens turntable, and ADS speakers, cheap wire) I was strangely happy. BTW, this was before those cursed CD's came
along and replaced vinyl in the record stores. |
Jmcgrogan2, I guess I didn't clearly state my position.
I don't believe in point Of Diminishing Returns. It all depends on the individual component, system and how badly you want it. All subjective.
If I prefer the $500,000 over the $2,000 system, then it's worth it. Who knows and who cares if it's 2X, 20X, 100X ... superior. How do you measure it? |
Have you ever spent time with a good tube and analog system? |
Joecasey, do you understand what the law of diminishing returns means? I never said that spending more money would not improve a system sonically, most times it does. However, it is not on a linear scale. A $20,000 system does not sound twice as good as a $10,000 system. It's more of a logarithmic scale, which would indicate that there is diminishing returns on money spent.
I have listened to many systems priced from $2,000 to $500,000. Yes, the $500,000 system was great, but it wasn't twice as good as the $2,000 system. It could have been....if the $2,000 system was defective, or poorly assembled. Obviously, YMMV. |
+1 Doug Schroeder. Yes, you past the point of diminishing returns as soon as you go past your first boombox. I disagree! Once one experience what's available, they will upgrade or change. Sometimes it's good NOT to know what's available. The laws of diminishing returns hit early and hard, just as in any other hobby. A $10,000 watch is not 1000 times better than a $10 watch. Same goes for audio gear. Nobody buy $10,000 watches to keep time but an accessory or enjoys collecting them. Same with cars ... The equivalent in audio is always on a journey and never reaching a destination ... enjoy cycling through gear. Bottom line is if you are happy with you system, just enjoy the music and stop worrying about upgrading. |
You can make price-wise lateral moves and maybe find a sound that really is quite nice. It is all about synergy. For instance I run a Rogue Cronus Magnum with Lessloss original power cord, Tekton Lore speakers fed by Clear Day shotgun speaker cable,DAC is the Metrum Octave with Tel Wire power cord, Digital cable is the Stereo Vox Ultra II,and cable from the DAC to Rogue is Audience AU24. All power is plugged into a BPT power strip fed by Lessloss original and Audience AR1P wall power conditioner into a Furutech outlet.It has taken several years to find the synergy in these components. Except for the Tel Wire power cord most of these items are reasonably price new or used on Audiogon
Sounds super at all volume levels and plays loud. |
Bombaywalla - Thank you so much for your effort and advice. It is appreciated greatly. |
Thanks Rlb61.
I surfed the web last night again to see if I could get some dope on this amp but it was hard to find anything. So I'm still guessing at the input power transformer size.
Looking at the A300 amp profile I'm thinking it's a 1KVA transformer.
if so, then, I calculate something like 11Amps/channel. Further, you have the plus & minus rails so each rail gets 5.5Amps. That's a very low amount of current to make a floor-standing B&W really sing. You'll get pretty OK sonics using such an amp but the speaker is capable of much more which could be unleashed by using an amp that has a 2KVA or higher power transformer (which would double the current output). Now you are talking of an amp that it pretty tall - like 10" tall - and much more expensive.
Class-D amps get you high current in a smaller chassis & for fairly reasonable price.
Unfortunately, that's the nature of the (B&W) beast.
one serious thing to consider is to passive dual-amp (I'm not using the term bi-amp as bi-amping implies xternal x-over) using a high-current, low-impedance capable, reasonably priced class-D amp to drive the bass (you've biwired them so they have 2 pairs of binding posts). Then, 225W/ch of the A300CR should be plenty for the highs & mids. FWIW. |
Bombaywalla - Here are the specs from the manual:
225 wpc into 8 ohms
THD @ 100watts, 1 kHz < 0.005%
Frequency response - 10Hz- 20 kHz +/- 0.1dB
10Hz -100 kHz +/-1.5dB
Channel separation - Immeasurable - below noise floor
Input sensitivity - 1400mV for 225 watts output
Input impedance - 31 kOhm
S/N ratio ref. 225 watts output - > 110dB unweighted
> 120dB 'A' weighted
Power consumption - 1150W Max
Your help on this would be most appreciated. Thanks. |
07-27-14: Rlb61
Interesting views. My power amp is 225 wpc dual mono, so I THINK it's powerful enough, but I could be wrong. For B&W speakers it's not only about Watts/ch - it's about how much current the amplifier can provide to this particular brand of speakers. B&W are well-known to love high-current amplifiers. I searched hard on the internet to find some A300CR specs but all I could find was A300 & A3CR specs. In particular I was trying to back-calculate the size of the A300CR transformer & the amount of current it could provide. B&W speakers have a terrible impedance & phase curve in the low freq which gives most amps a lot of trouble because the amp is forced to output a lot more current than what the impedance-only curve informs you. If you look at purely watts, you might be OK but you probably are shy on output current & that might be limiting you. FWIW. |
A thought to consider: Rather than fixing what doesn't seem to be broken (i.e., "upgrading"), consider adding a high quality pair of headphones and a headphone amplifier. I find having both speakers and headphones available (Stax electrostatics, in my case) to be nicely complementary. For several reasons:
1)Having two (very different) sonic perspectives adds interest from a musical standpoint.
2)Headphone listening takes the room, the speakers, the power amp, and most of the preamp circuitry out of the picture (assuming the headphone amp is connected to the preamp's tape outputs), which can be helpful in diagnosing system issues and/or providing reassurance when audiophilia nervosa strikes.
3)Headphones, of course, can make it possible to listen when listening via speakers would disturb others in the household.
Just a thought. Regards,
-- Al |
Rlb61,
You're happy with your sound. If you read many posts on this site you'll realize some folks never seem to reach that point. Thus the constant and frustrating "upgrade" pathway.I'm not suggesting nothing can be improved upon, but what's being improved? Clear objectives would need to be solidly determined/defined. |
Charles - yes, I think you're right. I was curious as to price/performance ratio after one gets to a certain point in the "journey." Perhaps I have a case of "upgrade-itis," but it is dissipating quickly. After asking myself the question you posed, I couldn't come up with a rational answer. I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes. |
What John says is true, but if a particular switch or upgrade is worth it to you then that is all that matters. |
