How good is good enough?

To constantly strive for better sound is an endless quest, not necessarily based on the quality of our set but on our personality.

This is another thread about when a certain quantity of quality sound is "enough."

Having heard this question umpteen times, I have lost respect for it. After a certain point, sound really doesn’t get much better -- at least not as much as it gets different.

Compare an expensive Audio Note system with an expensive system built around, say, Wilson. Or Magico. Or Magnepan. Or whatever. Is it really reasonable to say one is better -- in terms of quantity of quality -- over another? This is an absurd question. It’s asking whether Picasso is better than Rembrandt.

These are children’s questions because they are absurd. They’re absurd because the act of asking already presupposes that criteria can be settled in advance, with examples marching in afterwards to be judged like contestants in a beauty contest. It is a Sisyphusean question.

To my mind, the question redounds why some think it can be asked and answered. The question becomes, Why are you (we) Sisyphus? when it comes to asking such impossible questions?

Very good post!

My answer will be because we refuse or do not understand why we must learn minimal basic acoustics concepts and how experimenting with them ...

Thank you!

The only problem I see with your argument is that there are people who are never done with their acoustic treatments, too.

Put another way -- I think you’re right that too many people ignore acoustics and focus on gear. But there are people who cannot stop treating their room and that amounts to exactly the same endless chase. So, it's not wrong but it's not sufficient for the more general malady.

“that criteria can be settled in advance, with examples marching in afterwards to be judged like contestants in a beauty contest”

The question is not based on an objective reality, but how good enough it is for YOU?

It's not a question of objective (read: intersubjective) reality or how good it is for you. The obstacle to which I'm referring applies equally to the individual. It's about the process of deciding questions of taste, and when criteria are settled in advance the problems manifest -- for groups but also for individuals. Objectivity has nothing to do with the objection.

@mahgister

There is an end in acoustic because acoustic unlike a piece of gear is not a new panel, it is a room designing process made for a specific speakers/room relation ...The end of this process is programmed by acoustic principle application in some order and is finite

I guess I have come across audiophiles who are not obsessed with gear but with adjusting the acoustics - designing and then re-designing the room. Unlike you, they don’t see an "end point" as you describe it because they hear differences in how they arrange the diffusers, absorbers, etc.

They do not believe that there is a principled, objective, finite end to acoustic treatment. It is not consumerism. The measurements do not end the question for them. (They remind me that mathematicians argue, too.)

Acoustic treatment -- endless quest.

Gear -- endless question.

For these people, your consumerism argument about gear is very convincing. But it does not end their quest for perfect and ultimate acoustics.

@mahgister Thanks for the clarification. 

I think "good enough" has to have some connection with gear quality and also with gear prices. While there's a good reason to be somewhat skeptical over price tags, I believe there is a correlation between price and performance. Everything matters -- parts, design, etc. Gear matters -- gear creates sound and so the notion that it's somehow opposed to acoustics creates a false dichotomy. The fact that there are some who are into very expensive gear or into audio jewelry does not prevent the simultaneous acknowledgement that better gear sounds better if also accompanied by appropriate room acoustics, etc.