Yes!

Isn't this a question every audio crazy has to answer for himself?

@rvpiano It’s very easy to go down the rabbit hole if you listen for defects instead of listening to the music.

Agree with this statement by rvpiano. Also, I'm observing once again why its important to give a new system or new components time to settle in.  Its not always  about 'just getting use to it". There can be change that occurs, given the chance. 

Patience helps from jumping out of one rabbit hole to another rabbit hole. 

OP,

You bring up a really important issue. Once you upgrade, then you play music.

If you have a detail scraping system… you end up hearing the worst possible rendition of any recording… only the very best recordings sound great. If your system is musically oriented then most recordings sound great and the ones that sound great on a hyper detailed system sound extraordinary.
 

You have to be very carefully on the criteria you use to evaluate potential components. If it is the most details you can hear, then it is likely to end up, bringing out the shortcomings of every album and not it’s strengths.

rvpiano OP: That is very true and also applies to most thing in life.  It's all based on personal experiences.  Some are content with a pair of rubber sandals as opposed to going barefooted, while others aren't content with a $1500 pair of shoes.

In order to enjoy your system after you’ve found out what’s “good enough” you have to establish that as your base line. After that, you can judge the quality of each recording based on its own merits, and not obsess that any problems are caused by defects in your system. It’s very easy to go down the rabbit hole if you listen for defects instead of listening to the music.

How good is good enough?

The answer/answerS aren't so utterly defined by the gear as they are defined by the room, + the actual recording.

Now if I had a room with bang on acoustics that was 18-20ft wide at the front wall and 26-28ft wide at the rear wall. 36-40ft long, with a coffered ceiling 14ft high, then the law of diminishing returns could run hog wild.

One could justify up grading that Denon DL-103R cartridge for a Dynavector TE Kaitora, because in the described environment the expenditure would be clearly audible.

In a room where most of us pee-ons reside (mine is 12x26x8), the above expenditure would be indicative of an individual that has more dollars than sense.

Ya can't make a canon sound good going off in a phone booth, anymore than you can make a pop gun sound impressive going off in a corn field.

How good is good enough? When one has optimized their system to their applicable room!

Enjoy the voyage.

OP …”I’m just curious. When you arbitrarily upgrade your system every 7 years, do you hear a significant improvement each time?”

OMG, yes… enormous. Each generation has been such a huge jump. In fact, each component is a very real and substantial improvement.. It can take a year or two for me to do the upgrades. So, for instance I may start by the speakers or preamp… the jump is phenomenal. I spend enough time to get it broken in and appreciate the upgrade in itself before upgrading the next piece.

I a m not sure arbitrarily upgrade is quite right. It tends to be a function of my finances… although very subconscious. I enjoy my system and I think my subconscious keeps track of my finances close enough to tell me when, if I really stretch, I can make a substantial upgrade… which as I am sure you know, for me is to as a minimum double my investment in each component. When I in upgrade mode, virtually every spare minute is reading, evaluating, dropping by audio shops in towns I am flying through… switching into critical listening mode for a lot of the time. 
 

So, when compete, I have a system that is better in no small measure in every respect from its predecessor. I will say I have gotten better and better (yes, partly due to overall improvement of high end audio) at upgrading and the difference has become larger and larger with each upgrade. The last upgrade was definitely the very largest sound quality wise I have ever made. While the investment level was by far the largest, I feel that the ten years of season tickets to the symphony had significantly changed my goals and contributed to the success of this last upgrade. 

@dean_palmer 

That is an interesting take you have! You should write a book hypothesizing on how no one will care to read it! For some reason...I find it appealing!

I suspect that many of the folks who routinely post here in this forum are loners. Not that they (we) are loners in life, but let's face it, no one cares about you as much as you should care about yourself. Self-esteem has a lot to do with this hobby and most folks don't realize that fact. You (we) are focused on either trying to get better sound, or are making attempts to help others get better sound..all with differing levels of prosperity and commitment. 

With that being said, we all need something - especially in these fraught and tumultuous times - to allow us to get away from fear, anger, mistrust, and varying emotional distress. Getting away to a listening position is a superb way to wallow in your own making - one that generally makes us all feel good about ourselves - so we have a lot in common with one another.

But as audiophiles, we live far and few between one another. Most of us do not have many supporting mechanisms in place with regards to this hobby. Yes, my wife sometimes applauds an upgrade or reacts positively to the music, but she has no idea of how intricately I deliberate over everything that has to do with what being an audiophile means. Although I will admit that her talk of me going "down the rabbit hole" when I started placing sound dampeners and deflectors on our basement walls did get my attention! (However, she did remark later at how good the dampeners sounded! lol). Ok, small victories serve us listening loners well..

I grapple with this hobby daily and all audiophiles find positive reinforcement from it, even if it means you did something wrong and perhaps, "failed". Those whom I subject to sound don't give a rats *** about sensitivity levels, gain, or detail. I catch myself when I talk tech to others whose face grows longer the more I speak..why bother? So, you are correct in stating that, "Once you realize nobody cares about what you bought, you'll be in a better place."  

I believe (I will write the prologue for your book!) that what you are inferring is intellectual humility. We all should view the world with the understanding that we know nothing and need to learn everything. That would serve many audiophiles well. Audiophiles should get over their need to post about something they refute as it is counterproductive to learning. I mean, if you can't hear a cable then how have you assessed or aggregated an opine on it? 

We are likely incredibly different people - judging from the large swaths of deleted posts! - beyond the scope of sound but we all share the same pride at what each, and others, have created. That is an important feeling of achievement that audiophiles chase after. The "good enough" abstract brought by the OP is generally always a couple of steps away from perfection.

Enjoy the journey! 

.......when mahgister who does a great service here ; stops repeating the same answer to these threads over and over and over and over again. Happy Holidays everyone !

You are right for half of my posts... I confess...😁😊

An alzheimer begin😁ning at retirement ?

But i repeated with variations for beginners and anyway you can neglect my post if they are not interesting...

I hope the other half of my posts are interesting though ...In music recommendation and philosophical and acoustical reflexions...

I will take your advice in consideration though because you are not wrong ... 🤐

I wish you the best for your family and yourself...

Happy christmas.... 🎄

.......when mahgister who does a great service here ; stops repeating the same answer to these threads over and over and over and over again. Happy Holidays everyone !    

I really got into "stereo" when I was just a kid, maybe only 11 or 12. I could not afford anything and my parents just weren’t into it, and frankly would never have spent the kind of money it cost to buy the kinds of things I was fascinated with even if they did care. So I spent a lot of time just looking and listening when the guys in the hifi, appliance, and TV shops were willing to tolerate my presence. When I was maybe 14 I had managed to save enough to buy a couple of car stereo speakers which I put into some plywood cabinets. They were like a magic portal to "high fidelity" to me and I loved them, but I would have gladly dropped over a thousand dollars on a "high end" Sansui receiver with all of the knobs and meters and gloriously romantic backlighting.

Over the next few years I was able to get some lower end consumer grade, mass produced equipment from Radio Shack (don’t laugh. it still works!), appliance stores, classified ads, and even a branch of Hi Fi Buys which was a chain of boutique stereo shops. By the time I was 19 I had figured out that pretty much everything I bought sounded different, almost always both better and worse at the same time than what it was replacing, and was always extra fun to play with for at least a little while, but eventually just became familiar and enjoyable, or tolerable at least. Virtually nothing stayed exciting for more than a month or two. When I realized that a lot of what I was chasing was novelty and not really "perfect sound," I reexamined my priorities. I knew I’d grow to appreciate almost anything that I used enough and that nothing was ever going to be perfect, at least not for all of the wide musical styles I enjoy, and most certainly not anything in my price range. The one thing I did know was that nothing was more heartbreaking than having a beloved or system critical piece of gear fail. So I shifted my attention to build quality, durability, repairability, and ease of use.

Once I stopped chasing perfection in sound it became very clear to me that perfect reliability is also not possible, but it is a lot more tangible and easy to put a value on. So it became a lot easier for me to decide whether or not I want to spend $X on something based on how well I believed it would work (in terms of functionality) and how long I thought it will last before it needed to be replaced or repaired.

To no one’s surprise, I ended up buying McIntosh solid state amp, preamp, and radio tuner. They are from a brief period when McIntosh made an amp without the autoformer circuit, but it’s really great and I’m completely satisfied with it. The preamp has needed some pot cleaning, but it’s very nice too. I also bought a Technics SL1200 series turntable. Is it the best sounding ever? Not in my opinion. But it’s built like a tank and I love the fact that I have no doubt that it will work longer than I do. It sounds better than many many things with certain records and certain cartridges, and worse than others. But I don’t think there’s one turntable that is better at everything, especially not the ability to sound very good AND allow rapid replacement of the cartridge AND the phono cables.

Does this mean I spend all of my time just listening to music and not looking at gear anymore? Heck no! I’m HERE after all! Would I love to replace (or add to if we’re being honest) my McIntosh system with a setup from Nagra (with JBL Synthesis series speakers if you are curious)? Oh heck yes! But there are probably 20 other things I’d spend that much money on before I’d spend it on a "stereo" to replace the "virtually perfect" one I already have.

I think good enough comes from identifying priorities, probably mostly financial ones for most people, and certainly for me. Perfection on the other hand, that is something I long ago learned I will not find broadly. The best I think I can ever do is to find something that perfectly suits a very specific goal with narrowly defined parameters. It’s a thing of beauty when you find it, but I never expect it to apply beyond some fairly specific limits, one of the most important of which is usually just price.

@ghdprentice

I’m just curious. When you arbitrarily upgrade your system every 7 years, do you hear a significant improvement each time?

It's been good enough for 40 + years. That is not the question. The question is when will you stop trying to make it better? Since the room won't change, I'm pretty much just making my records better by getting better pressings/remasters. Replacing styli or the cartridge is all I worry about now after treating for vibrations.

scottwheel

Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting.

If you’re actually disgusted by what you read on this forum, you must have a huge emotional investment in these matters. Or perhaps you use the term "disgusting" as an argumentative tool.

If you’re sincere, you can alert the moderators by flagging the post, because I’m pretty sure that "disgusting" content isn’t permitted here.

He makes an excellent living as the head of the advanced propulsion department of Princeton University. BACCH is home s passion project. Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting.

- I was having a conversation with another decent guy on this thread, not you (because i think this whole forum understands by now... what kind of vile/disgusting most of your comments are)

- But, keeping it real, we all know what measly sum a university professor with his PhD and the Ackers distinguished or whatever makes in this country. We would also know how much his PhD students got paid for all the hard work. You wouldn’t know, would you now, DeVry? You could paint houses 3 days a week and beat that paygrade real easy (keepin it real, livin the American dream, Merica!)

- But, if it is a passion charity project and Chouieri’s doing charity, that would be a tad false, lol. Bacch’s pricing structure is pretty obvious. He wouldn’t have partnered with MSB (vultures) as a charity event now, would he? I am happy for the good professor and his PhD students making some cash because its always the dumass (keepin it real) making money in this country. It’s a good change that the good professor is making some money instead..

Go get yourself a MSB reference now Scotty, keep it real.

Thanks scottwheel for saying what i know because i read and understood what Choueiri was speaking about ...

But i cannot say it the way you describe it because i never hear it and never own the BACCH system ...

Anybody with minimal acoustic knowledge know it if he read about it seriously ... It is the reason why i advocated for this "revolution" and not a gadget and why i ask to you to spoke about it to people here who confuse it with a toy for movie effect ...

In truth it is a revolution who rival the transition from mono to stereo ...

“I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...”

You won’t say it but I will, the BACCH SP offers a near perfect rendering of spatial cues. The limiting factor is the source material. It’s easy to demonstrate. You can literally record a voice or musical instrument anywhere in the listening space with the BACCH in ear microphones -and compare the spatial accuracy that recording to the original source in it’s actual position anywhere in the room. The positioning is the n distinguishable if the system and room are good enough. What more could anyone ask than near perfect spatial reproduction

“I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...”

You won’t say it but I will, the BACCH SP offers a near perfect rendering of spatial cues. The limiting factor is the source material. It’s easy to demonstrate. You can literally record a voice or musical instrument anywhere in the listening space with the BACCH in ear microphones -and compare the spatial accuracy that recording to the original source in it’s actual position anywhere in the room. The positioning is the n distinguishable if the system and room are good enough. What more could anyone ask than near perfect spatial reproduction? 

“You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.”

I know for a fact that he considers multichannel to be as it is to be wrought with problems and plainly inferior. If there are going to be any arguments based on what Edgar believes let’s keep it real. I know this fact because I was standing right next to him when he said it. If you doubt me you can easily ask him for yourself through the Theoretica website. 

“He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).”

He makes an excellent living as the head of the advanced propulsion department of Princeton University. BACCH is home s passion project. Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting. 

mesch, good answer! 

@mahgister , it is a gross misunderstanding if you think object based audio degrades timbre?!

I never said that multichannels degrade timbre more than stereo....I said that the road taken by Choueiri was taken by others before him playing with this crosstalk problem , but he succeed the first with a mathematical solution not degrading timbre ...

All stereo problems are solved by multichannels or BACCH filters in their own way... As i said above answering you , i will not enter in the debate what is better ... I only wanted to respond to what appeared to me a slander with no argument about Choueiri the man ...

Never said Choueiri is a dummy or "downgraded" him... I am from the same engineering discipline as he is, or at least prior to his audio ventures. I have met him in conferences (long before Bacch, before anyone knew who he was). I have read some of his publications, am sure he has read some of mine. He has successfully navigated the patent boobytraps all over the place and brought something to market (commendable). I am not all that a fan of vulture grade MSB he has decided to partner with, however. If you fly down south to the USA, I can give all kinds comparisons to Bacch and whatever else. Theorycrafting (like you’ve done) can often be quite different from observation of its real life execution.

Defending Choueiri i perhaps misread your intention...I apologize if it is the case...

I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...

And comparing the BACCH filters with other solutions ask for dedicated optimal acoustic room to serve it not a living room or a home theater...

I did not theorized about what is better : multichannels done masterfuly or BACCH filters in a dedicated optimal acoustic room ... The two are too different beasts able to serve different goals ...

And because they are 2 different beasts, and because most people own already just two speakers HERE, i advocated for BACCH filters...

I did not do "theorycrafting" as you said ...And i dont need to listen to it to have an idea about what this will do even if the effect will change a lot between room and speakers choices or headphones and various recordings qualities choices even if my inner ears and HRTF measures are done ...Just doing simple mechanical imperfect experiment with crosstalk as i did is enough to have an idea about his importance ...

Anyway i apologize if i over exagerated some aspects of your post or interpreted them the wrong way...I am a passionnate dude and sometimes i reacted too much ...😊 To be precise i must write that often i reacted too much... 😊

And just a last precision, Choueiri is not an engineer but a physicist by formation ...

I will add that because you are very knowledgeable we are lucky that you participate in this forum... Then thank you for your patience with me ...

I wish you the best and a very merry christmas...🎄

@mahgister , it is a gross misunderstanding if you think object based audio degrades timbre?! The only requirement they impose is that the drivers, crossovers, etc are identical (identical speakers are required, same as it is for stereo!) and the same ethos for stereo gets extended w.r.t setup.

A true stereo purist may go for something like the Polk L800 speaker if he were to remain true to his purist orthodoxy, which does cross talk cancellation really well, when set up right...Pretty sure, Polk has a patent there and hence one would be stuck with the quality of drivers, etc Polk can produce (which ain’t all that great). Creative tinkered with it starting in the 90s for PC Audio. This is not some revelation.

Never said Choueiri is a dummy or "downgraded" him... I am from the same engineering discipline as he is, or at least prior to his audio ventures. I have met him in conferences (long before Bacch, before anyone knew who he was). I have read some of his publications, am sure he has read some of mine. He has successfully navigated the patent boobytraps all over the place and brought something to market (commendable). I am not all that a fan of vulture grade MSB he has decided to partner with, however. If you fly down south to the USA, I can give all kinds comparisons to Bacch and whatever else. Theorycrafting (like you’ve done) can often be quite different from observation of its real life execution.

You downgrade a real idea about the acoustic way to deliver all spatial qualities without timbre degradation , which is Choueri idea, to a not so real innovative idea and an old idea because you picked as choice multi-channels various dsp over his BACCH...

One solution to solve the stereo problems is multichannels and the other recreating binaural effects (Choueiri )

The first add many new speakers to compensate for the lost of spatial qualities and unrealistic timbre (phantom image) the others compute a new mathematical set of filters to do this overcoming stereo crosstalk and phantom image problem ...

I will not enter in the debate to know what is better , but i will only say that your tentative to discredit Choueiri genius with his solution to the lost of spatial qualities in stereo without degrading timbre in favor of  your biased choice , be it right or wrong , about multichannels to solve the same problems, your tentative is only at best uninformed subjective position and at worst a slander of a physicist in plasma laboratory as main work who dont need money anyway as most other greedy business man did need money ... Choueiri is a pure scientist not a vulgar businessman or an engineer dreaming about the money ...Choueiri being a physicist has made and make already a living without his side acoustic hobby because music was his passion and hobby ...

Then argue with ARGUMENTS in acoustics not with slandering arguments about business and people intention ...

To be able to recreate without degrading timbre the spatial qualities of a soundfield in simple stereo system is not a gadget, it is an acoustic revolution in the making for music lover who dont need nor dont want 5 or 7 speakers etc to listen to movie as i am ...( by the way Choueiri go on with improvement because it is all about mathematical acoustic not about a mere toy )

Creating a multichannels system ideal for movies is not the same problem than creating a system able to translate the necessary optimal 60 degree lateral reflected waves from an ideal recording hall with his shoe geometry for example through a simple stereo system in a dedicated acoustic room ...

@mahgister , You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.

He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).

@mahgister , You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.

He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).

jji666,  

Yes, I agree, it is a hobby.  And it can be a lot of fun as long as you don’t go down the rabbit hole of compulsively seeking better sound.

It’s a hobby.  If I’m done then what do I do with myself?  However, it’s not about more expensive stuff.  It’s just taking what I have and occasionally stirring the pot a little.  
 

Gear is just fun.  I’m just lucky that two separate passions…tinkering with gear and exploring music, happen to be adjacent!

To me an audio system becomes "good enough" once one has acquired the experience to determine what most pleases, and puts together a system that best delivers on that, at a budget that doesn't derail other important aspects of one's life.

No need for blind test (with youtube) except for statistical confirmation of this simple fact you can experience eyes opened easily in many case of unbalanced costlier system in a bad room ...😊

it is precisely a thread of this audiophiles pursuit of all the best amplifiers and speakers coupling of high end products that convince me many years ago here , that i must awake from my own system frustration and learn basic acoustics by playing fun in my room instead of passively being angry because i could not afford a 50,000 amplifier coupled to 70,000 speakers which by the way did not appear to me so astounding but mostly only more detailed ...

I did not like so much the sound timbre impression of this apparently "lucky" man playing with very costly products in a non dedicated acoustic room ( he added panels some days) then i decided to had fun my own way learning the basic with some Helmholtz discoveries among other things in my room ...This informed me really about sound in a concrete way ...I even modified my headphones and my speakers with small or greater success every time... ( you dont modify costlier products😊 if you dont like them, you sell them and "upgrade" as audiophiles says.)

Even if you cannot judge positively spatial qualities and immersiveness levels as such without being there, we can judge through some negative timbre impressions, some lacks in body and fluidity etc  with youtube in some case of well recorded video  and guess enough about the negatives aspects of timbre as we perceive them if our system is minimally relatively well balanced in his frequencies response already to begin with ...

Some youtube very costly system sound not very good and gives to me no urge at all to buy a costly system at a fortune cost only to hear more details in my face with a not so good natural timbre , probably others acoustic problems we can only guess if our system is balanced ...

Timbre is basic , spatial qualities comes after to be solved if we are already near to this balance threshold which imply the gear pieces synergy, vibrations/resonance problems under controls and clean electrical alimentation ... Immersiveness may result from balanced natural timbre and spatial qualities of sound well done through the recordings trade-off for sure but with a dedicated room or at least a well done acoustic treatment ... All that dont occur by luck or only by digital EQ...

The only absolutely necessary DSP is the BACCH filters once room acoustic is well done, because with it you have HRTF measured and inner ears measures and compensation filters for undesired crosstalk and stereo system negative effects ...

Here is a true story from the web. A guy has two systems, one cost a million dollars.(the speakers being the most expensive pieces).and the other is a modest system. Groups of people heard both and most everyone liked the sound of the modest system suggesting the million-dollar system was more analytical, and not as musical.

Here is a true story from the web. A guy has two systems, one cost a million dollars.(the speakers being the most expensive pieces).and the other is a modest system. Groups of people heard both and most everyone liked the sound of the modest system suggesting the million-dollar system was more  analytical, and not  as musical.

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. 

If you want to spend your time listening and in fact actually do then it’s good enough. 

its "good enough" when I can simply sit, listen to music, and enjoy it.  

When I was in the gear-hunt phase, over a few decades and more, I think my objective then was more about trying and comparing different components. And I realize today - this phase was less involved in listening to music, and more more about new learning around how different level of qualities of gear can sound. 

Kinda depends on what headspace you are in at the moment too. Eventually got burned out and learned to enjoy more than a few components that sound "good enough".  After this point, any new change just became "different" and not necessarily better. Had to kinda stop there.  Back to listening to music now :)  

Your post is so true... I concur totally...😁😊

Dumb people value price tags over knowledge ... Well said...

I did not distinguish now between system on the basis of price tags because i experimented heavily with acoustics for one year full time ...( i am retired for sure) ...

I distinguish for very lost cost well embedded system ( optimal balance between all acoustic perceived factors at play) minimal acoustical balance and satisfaction threshold, and for very high cost system the maximal acoustical balance and satisfaction threshold... But minimal as maximal threshold are, the two of them, so different they can be, they are  satisfying in their own way ...

Nevermind the price , acoustic , electrical and mechanical working controls and synergy between pieces matter the most ...

My own 1000 bucks well embedded system made me smile at " better one" certainly at astronomical higher price but at the condition that they are well embedded to begin with ...

Acoustics principles rules the gear not the reverse...

I wish you a merry christmas for you and your familiy ...🎄

Last year, I audited a dude’s 600k-ish priced rig. He was playing some of the typical, "safe" crappy audiophile tracks to show off his rig, as one might expect. The minute my playlist intervened, his rig started to sink and reveal that it was lierally another lousy rig filled with audio jewelry fluff (looks good, of course). I have a few different rigs at different price tags but, even one of my rigs that cost 20 times less beats it sonically.

So, if you audit different cost no object or very competently setup rigs and realize that a) your rig can keep up or b) give other rigs the beatdown, you know it is "good enough". On the same note....only knowledge (and some cash, of course) can save you from being robbed constantly, set you free.

If you don’t have a endless wallet, only buy gear made by very very smart dudes. Never buy gear from dumb dudes. Only smart dude can give you things even at affordable prices that a dumb dude can never achieve at endless cost.

Last year, I audited a dude’s 600k-ish priced rig. He was playing some of the typical, "safe" crappy audiophile tracks to show off his rig, as one might expect. The minute my playlist intervened, his rig started to sink and reveal that it was lierally another lousy rig filled with audio jewelry fluff (looks good, of course). I have a few different rigs at different price tags but, even one of my rigs that cost 20 times less beats it sonically.

So, if you audit different cost no object or very competently setup rigs and realize that a) your rig can keep up or b) give other rigs the beatdown, you know it is "good enough". On the same note....only knowledge (and some cash, of course) can save you from being robbed constantly, set you free.

If you don’t have a endless wallet, only buy gear made by very very smart dudes. Never buy gear made by dumb dudes. Only smart dude can give you things even at affordable prices that a dumb dude can never achieve at endless cost.

@jrwaudio Lol 😝 

p05129,

You have a point.  It is a function of personality.

For sure in a general way of speaking you are right ...

The problem with this analogy though is that an audio system is not a car or a watch ...It is not ready to go working  right out of the box...

The audio system exist  and work optimally or not at all in an acoustic environment , nevermind the high quality of his design and very high price ...

If you control the acoustic relation of the system and the room you will reach a very interesting level of acoustic experience and satisfaction ... if not it will be mediocre compared to the real potential of the gear you just bought ...

Suppose the system is a car F1, without a specialized road( room acoustics) you will never be able to drive the F1 to his real potential in a non paved road or even on an usually bumping ordinary road...

Acoustic matter at least as much as the gear design ,and because we are not billionnaire, acoustic knowledge matter more than the gear especially for low cost gear, because it is preposterous to buy a 100,000 bucks speakers for a living room , a non dedicated room ... ...

But no designer of dac , or amplifier or speakers will dare to spoke this truth because they want to sell at all cost ...

Suppose you just bought 20,000 bucks for speakers or dac or amplifier and ask the seller if these piece of gear will work optimally in your living room right out of the box , guess what the sellers will tell you ? Yes for sure ...😊

Do you think he will said to you the truth about dedicated acoustic room andmechanical vibrations control and resonance and the necessary control of the noise floor level of the electrical grid of the house/room/gear ?

Any dude who need to sell a F1 will conveniently forget to say to a teen with money that no normal road are adapted to this car and it will be unpractical to use it on average road ...

It is the same with any very costly piece of gear ...We must learn basic acoustics...

«You are an idiot but it is not my business»-- Groucho Marx seller 🤓

Same can be said about audio. You can buy a cheap system and think it’s the best thing out there. But we all know that spending more money (it can be a few thousand to tens of thousands) on the finer things in life will get you something better than going cheap.

OP-can’t you ask this same question for most things in life? How about a house? Is $300k for a house good enough or is the $800k house better? How about cars/trucks? Do you like a cheap Sentra or want to move up the chain to a Porsche? Both will get you to work, but there is a definite difference in quality.

Same can be said about audio. You can buy a cheap system and think it’s the best thing out there. But we all know that spending more money (it can be a few thousand to tens of thousands) on the finer things in life will get you something better than going cheap.

When I say so.

@mahgister Thanks for the clarification. 

markalarsen

603 posts

12-14-2023 at 07:45pm 

Good enough is when you are emotionally involved with the music. 

^^^ This. @markalarsen I actually am looking to downgrade. I'm sure there are speakers out there that costs half the price SabrinaX and still sound as good or even better. The hunt is on.

The misunderstanding about my point on the small number of steps in room acoustic control of the ears/speakers/room relation comes in your post because you conflate an idealized infinite asymptotic progression toward non existing perfection ( save in audiophile neurosis) with an OPTIMAL finite process in applied physical acoustics ...

And you cannot confuse the goal of theoretical acoustics with audiophile room acoustics application ... It is not because we dont understand hearing completely that we cannot design an optimal acceptable acoustic speakers/room for ourselves ...Save in neurosis obsession case ...

It is so true that actually it is very simple to have an OPTIMAL acoustic experience :

--First we pick the right speakers for our needs and room dimensions ...

--Second we optimize the speakers/room relation...

--Third we buy the BACCH filters of Dr. Choueiri ..

None of this three steps is an indefinite Sisyphean walk ...

And giving as an example the anecdote concerning people moving panels, rugs, and devices in a room without end in a search for perfection is as you know describing a mental disease at worst or at best ignorance of acoustic, then with no sane thinking relation with applied acoustics .. Save in a new Borges Novelette about someone obsessed in his small room with the infinitude of sound and the captivity of human in a small finite tonal jail and who deseperately trying to escape madness enter into madness by the act of fleeing and moving the reflecting and absorbing waves by displacing all the objects of his room without end ...Thinking about it , this pastiche of Borges could be interesting to write ...😊

«Sometimes the best way to escape madness is not fleeing madness but simply facing it without doing anything -- Anonymus mad asylum runaway patient 🤡

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

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.

“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.

Good enough for what? Good enough to end my curiosity about what else might be possible - never. Good enough to bring me a lot of listening pleasure in my den - I can pick up everything I need for under $1000 at BestBuy. Good enough that I’d rather have it than not have anything? A pair of headphones for under $20 and my phone.

Curiosity is mostly what keeps me going. I haven’t found a lot of satisfaction in just upping the quality to stratospheric levels on various components. I’ve found more from trying unorthodox listening arrangements and speaker configurations. This kind of experimenting can get expensive, and the creations that don’t work well can’t be taken back, and don’t have much used market value. I consider myself lucky if I can give the stuff away. Fortunately I’ve found that is always the case, so nothing so far has been so bad as to end up at the dump - except for components that I've inadvertently damaged beyond repair.

Many human species are spoiled by civilization and have buried the natural sense of enough. Even successful bank robbers get busted, because they don't turn on that quality sense. 

Good enough is when the last expensive upgrade didn't produce any noticeable improvements.    (Until the next toy comes along)

For me, "good enough" is when a system covers at least most of the full frequency range, with realistic soundstaging, imaging, dynamics and transparency and no obvious sonic flaws.  When I close my eyes it captures 90% or more of the live-music experience.

At a certain point the quality of the recordings that we enjoy is more of a limitation than our gear or maybe even our listening rooms.  I think a lot of pro recording gear, especially in times past, isn't of as high quality as audiophile gear.

I consider my current system good enough.  It's mainly reading forums like this one that even makes me consider upgrading. 

I have stopped thinking of things as good and bad.  I just try to enjoy.   All the speakers are good.  All the amps sound good.  Just different flavors of good.    Now it is just trying different things and enjoying the sound of a different amp or looking for details in the music, or finding new tracks.