Law of Accelerated Returns

I perfectly understand you and i concur with your opinion...

I just say that upgrade process cannot replace acoustic improvement...

We are not all in the same life condition...

Then there isno unique raod for all, we must make our own...

my deepest respect to you....

Yes there is a synergy or his lack of synergy between gear and UNCONTROLLED normal room...

But we can recreated the room and midify it to correlate to our specific audio system..

This modification of a room by mechanical controlling method inspired by Helmholtz iswhatintereste me and what i spoke about..

Then acoustic method can be used to make any room to be synergetically optimal for any gear...

Then you can buy anything which is "relatively good" and before upgrading it you must work on the room to makeit working at his peak level quality wise...

Upgrading before that is waste of money and ignorance of what you try to evaluate because you try to evaluate his quality in an uncontrolled room...

Yes!  And along with synergy between room and gear, there is synergy between components. For these reasons, I never buy anything I cannot try out in my room and return, if necessary. 

Interesting experience indeed that reflected a fact which can be verified here in Audiogon...

The ignorance of acoustic and psycho-acoustic science is proportionate to the perveived attention FOCUSING on the gear "tasted" sound...

People in acoustic experiment focus instead  on timbre perception and music perception  to create the best audiophile environment in their house/room/system...

Ignorance of acoustic is the common link among the subjectivist and objectivist complete underestimation of the power of acoustic control to deliver and TRANSLATE the recorded initial acoustic event in another acoustic event in your room  ...

We listen to the seaker/room relation not to an amplifier ALONE....Or to a dac alone....

It is the reason why i dont feel i am a "normal" or the regular audiophile....

I dont mind about the gear after i chose a very good one to begin with... The audiophile work begin AFTER the gear is chosen... Upgrading is a deception BEFORE you can control the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings  working dimensions of the system...

I actually haven’t heard many systems. I attended a couple meetings of a local audiophile society and felt very out of place, as the emphasis was very much on gear. No-one wanted to talk about music.

 

😁😊

First: i always insisted here on embeddings control method, mechanically, electrically and acoustically for any system at ANY PRICE...

Second: mocking me friendly is welcome you are very polite and i appreciate your post... but I never pretend that my 500 bucks system could compete with costly one on an engineeriung point of view....I am not totally stupid... 😁😊

Third : yes embeddings controls especially acoustic make miracles for any system at any price mine included...BUT CANNOT TRANSFORM A LOW COST OR BAD PIECE OF GEAR IN A BETTER ONE COMPETING WITH HIGH END DESIGN.... i wrote it with big character to be understood...

So great it is NOW i am satisfied by my modest system in his optimal controlled environment and dont dream about a better one... WHY ?

Is it because i boast about my system? Not at all it is because my ratio Sound quality/price is over the roof...I know that to upgrade really my system it will cost me around 15,000 bucks... I dont want to go from 500 to 15,000, even if it will be better and it will be better because i know precisely what i could buy to do it... Because of all my embeddings optimized controls i know the LIMITS of my actual system...Most people upgrade WITHOUT knowing what their actual systemn can do at his peak or optimal working ....guess why?

But most people here at least half of them own system way better than mine.... Often unbeknownst to them they put them in a not so good controlled room acoustically...

This is the reason why i spoke about acoustic importance...

I discovered that myself by years of listening experiments not by plugging gear in the wall...

Is it clearer?

I am not Jedi i read about acoustic and Helmholtz and some other less known facts in audio thread...then read about Helmholtz resonators and diffusers...I will not spoke here about all others devices...The main important one are created after Helmholtz...Then instead of calling me a Jedi with magical power, call me a humble student of some acoustic science and psycho-acoustic one...

my deepest respect for you.... i like your humor....😊

Too bad @mahgister is the only one who knows how to make a $500 system sound better than most (all?) $100K systems with careful placement of a shag rug, pillows, and some tapestry 😭

This hobby would be so much easier if only this valuable knowledge had been taught in school! I have literally never needed to find the volume of a sphere via double integration, but I still remember that useless crap :(

mahgister - is this more of a sith power, or jedi?

first part is right...

The natural sound of an instrument is there nevermind the room...in any room an instrument have a dynamic, a timbre a color, RELATIVELY different and linked to the location of the listener and to the geometry, topology and acoustical content of the room.......

While acoustics are important, a real instrument no matter what acoustic environment it is played in, is easily identifiable as a real instrument.

But sorry, the second part is meaningless... it is acoustic properties of the system/ room that give to the sound, dynamic more or less, and timbre more or less and all other acoustical experience factors...This is science and called psycho-acoustic science and physical acoustic science...

it is the reason why it matter the most to adapt the system and the room acoustically... A guitar will not sound the same in a bad or in a good room...Same thing is true for an audio system and way more huge...An audio system will tremendously change his character  in a room which is optimally controlled acoustically and in a bad room .... It is EVIDENT fact...

Acoustics can’t create dynamics, timbre, leading edge, inner detail, bandwidth or fidelity.

the last part of your post means nothing , it is a common place fact: a good musician can play on a bad piano and make it less worst so what?

i think you dont have a clue about acoustic and his relation to psycho-acoustic power sorry....You are not alone...

Most people think they listen to their dac or speakers or amplifier not knoweing how the room affect hugely what they hear...... 

The law of diminishing return in engineering is so evident!

In acoustic optimization  we exceed almost any gear upgrade, if we already start with relatively basic good design...

People really think that the sound come from the gear...

They dont have a clue about acoustic...

Price tag is more idolatry than bigger S.Q. ...Diminshing return enter the scene very rapidly...

It is the reseon why some one million bucks system may sound relatively annoying or even bad to some ears...

Acoustic and psycho-acoustic are the key...

Price tag is for consumers....

I am not one now thanks to acoustic...

The graph above is linear and is superficial...

Because it does not account for the many important factors at play...

I dont know why i cannot put my own graph here...

Anyway...

Great post thanks...

I will only add a correction: it is easy to control soundstage with acoustic and also imaging with a VERY LOW COST SYSTEM, like mine 500 bucks...

The only thing added by a costlier one will be dynamic and resolution mainly...

I listened to some high price system and they were like a tempesting dynamic under a microscope...

I prefer to relax with music than to see through a microscope...

My bass and dynamic are good anyway and i feel it with my chest sometimes and i dont need nor want more resolution...

Acoustic is the key of audio....Timbre naturalness of voices and instruments perception and control  is the key of acoustic not  resolution by itself nor dynamic save if they are seriously lacking for sure...

I have a pretty reasonable system and I have in-depth familiarity with a variety of systems that are more expensive than mine. The two biggest differences I’ve encountered relate to system setup and the room. On the basis of my listening, a very expensive system, properly set up in a very good room, can better my own system by quite a substantial margin. The particular differences are resolution, scale, soundstaging and dynamics. If I had carte blanche (which unfortunately I don’t as it would mean moving house, I would change my room before I’d change any other component in my system.

And when someone point to a better understanding of the law of diminishing return and this illusory " accelerating return perspective" , calling the acoustic method the only optimizing KEY road to enjoy the gear you have or toward which you want to upgrade what did you call him?

Acoustic optimization of speakers/room are more than an "obsevation" is experimental science in your room...

I dont "mix fact and opinion here" ask any acoustician: i correlate fact and measures to subjective perceptive experience in a systematic way...

and like mapman i have found my personal equilibrium but at the end of a time consuming process of listening experiments at NO COST though...

Yes "tolerance goes a long way " toward people themselves not toward consumers brand obsession, or upgrading consumerism coupled to acoustic ignorance...

Am i nut ?

Perhaps.... Anyway acoustic is not preposterous at all...

And remember that in a dedicated small room, acoustic treatment and control may cost NOTHING at all, but it will not be esthetical, at least not for a very poor craftsman like me.... 😁😊

Because i am the only one who say that INPORTANT FACT i repeat myself here to the benefit of newcomers who will read everywhere the illusive consumerism appeal to upgrade the gear EVEN BEFORE knowing his working potential in their room....Or to stoically stay with their frustration and unsatidfaction IF they dont had the money to upgrade...

With acoustic no one need to upgrade if his gear is already only good....We need to LEARN how to listen though to learn acoustic and create our own sonic heaven.... Peanuts cost is possible but not in a living room sorry...

This is an interesting discussion, mainly because it so well illustrates the essence of Audiogon as a forum. We have:

• Someone stating an observation @ghdprentice
• Many contributors adding valid points to the discussion @tablejockey @onhwy61 @mulveling
• Others who mix fact and opinions in a way that does not add to the discussion @mijostyn ("An Apple watch is more accurate [...] You can see Rolex watch wearers a mile away. Their left arm is two inches longer."). To me, as a watch collector, that attitude is akin to saying "cables make no difference". Try wearing a Rolex or swapping cables before making a generalisation.
• Then there are those that have found their personal equilibrium @mapman (and myself) and have realised that there will always be someone with a faster car, a bigger house, a more expensive (not necessarily "better") hifi system/watch/boat/airplane/etc. What is best for me will not be best for you. You may not like the way my system sounds but that’s not what’s important. What is important is that it sounds good to me, within my spatial, financial, and "sound taste" constraints. @emailists is on the right track: let’s experiment and see whether we can actually get some significant improvements into our audio systems without breaking the bank.
• @jerryg123 nails it: tolerance goes a long way. "Enjoy what you have and envy is not worn well. [...] it is about the music." Yes, we have posers everywhere - on the race track, at work, even on forums... so be it. They just haven’t found their equilibrium yet.

To bring this discussion full circle: let’s not forget that the audiophile media and journalists make their living from advertising. Of course they will tout the latest and greatest "innovation". My ears tell me that the progress made with SOTA high end systems over the past 30 years is not insignificant. However, the cost associated with that progress takes me to a point on the curve of Accelerated/Diminishing Returns where I look at the $s and just ask, "Seriously?"

Yes, they produced a realistic scale soundstage of an orchestra as if I was sitting 10 rows back, but they also were able to produce an intimate singer/guitarist performance as if I was I was sitting in the original room with the performer. I could even tell they when they were standing, or sitting on a stool.

I listen to this with a 500 bucks system in my acoustically controlled room..

Then...

Is costlier gear better? It is common place fact to say yes...

But acoustic for example matter more than any brand named choice especially if the basic gear is already well chosen...

Simple scientific and experimental fact....

In acoustic there is an "optimal" possible return for ANY gear choice which is over anything else or over most possible upgrade..."accelerating" return is like diminishing return a very fast end process related to engineering quality /price ratio... Optimization process are slower and deeper process with no link to any marketing conditioning...

Optimization ask more for TIME consumung listening experiments than money consuming upgreading spree...

You cannot replace acoustic improvement with a change of brand in gear, but you can upgrade any gear without changing it when you adapt the room to it....