Law of Accelerated Returns

There have been several times in my audio journey when I listened to a system that was beyond my ability to fully process it.  Over time and with experience, our brain fine tunes itself to discern the differences in fidelity.  

The differences I hear in my system to a non audiophile might be difficult for them to hear.  When I point things out, sometimes they can hear it, sometimes not.

So perhaps the law of diminishing returns also plays into not yet having the developed palate to hear the full differences.

I think what he's saying is that the sonic differences are subtle.

To the average person on the street spending $5,000 dollars on a stereo is quite extravagant.  To spend 10x or even 100x that amount is nearly incomprehensible.  I will never say that you can't get better sound by spending more money, nor do I begrudge anybody so inclined.  I just think the concept of accelerated returns in audio reproduction is false.  I find it interesting that nobody has offered actual examples of it happening.

@mijostyn

To your point, I have heard only one setup EVER that did the 3-d soundstage to the extent you describe...and I have heard 100’s over the years I would estimate.

As I have alluded to on occasion in past threads here, that was a demo of an all mbl system with mbl 111a speakers set up at then United Home Audio in Annapolis Junction, MD, in a showroom optimally constructed for the purpose unlike anyone is likely to have at home, probably over 10 years ago.

Same system at shows, less optimally setup...back with the pack.

So I have seen what it takes and factor that into what I do at home to the extent needed for me to be happy in lieu of setting up a custom room like that and going full omni. Something I greatly appreciated but do not need to get my endless hours of enjoyment from my music at home. THis ain’t the Olympics and I have no preconception about being the best in the world. Too much trouble! But never should be too much trouble to at least learn from the best and apply what you learn as you may. :^)

My system(s): Sound Chaser | Virtual Listening Room (audiogon.com)

I have heard only one setup EVER that did the 3-d sound stage

Same here it was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and I have given up on trying replicate that sound years ago. I can not replicate Orchestra Hall in Chicago at my home in the burbs. I have tried and my gear and room have their moments. 

@onhwy61 I just think the concept of accelerated returns in audio reproduction is false. I find it interesting that nobody has offered actual examples of it happening.

Your thoughts are 100% correct.

So, that nobody has (or can, or ever will) offered actual examples of accelerated marginal returns is irrelevant. 

However - should there be honest examples provided they would be similar to what is sometimes loosely known as a Black Swan event

@jerryg123

Well I should qualify that the mbl demo I heard was a full scale symphony orchestra recording and you could locate the players exactly in a 3-D area about 24-30’ wide at the immediate front of the listener I would estimate and similar depth as I recall however the sides were tapered to maybe only 5’ or so at the rear, so NOT parallel and highly treated with curtains and whatever was used behind those. So sit in row 1 at the symphony and shrink the size of the stage down to that size and that’s what you had, with all the players locations easily triangulated by the ears within that space. It was awesome but still obviously a scaled down version of a live symphony in terms of physical dimensions though SPL levels were comparable.

I will say though, that with a good symphony recording, if I close my eyes at home, I can convince myself what I hear is similar to what I would hear at The Meyerhoff Symphony Hall in Baltimore or Carnegie Hall (in NY), maybe a third to two-thirds of the way back in most cases, depending. Those are the two quality venues of that scale that I am most familiar with. Achieving that was one of my goals and that makes me very happy and content! If I sit close enough with the Ohm wide-dispersion pseudo omnis, maybe front row if the recording permits.

Also worth mentioning that the guy who designs the Ohm Walsh speakers that I fancy, John Strohbeen, is also a classical musician who frequents Carnegie Hall and says he uses what he hears there to "voice" his speakers. Done very well I would say! Ohms are the poor man’s mbls. They were designed to work well fairly close to walls in most any room most people might actually have though YMMSV.

I need to give the Ohm Walsh’s a whirl in my room. I think they are fascinating 🧐 

Fascinating is an apt description. Different from most for sure...  Been around in various forms now for over 50 years.

My advice to those who continuously spend lots of time and money with fuses and tweaks and the like always looking for something better or different, that money would be better spent invested in acquiring and properly setting up a good pair of wide dispersion/omni speakers. Then you truly have something new and different to compare.

 Priorities must be set. For me the time I spent, not so much the money, was the downside in developing a high end audio experience. Assembling synergistic components in a sound friendly environment is a major commitment which takes many of us many years to accomplish. What I find sad is the I time lost after this had been accomplished listening to  my 'audio system' that I could have more profitability used  simply learning about and enjoying the music it could produce. That excellent system's sound became a major distraction because of the inclination to think that I could improve its audio aspects. I kept listening to the 'audio', music was important but truly not so much. My solution, and it seems to have worked, was to  purposely dumb down my system down a tad. Now there is no doubt that I could  improve, or at least change, it but I'm confident that what I hear tells me all about the music that I need to know. And I hear it and can ignore the call of the wild!

Sometimes when I hear super expensive systems I don’t enjoy them as much as less costly ones.  Other times they blow me away. But it’s interesting how some systems move me while not costing more than a new car.  

I think the law of accelerating returns applies to those who have developed an appreciation for the difficulty in making progressively smaller improvements, so they notice those small improvements and realize the achievement they signify. Their senses are tuned in. They really care about the subtleties and get great satisfaction from them, so much so that they perceive them as not subtle at all. I fear sometimes they perceive them even when they aren’t real, or are confused by some other facet being out of adjustment. Just the notion that something is better can create a changed perception for those who are hyper tuned. Such tastes can be a curse or a blessing. I speak from my own experience.

Sure, SOME of it can be due to an increased appreciation of subtleties, cultivated over time in this hobby. But also, we each have completely custom systems with complex electrical, acoustical, and mechanical interactions. This makes for LOTS of potential performance bottlenecks. If you upgrade poorly, you will not properly address these bottlenecks, and you may exclaim "diminishing marginal returns!". If you do this for a while and then finally address the most significant issue, you may have a revelatory experience and exclaim "ACCELERATED returns!". There’s truth to both sides. But like I said before, I feel the hand of "diminished returns" is overplayed online - so what are we supposed to do, give up and try to force enjoyment of diminished system performance? That's too lazy and passive for how I prefer to approach this hobby. 

The "diminishing marginal utility" law is Economics 101, where everything is grossly oversimplified so that it can work nicely with infantile mathematical models. The real world is much more nuanced and complex than that.

If you have something like this at home you can  get that 3d sound. What passes for "high end" here not so much. 

https://www.genelec.com/-/reference/jeff-balding-converts-his-nashville-studio-to-dolby-atmos-with-genelec

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....

@asctim Yes, what you say has a lot of merit..

Normally, marginal, or incremental, return is easiest to understand if only one thing is changed at a time. Even that can be tricky with audio.

Should something else be changed as well, like knowledge or appreciation through learning, this complicates but does not invalidate the principle. This is why the words "äll other things being equal" are often used.

Actually (and I digress), the more you learn and discern about what matters, you may find yourself spending less than you otherwise would have on that next bit of kit.

The landscape has changed and any meaningful comparison with the previous change becomes problematic.

I suspect that may be the opposite intent of Mr Harley’s editorial.

I hope I’ve understood you correctly.

{edit - having taken my time tapping that out I now see others have contributed in a meaningful manner so anyway...} 2nd edit - to be abundantly clear, I am talking about marginal or incremental changes in sound quality or spending, like little bite size portions - I speak not of levels of, or total, enjoyment or expenditure. They are increasing, even when marginal may be decreasing.

@mulveling

I agree that if I’m not aware of the weakest link in my system I may have more room to make improvements that are more significant than I otherwise might think, especially if I have tried improving parts that were already relatively strong, leading me to believe I’ve reached the point of diminishing returns. Art Noxon talks about this, suggesting room acoustics are often a weak link:

https://www.acousticsciences.com/asc-articles/the-chain-is-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link/?mc_cid=c10763f7ab&mc_eid=c304374cee

@noske You make good points about deciding what matters, and then having what matters change to you over time as your experience evolves. I think you have understood me and expanded on it. I’ve had exposure recently to a co-worker’s speakers he built being played through a new, very highly measuring Topping amp, and an old Hafler amp. The new amp really sounded dry and tight, and not that interesting. Better though if it went through a pre-amp. The Hafler sounded much more interesting and vivid, but I suspected it might get tiresome. We both agreed on the sound difference. Both of us didn’t expect it. The perception of instruments taking up spaces in the air was happening on the Hafler. Fascinating, scintillating. I loved it. I’ve never heard anything real do that. Or have I? Am I just not used to hearing something realistic when I can’t see it actually there? It’s really hard to tell. I’d have to live with it for a while to understand it better. In short, I’m convinced there are possibilities with sound reproduction that I have not yet fully explored. I know that I can get a lot of enjoyment out of fairly basic equipment that measure well in a room with good acoustics. Interestingly these speakers when we played them were not in any kind of an optimal listening room at all, at least not by standard practices. They were just plopped on a desk and crammed pretty close to the sidewalls in a nook in the office. Still they were doing something very interesting with that Hafler amp. 

@jbhiller , as you noticed, after a point price has little to do with it. Regardless of price the majority of systems are never going to perform at SOTA levels in the rooms they are in without analysis, room treatment and digital correction. Now I'm in for it. 

@mapman , That omnidirectional thing died decades ago. Speakers with controlled directivity will out perform omni directional speakers in most rooms as they create fewer early reflections. The outlier is bass because it is virtually impossible to control directivity at low frequencies and the resultant nodal behavior can be difficult (impossible?) to ameliorate.  

Listening to The Arctic Monkey's At the Albert Hall. This is a FN GREAT record!

Jeez, when a dealer refuses to let you listen to a system unless you can buy it... there's just nothing honest about it. I can understand that he will not go to lengths to put the system up for you as the dealers priority is the potential buyer. He has the obligation to put the system together for the guy who wants to hear it before he takes it home. The casual listener's curiosity is only next in line. 

However, when someone wants to buy a top rig, then others should be allowed to listen. If not, avoid those f-tards and don't do any business for them. They will not give you good advice, their priority is to pocket your money, at any level you are.

I guess I'm lucky with my dealers in the area. (Honolulu). Stu (my mentor, RIP) had his small room with more affordable systems, and his big room with his top systems and everyone was always welcome to listen. We actually lived in his store... we spent hours (sometimes half days) every week listening to gear (and talking stories;.), and making lots of close, long lasting friendships in the store.

And there's Toms store, Audiolab. He makes regular audio club events to hear the top gear, and bring your CDs / Lps you want to hear. He had Dave Wilson come over and set up the top of the line Wilson speakers in person, and was present to ask questions - a very humble and approachable man (RIP).

Dealers should be honest and transparent, and audiophiles should be offered a perspective of the entire range from entry level to highest available. Whether one can afford at the moment is not of big concern, as in time a lot can change and even a top system might become the matter of a quick signature.... or the guy who bought the top system might be coming back next year for a dose of Schiit after loosing his job.... 

Of course, after a certain point we reach a high level, and once optimized, with changes there is relatively subtle differences unless you are willing to radically change your systems approach.

There is a big chasm after this level, and there's a level that's really far out: when you quit analyzing the sound and it becomes a next-level experience. It will hit you like a shock-wave, and people who go though it look as if they had a trauma, took drugs or something very stirring happened in their lives. It might take you months to be able to gather the strength to listen to your system after an experience like this. Maybe you will be broken or changed forever. For me, the fifth high end system I ever heard was this experience, and it pushed me to change from an ordinary person regarding audio as a hobby / interesting thing / buy what I can afford and that's it - to go into audio hard core, spend many thousand hours researching it, and build and design amplifiers and speakers that get me that experience I got from the system that required more dough than a Silver Spirit (the car...).

I ended up building my system that gave me experience with that level of depth, for about 1% or less than what the expensive system did cost. However, have I not heard it, I would never had such a high mark in front of me. You can only knock on a door if you know it exists....

Harley’s example is ridiculous! Going from $1000 to $2000 speaker is a 100% increase. Going from $100,000 to $101,000 is only a 1 % increase. Of course the difference / improvement should be much greater with the former. 
 

Everything has diminishing returns, audio equipment, cars, bicycles etc. You can get a pretty well performing Mid size Sedan like the top tier V-6 Honda Accord or  Toyota Camry for about $3500 & they get you maybe 80-85% of what a nice Mercedes’ or BMW sedan which costs twice that. That said, the Japanese cars will likely be much more reliable long term. High performance anything costs a lot 

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?"

Your Mileage (and Bank Balance) May Vary.

@torquerulesok , that is an excuse for not being an audiophile. It is not all about who has the largest member. It is about audio performance and nothing else. People like you are music lovers but not audiophiles. This is not meant to be a derogatory comment. Being so certainly makes for a more peaceful existence.   

Rolex watches are all about demonstrating your superiority. As a watch collector you know there are much nicer watches than Rolex, Patek Philippe, Blancpain and Jaquet Droz come to mind. Watches can be extraordinarily beautiful devices, Rolex's are not. ( that, of coarse is an opinion.)

Trying to tune your system with cables is at best a multiplication of errors and at worst a frightful waste of money.

It is all relative. To us regular folks a $250K amplifier is nuts but, to a billionaire it is chump change. To them buying a Parasound would be equivalent to a 911 fan buying a Toyota Corolla. Both get you from A to B and the Toyota is much more reliable. Rich people who want to be really cool buy a Prius. It use to be Volovo drivers that were always getting in your way. That role has been taken over by the Prius and Honda CRV. Why is it that these people are never in a hurry? 

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?"

@asctim And what I said about changing just one thing at a time in audio being tricky is indeed illustrated by your experience.

The two amps are quite different in many of their characteristics. I know Topping are very committed to being "transparent" - adding nothing to the source material. Like it sounded in the studio. This is actually something that most people probably haven’t experienced first hand.

Other amps (especially tube amps) add 2nd and 3rd harmonics, and I would say that the Hafler amp probably does too from your description. There is much more involved, but that is sufficient for now. There has been research into why the brain interprets these aspects as pleasing.

So, a bit like comparing a photo of something (perhaps one by Ansel Adams?) with a painting of the same subject.

What is important about all this in the context of the thread is that this comparison cannot be captured at all well by the concept of marginal return, because the technologies are rather different.

What must be compared are at least two recent releases by the same manufacturer, just at different price points. One may cost twice as much as the other one, and the sonic difference rather slight. If any. One that only a reviewer may be able to discern.  

But I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think that anything like that (demonstrating declining marginal return) is just giving some warped credibility to whatever it is that Mr Harley was on about, and I no longer want to do that - he made a claim so its his responsibility to prove it.

This is a dismissal of the nature that is known as Hitchen’s Razor.

...Black Swans and Blue Roses....*s*

@jerryg123, you might give an Ohm a whirl, if only to scratch that itch. ;)

As mapman and I are more than happy to proselytize, Ohms (and Walshs' in general) are as close to an MBL pair as one is going to achieve without selling the family to shady sources.....and the relatives for the equipment to drive them. ;)

They Definitely will 'discern' Differently.  Puttering with placement can stifle or shine, and the latter moves the room 'elsewhere'.... *S*

They're good about returns, evidently.  Never needed to.

...and, at least with mine, no L or R notations on them....😏

Can't return them to myself, but I'm my own warranty and working on making that unnecessary to try....*L*

("Step away from the boxes, and walk away....")

Intermission Interlude Emission:

I am very intrigued @asvjerry and might give them a test drive in one of my smaller systems. I do respect your opinion and that of @mapman.

@asvjerry and @mapman just ordered a pair of the shorts.

@jerryg123 nice!

Have not heard the shorts but I like the price and specs listed and all the Walsh speakers basically sound the same.   Just a matter of how big a room and how much bass needed.   
 

Did you get a delivery time estimate?  I read Ohm was  pretty backlogged according to the site recently. 

!

(Hey, @mapman! This makes the 2nd time I said pull a trigger on an Ohm pair, and they Did! *blown into dust bunnies*L*)

(NO, I am not a rep. Far from it... I DIY more to the patent and the original Walsh omni’s...

US patent/US3424873...go look. Ohm is #1, I’m #6....)

Not trying outdo Dale @ HHR, who told me my alum was too thick...("I know....working on that...") (2mil alum and titanium...👌....now....)

He’s full-range like the originals, whereas I’m off on a tangent...as usual...*G*

They’ll appreciate a sub that’s small....mine do, in a small (8’ h. x d. x 18’ w.) ’office’ space, vaguely centered on the 18’....playing now, as I tap this out...*S*

( I've a Sony sub, likely a 6"...enough...*s*)

"We" hope and trust you’ll be charmed if not converted. ;) *LOL*

A fav of mine on mine....long time fan of the AON... this has some nice ’air’ about it, and Anne Dudley on keyboards with the late great John Hurt as the narrator (...and Finally, a ’cleaner’ version as on Spotify....) ought to be a fun listen.

If that don’t loosen your wig, how about an attack by the Guitar Army? *snicker*

...both are a bit bass-friendly to the new kids in haus...
 

....but this is a good speed test, and fun to walk around while underway...

Air guitar needs room....*g*

Let us know how it rolls, J

(Disclaimer:  I suggest, but do not guarantee.... :)....)

...I use my Heil 'large' amt's to 'gauge' how 'quick' I can make a Walsh...and taking a different approach to the HF and a 'surround field'....

Y'all will know what when...;)

Accelerated Return (AR) and Diminished Return (DR) can be illustrated in a logistic graph as shown below.  When applied onto the stereo system, AR often occurs at lower priced system before the linear region where the increase in price yields approximately equally "perceived" performance such as SQ, while DR occurs after that linear region from the higher priced system.  Observiously, this utility curve varies from individual to individual, from rich to poor, and from audiophile to music listener, but in general follows a logistic-growth like pattern.  I personally went from the very bottom of the curve and now got lost / confused somewhere in the DR region.  However, I enjoy every minute / hour being lost in the quest of more refined system.

So we have a proposed performance curve which is very pretty and supports diminishing returns towards the higher end of gear, but what about the PERCEPTION curve? Asymptotes can work in either direction! Say that we have a threshold for "suspension of disbelief". If I was sitting at 99% of this threshold, and I upgrade for a 1% absolute improvement, now I’m suddenly enjoying music past the threshold where it "feels" real - i.e. the 1% difference is perceived as a VAST improvement. If breaching this threshold was the primary goal, then any amount short of it (no matter how small) represents failure, and not good value! Of course the threshold varies by record, day, and mood, etc. And this is all a vast over-simplification (as is our limitation for discussions here). Human perception makes everything messy lol.

Well, that performance / response curve is representation of average human behavior, like all theories.  Like I said, there are many human factors affecting the pattern of the curve.  In the other topics I posted that discussed the DR, I touch on the possibility of "measuring" (or "quantifying") the SQ and, if we could do so, it will help ruling out significant part of human perception disparity and provide us a more objective way for gear evaluation.  Part of the discussion pertains to creating metrics and standard procedure to measure SQ via the measurement of quantifiable psychoacoustic "entropy."  One aspect of theory you might be familiar with relates to analyzing certain types of musical harmonies, such as the even order harmonics give smooth, rich more pleasing sound and odd order harmonics give edgier more exciting sound.  Well, just my 2 cents.

@lanx0003 

Excellent… I like it. The question is, can you keep your own situation out of it. Or, are you unable to not imprint: “I can’t afford it, therefore it is not worth it.” I am able to appreciate, let’s say a million dollar system (using $ as a proxy for sound quality). At some point, I am sure I would say we were into the diminishing returns. But that level is probably quite high.

IMHE this is the hardest characteristic to reproduce. Energy created by the room and reflections blur out the third dimension. Channels that have different amplitude and impulse patterns also blur out the third dimension. These three problems compromise at least 90% of the systems out there. Some speaker/rooms will never be able to perform at this level. Others can but are not adjusted correctly. Only by luck can you get this out of the box and only the very misinformed are going to get there by placing little discs next the their interconnects. Do you have to spend a lot of money? Depends what you think a lot of money is. I think you can get there at a lower volume for maybe $50K. The full Monty takes at least $100K for a system with a turntable. Many are spending $250K just for speakers.

A lot of megabuck systems are crystal clear, cover the full frequency range, have cavernous soundstages with pinpoint imaging, but fail to do what some more modest systems can achieve in terms of PRAT. and musical expression.

My workshop system uses a 46DHT direct coupled parafeed amp using custom Magnequest iron - only two tubes in the signal path, into high efficiency full range drivers. I listen nearfield and do not get a huge soundstage, nor is the imaging what you would call pinpoint, neither does the frequency response approach full range. But the speed and articulation is mercurial, and all the musical inflections are laid out with great clarity. This enables me to get a great deal of satisfaction listening to music, rather than using music to listen to a system..

I can’t think of any valid examples of comparisons where marginal returns in audio gears is increasing.

The reason is that the fundamental technology must remain constant. This is mostly an engineering issue, and usually there are more features as you pay more and this is a similar issue. So, I should stop now. But just to illustrate -

A trite example, about as generic as I can think of - balanced connections added to a DAC. Topping, Gustard and others have this kind of range, and they cost more.

The balanced is supposed to be better than just RCA.

Let’s pretend that the percentage "betterness" is more than the percentage more than you paid, and Harley announces that he has discovered increasing marginal returns.

This isn’t correct. He’d be wrong. There are two different technologies on the table.

There are plenty of other examples.

Edit - there maybe obvious engineering thresholds. Below the threshold, blah!! Just add one more tiny component, and it goes from blah to actually OK, a hundred times better. This is hardly relevant to what Harley is talking about - high-end, or at least pretty good stuff to start with.

.

Just curious, but when people say they have a $25,000.00 system or a $50,000.00 system is that a total of MSRP of equipment they own or is it what they paid for their equipment?  I bought much of my system used at around 1/2 MSRP.

High end audio equipment is seldom discounted more than 10%.

Just curious, but when people say they have a $25,000.00 system or a $50,000.00 system is that a total of MSRP of equipment they own or is it what they paid for their equipment? I bought much of my system used at around 1/2 MSRP.

I used to worry about this on "price point roll calls", but over time I find I’ve passed most lines any way you slice it, and the next line up is impossible for me to attain :)

The reality is it doesn’t matter that much. Measure the cost anyway you like, within reason. Some things are more "solid" values than others. Amps like McIntosh hold value well against MSRP over time - and their vintage tube amps have actually appreciated greatly in value. On the other hand you have greatly "fluffed" MSRP listings from the likes of some small cable makers (I remember "Black Mountain Cable" did that here, years ago) and some other direct sales internet companies - nobody is gonna be impressed by a $50K system comprised of that crap.

Anyways, onto another topic - I do take issue with the growing continent of folks who treat the room like it’s some magic box that is simultaneously capable of:

• Making expensive gear sound like crap if you don’t meticulously treat the room with lots of treatments. A lot of this seems to be aimed at pushing acoustic panel sales...
• Making cheap gear sound like true high end if you DO meticulously treat the room (I really don’t agree with this point).

I don’t fall in the "room is a magic box" camp. I think of the room like another major component of a system, but not as an all-powerful arbiter to the resultant sound quality. Look, if you throw $500K of high-end gear in a spare bedroom, it’s gonna sound bad. We all get that. It’s not an interesting use case to keep hashing out. And I’m not disagreeing that some investment into room treatment is a great value. But at this level of gear and discussion, the assumption should be that someone spending big $ is going to put it into a room of adequate dimensions to let it breathe, and spend time positioning things optimally. One you have that, the actual gear composition of a system will typically shine right through - whether good or bad!

I have a local friend with a room that’s currently untreated (but he’s planning to change that soon). We’ve swapped amps, preamps, cartridges back & forth over the past year. EVERY component has shown its own consistent sonic signature between these 2 very different rooms, CLEAR AS DAY. And both rooms are capable of sounding superb. But when you put disagreeable components together - bad sound is the result. The room is absolutely a factor, but it’s not magical.

Look, if you throw $500K of high-end gear in a spare bedroom, it’s gonna sound bad

I don't agree with that at all.  For $500K you could make a tent sound good.  Now would it sound much better than a $250K system?  I couldn't tell you that it would sound $250K better but it should sound better.  Would it sound better than a $5K system?  Darn tooting it would.  Money spent well does relate sound quality as it does with everything else.  

I'm not saying it's practical, something I would do or really couldn't imagine how you would actually spend that kinda money on bedroom but saying it would sound bad is total BS

I don’t agree with that at all. For $500K you could make a tent sound good. Now would it sound much better than a $250K system? I couldn’t tell you that it would sound $250K better but it should sound better. Would it sound better than a $5K system? Darn tooting it would. Money spent well does relate sound quality as it does with everything else.

I’m not saying it’s practical, something I would do or really couldn’t imagine how you would actually spend that kinda money on bedroom but saying it would sound bad is total BS

@danager  That’s definitely not the point I was trying to make or argue.

Me: I’m tired of us continually re-hashing this silly hypothetical scenario
You: I disagree with your hypothetical scenario’s conclusion, let’s hash it out more

😅

@mulveling 

Sorry I missed it what were you trying say?

I was just quoting your words from your post that I disagree with and  I didn't realize that it was hypothetical.  I suspect somewhere somebody has $500K worth of gear in their bedroom and it sounds fabulous. 

Really the point is no matter how much money you spend playback  can't sound better than the original source but it can be indistinguishable. 

To me sound is binary it's better or it isn't price and how much better is irrelevant. The graph of sound quality vs dollars doesn't level out it just doesn't rise at the same rate and it doesn't dip at top end.

Now in the real world,  your / my system price is relevant but my point remains the same.   Money well spent will improve the sound until that final result is  indistinguishable from the original but like infinity indistinguishable can never be obtained. Part of it is we don't have access to the masters and part of it is that reproduction adds artifacts that we can hear with enough training.  

If I'm wrong please point out the flaws in my logic as my bank account would thank you.

It's not about how much you spend but about how much you know. I've heard cheap DIY systems built by knowledgable hobbyists rival the most costly setups.

I think the forest (mulveling's general point that good well-matched gear counts, and the 'room' although important is not magical) was totally missed for the trees (stereo in a bedroom or tent). Gotta look beyond generalizations... 

I've read Bob Harley's work since the 90s and always try to remember he is in a business that needs to survive, if not grow, to ensure his employment. However I do believe he's a music and gear lover even if we disagree on occasion.

I think any Law of Accelerating Returns relates pretty much entirely within the single domain of the audio system so well-matched as to be magical, and one where on rare occasion the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That's great. To make his point it seems Bob assumes all systems are mis-matched to a point and one more expensive magic bullet may pull it together. I don't agree.

As I understand the Law of Diminished Returns, and assuming equally well-matched systems in different price ranges, the law will apply just like it does with bicycles, cars, watches, etc. 

So, a well-assembled audio system for $10k will be great and one for $25 will be better, and $50, and $100 and so on. But, in each case the level of audible 'return' does 'diminish' for the additional dollar spent, at least to most everyone with ears and no Brinks truck in the garage...

Great discussion for sure and thanks to the O.P. for posting as I'd already read that editorial from Mr. Harley beforehand and sure had my thoughts on it.   grin

I don’t think the room is a magic box any more than any other component. It is a component, and can be the weakest link. From a pure measurement perspective it is often the weakest link, showing vast divergences from linearity at the listening position that aren’t caused by any other combination of components. Audibly that can be subjective. We all to some degree accept the room’s sound as a given and learn to listen past it, or even embrace and enjoy it. Properly cultivated it is almost universally preferred over listening in a truly reflection free space, like an anechoic chamber. One thing that’s a little misleading about the weakest link analogy when applied to audio is that it gives the idea that there will be no further improvements possible until the weakest link, or bottleneck is dealt with. My experience is that it doesn’t always work that way. Component changes can often be heard in rooms with less than great acoustics. I propose the analogy of an ideal chain that doesn’t stretch at all under load. The chain can only be as stiff as it’s most elastic link. But if other links are also elastic, then stiffening them can still make a noticeable difference even if they aren’t the most elastic link because all the elasticity adds up.