Law of Accelerated Returns
I think back over the many decades of pursuing high end audio and I realize some of the most inspirational were listening to state of the art systems. Systems I could never dream of affording. I occasionally would get up early and drive the two hours to Phoenix in hopes of finding no one listening to the state of the art system in “the big room” at one of the four or five high end audio stores there in the early ‘90’s.
One such time I was able to spend over an hour with the most amazing system I have ever heard: Wilson WAAM BAMM (or something like that… all Rowland electronics, Transparent interconnects). The system cost about over $.5 million… now, over a million… although I am sure it is even better (I can’t imagine how)..
But listening to that system was so mind blowing… so much better than anything I could conceive of, it just completely changed my expectation of what a system could be. It was orders of magnitude better than anything I had heard.
Interestingly, as impressed as I was… I did not want “that” sound, as much as I appreciated it. It still expanded my horizon as to what is possible. That is really important, as it is really easy to make judgments on what you have heard and not realize the possibilities… like never having left the small town in Kansas (no offense).
I keep reading these posts about diminishing returns. That isn’t the way it works. I recently read an article by Robert Harley in The Absolute Sound called the Law of Accelerated Returns that captures the concept perfectly. March 2022 issue. The possibilities in high end audio is incredible. Everyone interested in it in any way deserves to hear what is possible. It is mind expanding.
...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....") |
@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.
|
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...
|
@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? |
This is an interesting discussion, mainly because it so well illustrates the essence of Audiogon as a forum. We have:
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.
|
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 |
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.... |
@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. |
@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. |
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: |
@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.
|
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.... |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 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. |
@mapman 1+++! That is essence is the problem. Very few systems including the ultra expensive ones can produce a SOTA performance. They can be VERY impressive compared to the usual and they can have very balanced tonality and excellent timbre but they do not image at the level available on many recordings. Many think they have a great image because they hear the guitar over there and the bass in the middle and a cymbal to the left. They can even tell that the cymbal is behind the other instruments thinking they have "3D' imaging. Performing at this level is not all that difficult and can be achieved by pretty much any serious audiophile as they have heard other systems perform at this level and know what they should be looking for. Imaging the third dimension means placing an image in space that has location and depth/size. Imagine you can walk around the image of that trumpet or piano, the third dimension is not the size of the venue it is producing instruments and voices with depth. The instrument and voice have 3 dimensions. 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. The most reliable way to get there is with someone who has a lot of measurement equipment and knows what they are doing. As I have said before, it is exactly the same as video projectors. No projector will project colors correctly out of the box. It has to be calibrated and requires a lot of knowledge and expensive equipment. Some projectors, like the one I just bought, will never get it right because they can not do black. You only get shades of gray out of them. Live and learn. |
And to clarify the issue, the principle is actually called the law of diminishing *marginal* returns. This concept is rather more nuanced than perhaps people realize. Robert Harley came close to getting it correct in the passage I quoted from 2014. (This despite him then rejecting it in audio with some magic logic.) |
The law of diminishing returns applies to audio gear the same as anything else. The notion of accelerated returns is just more audiophile blabbing by reviewers. If you don't think diminishing returns applies to this first world hobby then you haven't the slightest idea what diminishing returns means. |
Posers? Who is to say. Of course no one is stating that you have to spend a fortune to get good sound. The point is that when you spend more money, intelligently, you will get better sound. I think that the benefits of being a learned listener is a given.
Damned young whippersnappers on new Ducati's! In my day you earned to right to buy a nice new bike. Your statements betray the precise attitude I was referencing. |
@jerryg123 who has apparently left us brings us a good point which I'd like to elaborate upon. 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 posted about this previously, but I recently evaluated high end shotgun mics for my film shoots. Schoeps make a full size and smaller size of the mic I just purchased. The smaller mic has the same capsule but different electronics. Common wisdom in the pro audio world (and manufacturer) is that they sound the same, just without the filter switches. However, to my ear I could easily tell the difference in the side by side comparison. The larger electronics with higher current sounds clearly more dynamic to me. If I didn't have the experience from listening to high end audio (and a lot of live music,) perhaps I wouldn't have been able to hear what pretty much no one else on the pro audio world
|
Thank you @steveashe this thread reminds me of the posers at the racetrack with their new Ducati’s and zero skills at dragging a knee and I stuff them on a 20 year old VFR400 or Hawk GT. Question is do these posers know how to listen? Music first. As a musician I know, I know how to listen. You can spend a $100k and if you have no listening skills then you just wizzed away $95k. I am done here today off to Whats Best Forum.
|
You are right on jerryg123! What an insane idea, applying "the law of accelerated returns" to the reproduction of music in the home. Without context. I have heard many, many systems over the past 40 years (more but I'm embarrassed to admit it :-)) and each one sounded great in it's own way. They were/are great because the owner cared deeply about music. Some were super expensive and some were modest. I hope newbies to this hobby understand that you simply don't have to spend a fortune to achieve fantastic sound. It's still all about the music. Who cares about the last 1%. |
You dont know what you are missing until you have heard an extraordinary system. Only at that point do you have a frame of reference.
When the trappings are the best it becomes even more about the music. I dont understand the need of some to differentiate and then attempt to ascribe purchase motivations.
Wanting something better is not envy. Being bitter that others have better equipment is. Worse still is attempting to diminish those that spend more than you think is acceptable and attaching some sort of moral imperative to the action.
|
@thyname me too sir! |
@holmz : I am jumping out and air punching out of joy and happiness 🙄 |
@thyname as I usually never agree with you. We should celebrate today… it is a good day.
|
@ghdprentice : Agreed! And we all started somewhere. Even at less then that $5,000. Years ago. I can assure the poster of this comment I am not hallucinating
Nobody is slamming anybody for enjoying a $5,000 system. But to say that a $50,000 system is only subtly better than a $5,000 system is…l don’t know. |
@mulveling : Spot on! Especially this:
Unfortunately I have experienced such system several times. And while I will never be able to afford such system, nobody can blame me for aspiring. As for the last poster:
That’s absolutely NOT my experience. The difference is dramatic. Yes, not as dramatic as going from a table top radio to a $5,000 system, but dramatic nonetheless. Certainly not subtle. Which systems do you base this opinion on?
|
@simonmoon, I fully agree. I have limited experience with certain classes of components. I've never heard a $15,000 phono cartridge, $200,000+ turntables, $150,000+ loudspeakers or for that matter really expensive cables. The bulk of my listening to systems that are more expensive than mine are comprised of $10k to 30k components. I am also of the opinion that most of the musical differences between systems are subtle. The difference between a table radio and a decent $5,000 system is dramatic. The difference between the $5,000 system and a $50,000 system is subtle. There are clear sonic differences, but I maintain that from a musical perspective they are overwhelmingly subtle. Maybe as audiophiles we obsess over these small differences? There's a whole school of thought about the narcissism or tyranny of stressing subtle differences. I end with the following quote:
|
