There's is the better performing and there is the most costly in my findings much of high end is just adding zeros to prices to attract the wealthy into considering them worthy. YMMV
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.
130 responses Add your response
@musicaddict: "Those are pretty much my thoughts and experience as well, in fact I cannot think of a single sentence you wrote that I disagree with" Well, thanks. Seems to me what I wrote is pretty much just common sense for those of us who have limited capacity to treat our rooms. BTW-- I live in a forest and no doubt have too much glass, as well! |
+2 Those are pretty much my thoughts and experience as well, in fact I cannot think of a single sentence you wrote that I disagree with. I have traded off a music man-cave with ugly but spectacular sound in favor of a stunning mountain view in a living room with more glass than advisable. I have worked to set the Raidho D2s as best as possible and do use some minor DSP room correction for the bass (as well as a bit to tame some room brightness). The sound is beautiful to me but I know more could be done to enhance it. It's tougher now to spend on much higher electronics purchases to move the system forward in a justifiably noticeable way. Fortunately I never thought I'd get where I am; I'm happy. |
My system’s gear has been stable over many years. I always thought my system just wasn’t capable of portraying large scale orchestras. Maybe the stand mount speaker with an 8” woofer and subs with 10” woofer was too small, or the room too large. (28x30x about 14’ high) But over the last year I’ve done some minor upgrades. One being some inexpensive speaker cables from Underwood Hifi, (the diamond and gold, in Biwire application). I also cleaned the tube pins and sockets in my preamp which hasn’t been done in some time. The most recent addition was the $95 (for two) cat8 Ethernet cables I previously posted about. Listening to the Rachmaninov symphonic dances on Athena Records 24/96 aif files tonight, I realized the system can now indeed do large scale symphonies. Sure maybe not as well as one of the large Wilson’s, Magico, YG, etc, but certainly the system is now in a new class. Total cost of upgrades were about $750. I’d call that an accelerating return, or at least not a diminishing one. I could also throw the $650 EtherRegen added a couple of years ago in there as one of the upgrades, but still total, a very small percentage of the system cost that made a vastly better system.
|
"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." I don't believe there's much more I can do (beyond rugs, curtains, soft furniture) to control my room. Nevertheless, the sound of my system has continued to improve over time, via gear upgrades. I'd agree that upgrades that do not produce significant improvements could be deemed a "waste" and that lack of improvement could be attributed to "ignorance". In other words, if I had no idea regarding what, exactly, I wanted to improve and just bought gear randomly, hoping something would somehow change for the better, that would be wasteful and ignorant. But that's not my approach. I can't afford that approach! I don't upgrade unless I can clearly identify what it is I want to change and I do a lot of research. Also, I generally will not buy anything I cannot return. My main goal the last time around was improving bass grip and clarity in the lower mids. Replacing the integrated I had with a Hegel H390 proved massively successful in these areas but also, dramatically improved resolution, overall. Speaker/amp matching was so much better that it was as though I'd gotten a new set of speakers along with the amp. I am not speaking of subtle improvements, here. Would I prefer to have a better-controlled room? Sure. Should I therefore decline to attempt to make any improvements in SQ via gear upgrades ? Not in my opinion, based upon the success I've had so far. It may well be that I will reach a point at which I can no longer compensate for weaknesses attributable to the room. But if I had never tried upgrading gear, I would be tolerating much, much poorer SQ than I enjoy at present. The same would be true had I never begun participating, here; there is no question that AudiogoN forum members have been instrumental in the gains my system has made.
|
How much one appreciates a certain improvement and how much it costs to get it are the two most important factors to consider. |
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...
|
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 don't begrudge anyone with the means to pursue the ultimate. That said, I can't help but wonder whether it's not true that "ignorance is bliss". I can be very obsessive and am not at all sure that being exposed to 100K systems would make me happier, knowing I could never afford one, myself. Furthermore, as I'm not engineering-minded, were I able to spend 100K, there's no guarantee I'd end up withy a system that I'd enjoy more than my current 25K 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 :( |
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.......
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...
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......
|
100% this, again. |
While acoustics are important, a real instrument no matter what acoustic environment it is played in, is easily identifiable as a real instrument. Acoustics can’t create dynamics, timbre, leading edge, inner detail, bandwidth or fidelity. A talented musician I know plays a very crappy acoustic guitar they painted on. It doesn’t matter where she plays it, it’s a tinny, brittle sounding instrument.
|
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... |
Excluding time and effort and focusing on MSRP within model ranges, the least expensive is most commonly the worst value, ime. I actually hate to get to generalized about these things but believe law of diminishing or accelerating returns are both moderate views. The weird part is snobbery in audio (of all things) or the anti-elite culture warriors mocking others trying to take their system up a notch. |
@sns -we’re talking about individual component cost, not treatments or tweaks. That is why some of the more questionable tweaks are more popular with those with expensive systems. The incremental cost of these items are an extremely low % of their system cost and represent little risk if they add nothing or minimal SQ improvement. |
@emailists + Yes, it may be a relatively smaller expenditure that improves sound to a much greater extent than that expenditure's incremental or percentage of total system cost. And yes, this much greater than expected performance requires a total system that has the resolving powers to expose this.
In picturing this in my mind I can see my system living atop 10,000 ft mountain, this relatively small expenditure may allow system to live atop a 15,000 ft or perhaps higher mountain.
I recently experienced this very thing with a series of relatively small expenditures, boutique tubes and optimized optical network that allowed my system to live at far higher altitude than previous.
Law of diminishing returns is existent up until the insertion of particular item or items that take system to much higher plane. |
@emailists - I never said spending double on a speaker would only lead to a small improvement in sound. I was refuting the law of accelerating returns that said you would get more improvement spending $5K more on a $50K component than on a $5K one. Each incremental dollar spent on a given component typically will get less and less improvement the more you spend, once you've passed the entry level point. I am sure you can get tremendous improvement doubling your expenditure on speakers, and sometimes no improvement or even degradation. |
@sokogear Why would you think spending double on a speaker would yield a very small improvement? I would think if chosen well, it would be a large improvement. Plus we all know a system is the sum of its parts, and small benefits stack up and should amplify each other. A speaker cable that is 20% better than another is letting you hear 20% more of each of the upstream components. I’m not sure mathematically my point works, but you get the idea. The significant increase in spooky realism of a singer being in the room I got from my recent cheap Ethernet cable upgrade didn’t come from nowhere. The benefit came from all the other money spent around it. I’m not saying it’s a linear or even a truly quantifiable thing, or that every upgrade will provide the same level of improvement. Also one may think that for example two amps sound similar, but a much more revealing speaker may make the difference more audible and reveal a character that wasn’t heard previously.
|
This is the most ridiculous discussion/theory I've seen in a long time. The law of diminishing returns is a proven theory of economics time and time again. Anyone who thinks an upgrade from a $5K amp to a $10K amp improves SQ LESS than an upgrade from a $50K amp to a $55K amp is nuts. Maybe it works from a % spent upgrade standpoint, but I even would question that. And if it is breakeven, it still is not accelerating. The graph submitted above is on the money, but of course there are different inflection points. I think it is great to experience all stereo possibilities, especially within the specially designed rooms, and if you want to spend the $$ to enjoy them, but please do not try to cost justify them as being of incremental SQ improvements. Value on the other hand, is in the eye of the consumer. If someone is willing to pay double for a very small improvement, then he/she sees the value, and more power to them. Some see the value in how it looks. Some see it as a luxury item like a Rolex, but I would think most Rolex owners think of them as investments that go up in value whereas stereo equipment rarely does, and I would hope nobody goes into the hobby trying to make money (unless they are a dealer) when buying equipment. |
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. |
I just posted in the ONTI Cat8 cable thread about what 2 ethernet cables for a total of 95$ did for my system. Looking at the nice chart @lanx0003 created, my observation is that inexpensive (or not so inexpensive) upgrades take that Diminishing flatter part of the curve and lift it up again. That being said, I do believe I’d have to spend a hell of a lot more money to better my BHK300 amps (with NOS tubes) but that’s because they’re sold by a more mass market company with simple casework shared among other components.
|
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. |
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 |
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. |
@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 😅 |
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 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:
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. |
| Post removed |
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. .
|
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.. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
! (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*
|
@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. |
