Law of Accelerated Returns

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.

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.  

I can’t say for sure, but I imagine these cat 8 cables wouldn’t have made such an audible improvement in the lesser priced system.

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 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.

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.