+1
There is virtually no end in improvement. I love hearing $1M systems, they are inspiring… I am not jealous altough my system costs 1/6th of that. Every step is amazing.
The Law of Accelerating Returns
I totally agree this letter from the editor of A-S.
It makes sense if you have a $10,000 high quality integrated and stick a $500.00 TT with a $300 phono section, a $400,00 Topping DAC and stream through your phone you will never know the real potential of the $10K integrated. And don't get me going on speakers.
This article makes total sense but one must live within their means.
No you do not have to spend a left lung for great sound but it all needs to be balanced.
63 responses Add your response
I'd suggest the jealously factor depends on one's focus. If one is, above all, interested in having the latest, greatest new flavor or the most boutique gear or the most advanced topology or the most elegantly sculpted casework, etc., I'd submit one will be far more vulnerable to jealously, as all of the above tend to require, by definition, very deep pockets. Furthermore, the "latest and greatest" is constantly changing-- it's a moving target. If, on the other hand, one is most concerned with enhancing one's engagement with and enjoyment of, music and makes wise choices within one's budget, there is much less opportunity for jealously to intrude. |
Neither example provided in the article are correct in the context of marginal returns.. The first because the improvement is as a result of getting a dysfunctional system functional. "unlocks the previously unrealized potential of your other components" Like replacing an incorrect rectifier tube or other similar build feature with the correct one. Fixing a flat tyre on a car. Everything will work better and as it was designed to. This is shifting the returns curve upwards, not a movement on it. The second is changing the technology which adds a characteristic that wasn't there previously. Comparing two exact same cars but for the fact that one has a manual transmission and the other automatic. Anyway, this is actually conceded - "Far from offering only incremental improvement"- but marginal analysis is only about increments. So, does not apply by the author's own admission.. I think its probably not a good idea to use the marginal return concept to audio equipment. It has a very narrow meaning, one that is exceptionally useful and informative in the correct context.
|
@noske, I loved that. It was so Leonard Nimoy! Spock himself couldn't have refuted it more clearly.
That's been my experience too. Hi-Fi must be a very tough game to get into. Sometimes at shows you see folks who've poured everything into their design and it simply does not sound that good for the money being asked. They're probably nice people, and they've probably worked very hard getting to this point, and you don't want to trample over anyone's dreams, but it's hard to offer any advice when so many other products offer similar or better performance at a much lower price. I don't think this is a business for anyone with a thin skin. It must be more than a little disturbing when you think you've developed a world class product yet no one wants to sit down and listen for long.
|
@noske +2 |
|
I would call it law of accelerated potential... which may, or may not be fulfilled. At the very beginning of my audio journey I heard the two most expensive systems of the time. On being a B&W Nautilus with eight (!) solid state award-winning monoblocks & most expensive digital front of the time. The other the top Audio note system (with Kondo Ongaku) and vinyl (all AN, top of the line). Heard one a few minutes after the other at the audio show. Peculiarly, although both were the most expensive rooms by a far cry, yet one was the worst sound of the show and the other the best. (Both by a far margin worst & best). So, money allows to unlock potential but system synergy & knowing how to set up a system will decide success or failure. At that time the Nautilus room was a WFT(!?) shock moment for me, and it totally demolished the appeal of B&W loudspeakers, collapsing all my B&W related dreams (generated by hifi magazines) to those cringe-worthy minutes. Since then I learned that this spectacular Titanic re-enactment was not simply the fault of any of the gear, but the result of the absolute incompetence of the presenter. Each demoed component of the chain was reviewed #1 and got best awards at the time, and they assumed that put all #1 together and you get the absolute top system. Put all #1 together indiscriminately, without a light bulb in the head, and instead of absolute Nirvana, watch the tragedy of Titanic replay in front of your eyes... and more sadly, ears.
|
I agree with jerryg123. If you get 1 very good component and the rest are low fi, the system will only sound as good as the weakest component. I'm not saying that you have to spend $10k on every component, but if you get 1 very nice component, you should try to match that level of performance with every other component. As for price, you are not going to get top quality sound from a $500 tt or a $700 dac. $7k for a dac, $10k for a tt/cart/tonearm, now you are getting into good sounding gear. |
The Op is right all piece of gear must be balanced with one another, sound quality design wise and price wise... But my conviction and experience is that it is acoustic/psycho-acoustic science which can make the greatest differences... You cannot undertstand and control timbre at will, nor imaging, nor soundstage, nor LAV/ASW factor ratio by BUYING and only upgrading piece of gear sorry... You must learn how to listen first, and this is possible only by acoustic listening experiments...Hearing is not MOSTLY a question of taste and pure frequency detection, it is an acquired HABIT related to a complex object : the soundscape...And the soundscape is not reducible to only the audible linear range frequency concept, but is constituted by phase information , time factor and timing, timbre spectral envelope, timbre time envelope, head and torso factors, many reflected waves management and TWO direct fronwaves management etc We must learn HOW to feel these various objects/concepts in our body/room ... After that, through listening experiments not only we had learn how to treat our room according classical balance between the various surface of reflection/absorption/diffusion in relation to the room particular geometry and acoustic content, but we begin to learn also how to adapt our room response to the speakers needs and response and not only the frequence response of the speaker to the room...Speakers/ room are in a mutual adaptative process guided by our ears needs... It is a MUTUAL OPTIMIZATION process with not only passive material treatment but also mechanical tuning with Helmholtz devices and method, essentially resonators and pure diffusers too... Personaly i even use psycho-acoustic law of the first frontwaves and acoustic crosstalk and acoustic crossfeed with mechanical devices of my own creation located at some spot around the " head" speaker and the "tail" speaker, in function of EACH OF MY EARS listening location which is the "belly" of the "serpent", which serpent is my grid of Helmholtz devices circling the room...( 100 homemade devices) Then there is a law which is not " the diminishing return law" or his twin conplementary law " the accelerating returns law ", two laws which are something like different perspectives on the same pudding and are so called "laws" about the gear... But there is an objective/subjective acoustical/psycho-acoustical OPTIMIZATION LAW process which ask for an increasing learning ability to hear using passive acoustical classical room treatment but more importantly the mechanical acoustical tuning with Helmholtz method all around the listening position and around the room ... The more important fact in audio is not the gear but acoustic and our own ability to learn HOW to hear and WHAT to hear... It is not the gear because it is now easy in a mature audio electronic market to buy "relatively" good gear at reasonable price all along the price scale... It is less easy to Optimize the system/room... it is here that improvement may be astounding, and more than most upgrades... In my case AT NO COST or very low cost...For sure my devices are not esthetical... I am not crafty nor rich enough to create them esthical... For sure i dont claim also that room tuning will transform a very low cost design in an ultra high end one soundwise...This is not the point of this optimization law... My best to all....
|
Helmholtz treatment "only" work on ONE frequency and to bring down a peak in that very specific frequency and nothing more or less.
So you had 100 bulky Helmholtz devices around your room probably not that bulky when you have 100 of them so they are smaller and then less powerful. So you can treat 100 different PEAKS in 100 different frequencies.. and or probably several of them treating the same frequency peak when they're not that big and powerful. It would be fun to listen to that system when all correction is done in the physical domain. But if I had that much problems with my room and the placement of speakers and sweet spot then i would never put a stereo in that room that seams be a room from hell in my opinion. Lets compare a miniDSP has 10 PEQ filters and each one of them IS like a Helmholtz actually! In the sense that a PEQ use a specific frequency just like the Helmholtz, then we can adjust it to take a higher amplitude of a peek in dB but narrower OR lower but in a wider frequency band around that specific frequency. So IF anybody has the time (week/weeks) and patience (in theory) to build AND tune 10 Helmholtz that needs to be of different volume so it would be possible that achieve almost the same what a DSP would do better in 5 minute. (And if you move anything or get new speakers or something then it needs to a retuning..) But to take those 10 and tenfold them to 100 yeh maybe that is needed when they probably is smaller and less powerful that they need to be If there were only 10 of them.. Just imagine to take 100 books and place them on the floor, and scattered around on the floor around the sweet spot, and a book is far smaller than a Helmholtz resonator.. i can not imagine that mess.. (and then also add all the other treatment types that you also mentioned.) I will crawl back under my stone when I really don't have bandwidth to maintain a discussion. 🥰
|
Is it a I purchase with a 'Money is no Object' attitude to my System building ? Or, I am content in buying from Vendors with a 'No shame here about the added Mark Up' attitude ? If a person is taking the idea of producing a HiFi System seriously and they want to incur a vast outlay whilst doing so, they are more than welcome to the experience. The assembly of devices and ancillaries at the end, does not in any way suggest it betters lesser costing set ups. The only asurity is that the initial cost is what it cost. Hypothetical - A system purchased in 2018 cost £ 400 000 ( $ 520 000 ). A system containing all the same components and ancillaries in 2022 is purchased as New, Ex Demo, and low usage used items for £180 000ish ( ($195 000ish ). Leaving the set up environments out of the equation, and Purchased Brands. When only focusing on the Purchase Value, in most minds, when prompted to suggest which one is the better system, the more expensive will be the most likely one selected. A TT Producing Company whose Patrons were visitors to my Demonstration Room at a Public Attended Exhibition, had revisited my room on a few occasions. On one visit when the room was with less visitors, they gave my system a very healthy appraisal and suggested it was sounding on par with systems they have heard from their customers, of which some are in access of £300 000. Appreciative as I was, I inquired if their customers Journey's had been filled with as much fun as mine, in efforts undertaken to build a system, that for me is quite satisfying and has a trail of friendships made in its wake.
|
"As for price, you are not going to get top quality sound from a $500 tt or a $700 dac. $7k for a dac, $10k for a tt/cart/tonearm, now you are getting into good sounding gear." Pay more attention to the quality of engineering and design implementation. Most importantly listen with an open mind and let your ears be the judge instead of the price tag, unless bragging rights and status is all that really matters to you.
|
Yesterday I adjusted the crossover setting on my subwoofer and changed its position relative to the front wall. Let's say the crossover adjustment applied about 50 cents worth of time and effort to a $20K system. The bass response improvement may not have been as great as adding a subwoofer in the first place, but then, the cost was far far less. However, the "law" won't necessarily apply if you just start fiddling with dials (or spending money). You first need to identify where your system needs improvement (for example, in the sounds of kick drums.)
|
Helmholtz treatment "only" work on ONE frequency and to bring down a peak in that very specific frequency and nothing more or less.
NO! they can be used to notch around a frequency. To contour a particular frequency or by using slot vs tube vary a single resonator to encompass several frequencies with less control but over a much wider bandwidth. Helmholtz is the ONLY way to tune a room completely. I've even used passive radiators as frequency collectors vs frequency producers. The concept can be used to increase a given frequency by notching around it and lowering the over all SPL. I use several different resonators and two huge 100+ cubic foot pipe collectors. It looks like a pipe organ turned sideways in both corners of the front wall, floor to ceiling 36 x 36 x 96" but they are behind the wall. Different diameter ABS tubes are sticking out of the wall. Many of the tubes are capped, about 1/3 aren't, the ones that ARE capped are used to diffuse, the ones that are not, are used for tuning. You simply push or pull them further in or out of the wall. You pick the correct size 1/2" - 6" pipe uncap it and tune it. I also use 4 more adjustable tube traps for the rear and sides, with slot style wall resonators for fine tuning. You can hear a fly fart if you want.. :-) I think that would be in the 18khz range.. LOL 10hz to 15khz 100% tunable.. BTW ALL the traps on the walls and floor are decoupled from the wall and floor.. Speakers, Subs, and any object with equipment on it.. (Especially TTs) are decoupled. A sound changing experience for life. The same for servo driver systems and small planars.. A different sound that is very appealing to me.. Equipment? Gear? Take your pick and go from there. After the ROOM everything else is pretty superficial. All those thing that did make such a big difference before don't amount to a hill of beans.. 10K integrated means squat then, when a 2K total system will sound better. It's the room and tuning it along with decoupling and refining the quality even more. Did I mention electrical? :-) This is when "Doris get's her oats". |
Room tuning may be something an obsessive/compulsive listener could chase around until they're ready to gloat about it (I think rooms generally can add a sense of realism with only furnishings and regular stuff, unless maybe your room is an abandoned shipping container), or not. What anybody likes or doesn't like about the sound of a system is utterly due to personal taste, and in my experience that seems to vary wildly. My current system of relatively modest items chosen and kept or rejected and replaced, seems astonishingly better sounding than any I've heard anywhere at any price mostly because it's there by and for me. I hear some interesting improvements from cables or amps getting their legs after break-in, but that's simply fun and not a huge deal. Unless I need to gloat. |
@helmholtzsoul I clerified the simplified short version. We are on the same page. It is not the "ONLY" way to tune a room completely. Is it not better to NOT push power into frequencies that the room gets excited about because its dimensions and positions of speakers and sweet spot? Of course it is.
The Helmholtz for example is a fix on something that is after that we have created the issue. But it so a good treatment technology to have in the toolbox. The bottom line is who care about money of components or synergy of the level of the same, if the room is untreated.
It is funny to see the focus on price, the results is audiophiles bringing whole their life gear in and out of the same poor room. And expecting a better results.. ..but they just get different results. Talking about "sideways" moves. |
First this room "from Hell" is my laboratory, or dedicated room not a living room...
First Mechanical resonators are not DSP at all...Your comparison with DSP is flawed... «Such a Helmholtz resonator has some very The Master Handbook of Acoustics Fourth Edition by F. Alton Everest P.215
Also all my H.R. are of different size, not one is the same in neck, lenght, volume or perimeter....For exemple one is 8 feet in my 8feet high1/2 inches in my studio, they ALL Differ by some ratio... Also i had a set of specialized Helmholtz diffusers or H.D. , which are way less known devices, this H.D. are OPEN TUBES OR PIPES, all of different lenghts and perimeter , then differering in volume, with a FILTERING GAZE or cloth fabric of different densities then of different absorptions properties... One mouth is open the other FILTERED by this gaze of various fabric densities or by a set a set of various thinner STRAWS of different size.... This created a powerful diffusion in critical placement....In particular near listening position and on the speaker themselves at precise location DIFFERENT for each one speaker by the way... Guess why? 😁😊 Location is KEY.... Like i said in my previous post i use the Haas law of the first wavefronts to tune my sound for EACH ear from EACH speaker.... My speaker are modified by H.D. placement around them or on them in an asymmetrical way to increase some acoustic crossfeed of large bandwidth...I even use a double two section foldable screen behind me to increase the acoustic crossfeed by the speaker A on the phantom image of B and speaker A on the phantom image of A for each one of my ears... All the tuning was made on few months period daily, it was fun and very enlightening ...The work was exactly like a piano tuning but here it is a MUTUAL speakers/room tuning.... The H.D. and H.R. devices circle the room from the "HEAD" speker to the "TAIL" speaker with the "BELLY" of this acoustical SERPENT being my listening location chair with the FOCUSING lenses of the reflected waves of this foldable screen behind my head... «A sound field in a room is composed of direct sound and reverberation. The interaural correlation follows the sinc function corresponding to the subjective diffuseness
All my 8 headphones are in a closet now... Why ? When you correct the room with electronical tool unlike my mechanical devices which are part of the room, you cannot tune the room for TWO Listening locations like mechanical room tuning, and the tuning location with a microphone feed back and test frequency are valuable ONLY for a "sweet spot" which measure around one millimeter you bend the head and all ,easures are amok... In my room the sweespot are larger in nearfield listening (three feet) or my regular position (8 feet).... The regular position is more like regular speaker listening, the nearfield is nore headphone like , BUT in the two positions, acording to the recording album, the soundscape CIRCLE me almost and the listener is not in front of the music sometimes, but in the center with instruments sometimes around me...it is relative to EACH RECORDING effect... I can hears the acoustic bubble specific to each recording choices by the studio engineer...
Your description has nothing to do with my H. grid location RESONATORS AND DIFFUSERS size and precise working location function for psycho-acoustic effect and not only physical acoustic effect , these two devices are not the same thing also...
|
---First, Helmholtz devices of any type are not mere TOOLS... You dont let tools scattered across a room after their use time... 😁😊 H.R. And H. D. are PART of the room, they modify definitively the pressures zones distribution of the room by staying in place ... A DSP tool and a microphone dont do that and after their job is done you remove them from the room...
--- Second , your warning about the modification of the sweet pot reveal you dont undertstand the way this grid work at all...The devices are there to mutually adapt the speakers and the room to one another...My sweetspot extended to a large part of the listener location than your mic/dsp method who has no value passed one millimeter or so.... I place some H.D. near the speaker bass driver or tweeter asymmetrically to help each ears to create the localization effect... I will not go into details ...
|
First Helmholtz resonators and Helmholtz diffusers like said rightfully @helmholtzsoul are the main and ONLY mechanical way to modify a room and tune it and also tune each speaker for each ear by the way ... The greeks and Egyptians and Chinese and Helmlhotz the father of modern acoustic and of psycho-acoustic thought so... «In Helmholtz resonators, we have acoustical artifacts that far antedate Helmholtz himself. Resonators in the form of large pots were used in ancient times by the Greeks and Romans in their open-air Second, the fact that you use DSP confuse your mind...
DSP modify the speaker response only , the H.R. and H. D. modify the speakers and room relation by modifying each of them at the same time for psycho-acoustic effect for EACH ear from EACH speaker.... DSP AND MIC. are not an integral part of the room like H.R. or H. D. are in their working way....They are used to modify the source information to your taste and adjust in ONE chosen way the speakers response to the room...They dont modify the room response at the same time for the speaker sorry... My sweet spot is not IMPEDED at all by the mechanical tuning devices in the contrary, my sweet spot is created by them and not only by the precise location of my chair in a short one millimeter range but for a larger range ... Then i had a better sweetspot because he is effective in a larger dimension than one millimeter range and dont lost all his effective action after that ... And try to adress the Schroeder frequency and bass limitations with DSP... Good luck....Room passive treatment +DSP will not do it....It takes a mechanical control of the room whose pressure zones modification are possible with Helmholtz mechanical devices to reach a better dynamic, and a better bass clarity in small room......
😁😊 |
😁😊😊 Never indeed!
«I divorced when she put flowers in my Helmholtz bottle»-Groucho Marx 🤓
« Because my mouth and ass were directly openly connected tube my body is an Helmholtz diffuser»-Anonymus acoustician
«if my body is an Helmholtz diffuser your brain is a Klein bottle»-Groucho Marx 🤓
«The resonator is to your ears what a vibrator is for some other organ«-Anonymus acoustic gear sellers
«A silence with no echo»-Zen acoustical koan |
Back to the original topic..... When I read the article I had quite a laugh. We have to remember that TAS serves an industry based on the simple assumption that spending more money gets you better sound. Anyone, even multimillionaires, want to think they are receiving good value for their money so the theory of "accelerating returns" fits right into the agenda. I'm sure this idea has been floating around high-end showrooms for some time and the magazine decided to give it an aura of credibility. This idea is right out of the salesman's handbook. When you've got a customer that is willing to spend $500K why would you tell him that he could get just as good of sound for $300K? In the real world, the salesman's job is to convince that customer that spending $750K instead of $500K will bring a huge improvement in sound. If the poor guy cheaps-out and only spends $500K he will surely be disappointed because he could have had a system that was so much better. for an extra $250K. The other factor to remember is that sound quality in high-end audio is only one factor in the buying decision. The appearance and story behind the gear is a key part of the buying decision but one of the most important elements of the sale is the relationship the salesman creates with the customer. The personal attention that one gets when spending several hundred thousand dollars on luxury goods is an enjoyable part of the process. The marketing of luxury goods has a common thread in that the high cost of the item is actually a feature of the product. Exclusivity is a selling point. The idea that there is a accelerating improvement in performance with increasing price is a wonderful piece of sales propaganda. A commission salesman's wet dream. When VPI introduced its top end turntable the Japanese distributor complained that the price was too low. Their customers wanted to spend more money than that and it didn't matter that the VPI would compete with six figure turntables. After going to two audio shows (pre covid) I came to the conclusion that the correlation between sound quality and cost is tenuous at best. The best systems I heard were indeed expensive but I found no consistent pattern of high price leading to better sound. |
Now put these system in a room which is acoustically mechanically specifically controlled for each one of them, and the relation between good sound and price will be lost forever .... Upgrade mania is inversely proportional to acoustic knowledge and to the law of acoustic optimization ... |
Respectfully, you make it abundantly clear in every thread on which you participate that acoustics and getting the room right are important. You get no argument from any seasoned audiogon participant.
May I point out though that you seem to frequently imply that great gear might be a waste of time and money. May I posit that if your room is, in fact, exceptionally tuned that a great system dropped into your room would outperform an average system in the same room? What is the best system that you've heard in your room? In any room? |
You put your idea in my mouth...I NEVER say that ever.... 😊 i said that ONCE an audio relatively good system is chosen at any price and accordingly to your wallet, any upgrade WITHOUT and BEFORE optimization of the chosen audio system is a lost of money... Is it clearer ? And the improvement produced by acoustic optimization is so great, if your starting system of choice is well choosen to begin with for sure, that MOST subsequent upgrade will appear preposterous if you take in consideration the S.Q./price ratio... I said "most", because if you start from a 50 bucks used speaker set like mine upgrading to a 100,000 dollars one, no room treatment and even no mechanical tuning will replace this upgrade and make it meaningless... It is only common sense...But dont laugh at my 50 bucks speakers, your smile risk to be colored yellow listening them in their room... 😁😊
Sorry but you did not understood my point... 😁😊 First my room is relatively well optimized accordingly to my ability...Not exceptionnaly tuned...This will be a ridiculous pretense and boasting...But i am satisfied yes and very happy...It takes me months each day of tuning listening sessions...Nothing is perfect BUT.... Second acoustic tuning is not ONLY classic room passive treatment but more importantly mechanical control with two types of Helmholtz devices, resonator who diffuse et absorb selected bandwidth and diffusers who only diffuse selected bandwith... Third, my room is mechanically tuned FOR A SPECIFIC SPEAKERS, and FOR MY SPECIFIC EARS if i drop inside my actual room a new speakers with a new dac and amplifier, all the tuning process must be redone from the beginning with listening experiments tuning adapted to the new speakers systems if i want to reach the peak working optimal level of the new system ... Fourth, acoustic optimization can improve a low cost system OVER a costlier one ONLY if the costlier one is not itself optimized in his own adapted room and is in a nude room like most showroom or most living room ... Then no acoustic magic trick can transform a low design quality in the highest one ever... Common sense is need... 😁😊
Mine for sure for the reasons given above... 😊
Homemade speakers from Tannoy 15 inches dual gold cones and big magnepans, my own past 12 inches Tannoy, Quad electrostatic speakers also , all these were better than my actual very good Mission Cyrus 781... Then why i prefer my Mission Cyrus now to all of them...? BECAUSE my room is optimized for the Miussion Cyrus, none of these others better speakers were in an acoustically treated room and certainly very far from a mechanically controlled room which is the only way to adapt the room to the speakers...
The reason is simple: ONLY acoustic and psycho-acoustic can explain sound management and perception...Electronic devices are tool to convey some selected acoustical recorded information from one room perspective via a studio to my room/ears.... Audio is acoustical sound translation...Only gear marketing abusively call it pure reproduction...
Final word: real acousticians never boast about gear brand name guess why? For the same reason mechanician can transform any ordinary motor to a super working one...The acoustician will make the best of whatever system is in the room... There is always better motor and better gear for sure , but the important point is what will you make yourself of what you already have....
Thanks for your interesting questions... And kind interest... My best to you....
|
The notion that the potential of a $10,000 integrated is wasted if fed with a $400 DAC suggests that the $10k integrated is doing something correctly that the $400 DAC is not doing as correctly, but perhaps a $10K DAC could do as correctly. It’s the notion that one component is more close to perfect while another is tarnishing the signal in a way that is uncorrectable by the better component. If this is so, we need to define what that "perfect" is. It would suggest some kind of pure, untainted quality of the signal is being lost by the cheaper DAC. What could that possibly be? It certainly isn’t frequency response, or phase information, or distortion or noise. I’m highly skeptical that there’s any important signal information that is being mangled by the $400 DAC (assuming it's not some peculiar design that intentionally deviates from linearity or adds distortion) that would ruin the potential of the $10k integrated. However, if the output of the DAC and the input of the receiver are not appropriately matched in terms of level and impedance requirements, then the potential of both of them could be wasted. |
The $400 dac very likely has a highly compromised output stage. So, a marginal dac with a compromised output stage...there is a chance that it might sound good but a whole lot of fortunate accidents would have to occur for that to be the case. What often occurs among the well heeled is that they pay extra for the dealer and/or manufacturer to remove variables that detract from the sound. If someone's income averages $1,000 per hour, its highly unlikely that person would willingly spend 20 hours to discover the best $400 dac. Multiply that if someone is on a quest to do the same exercise for amps/preamps/cables/speakers. So many scoff at the value a trusted dealer brings to the table...I happen to believe they save many people the frustration and random successes that can sometimes happen. Is it more or less expensive to get it right the first time? |
@asctim The author, Robert Harley, knows this. I know that because I once read something written by him that was both original and actually made sense. He is not being honest. However he also knows that his target audience either don’t know, don’t want to know, or don’t care, seeking some/any justification (however ridiculous) from an appeal to authority such as himself writing for the esteemed TAS.. See also what @8th-note says, above.
|
"The marketing of luxury goods has a common thread in that the high cost of the item is actually a feature of the product. Exclusivity is a selling point." This, a million times over. And, the fact that others know how much your stuff cost is very important.
Yes, there are plenty of people like this. If it gives a sense of security and enhances their confidence and makes them feel better about themselves, then good luck to them. I'm sure their custom is highly welcomed for keeping the wheels of commerce lubricated. Only, just as long as they don't insist that their stuff is in any way superior sonically. There's absolutely no need to misguide and breed misplaced discontent amongst those with less financial means and or different priorities, is there? |
This guy really understand the Helmholtz method, it is a COMPLETE system if used correctly. Bravo.. About 1 in 10,000 really get it.. The ROOM, and then the room and after that, the room and when it's all said and done, THE ROOM! mahgister get's it.. The rest are settling for "good enough for me". That is just fine also. Some want more, some want less. That is what makes the world go round.. I'm 100% sure 80% of the audiophilers out there have spent a lot more on their systems than me.. I commend you.. The time I spent learning about room acoustics has been the single greatest enhancement of ALL the changes through the years of listening.. It was also the least expensive.. Thank you mahgister, MC, OHM, and a few other... |
Every system has a bottleneck, ie the thing that limits performance. It’s just a question of how much it matters. Can be very hard to determine with hifi gear. It takes a lot of work regression testing ie changing one thing at a time and comparing. Even then it is a subjective comparison and not an objective one so results will vary FBOFW . It can be a real exercise in futility in some cases to get it all truly optimized for best technical performance . That’s what engineers are for! New integrated amps and all in one units from reputable makers are a great way to avoid serious bottlenecks at a price point by letting the experts integrate things for you properly. Integrated amp technology has come a long way. There is probably one out there to satisfy most anyone. Except those who prefer to do it themselves of course. |
Same here... All the rest is gear conditioned mass ignorance and selling technique...Not because all gear are equal, they are not, but matter way less than acoustic... But even acoustic seller sell ignorance or easy to made passive costly material... An acoustic tuning and control is too complex to be sold at low cost... We must do it ourselves.. But it is not very popular to say to people that 20,000 bucks system or 100,000 busks one that did not matter the way they think... Audio system are like woman, most dont want to take the time to learn them, plug and play, plug off... This is audio for most... And their brand name is proof enough for them that it is good...They think that they know how to hear but hearing must be learned like any acoustician or musician know already... The truth is not popular and science either is not... propaganda and publicity are more easy to swallow... You know all that already ... My deepest respect to you...
|
It is not false for sure, but this hide the essential... The greatest bottleneck is our own room acoustic and more than that our own untrained hearing with acoustical experiments... The main bottleneck is our brain... An acoustic concept is not an abstraction, it is a reality that must be concretely listened to... A system or several pieces of gear exist in a room for the ears, and the bottleneck of the system must be manifested IN the room where it is well or not well embedded to the ears and for the ears ... To understand the true specific nature of this gear bottleneck we must understand acoustic first... If not, we are embarked in a carousel of upgrades most of the time meaningless.because we are unable to listen to this gear at this optimal working peak anyway... It take a room adapted to the gear and under control for that....
|
It’s true that if the system is in good shape ie no serious bottleneck then one is free to deal with the room. You can hire experts for that as well or most people can just have at it themselves with some good references for guidance. It’s another advantage of an integrated solution. One can then focus on speakers and acoustics better and acoustics always vary by room.
|
Not exactly mapman, no...An integrated solution will have his own bottleneck...No system is perfect but all system at any price can be lifted out of their bottleneck to a new bottleneck yes... But for example my actual system room is out of my past bottleneck, in a new unperceived bottleneck...I live very well with it why? Because when we reach a certain sound quality level, we know what will be the cost of a real beneficial upgrade, only at this time we can know it... mine will be from my 500 bucks system going to a minimal 10,000 to 15000 bucks system... why i dont want to do it? not only because i dont have the money but i dont need it really... Pianio sound fill already my room, my system/speakers beat already my 8 headphones... there is always better but i am very pleased... My soundscape is the best i ever listen to anyway...
How can you became conscious of a bottlemeck inherent to the system in all case, especially with a already good system like the one i own ? I was never conscious that i listenedc in his botlleneck in the past BEFORE i take control of the room ... why? Because any system has his own limitations and bottleneck, then how can you know them and detect all of them in a nude room without acoustic control of any kind ? i bought my system , i was happy, but not COMPLETELY satisfied without knowing why...I cannot put my finger on anything...I though that all was right and at the same time all seems very limited: timbre,imaging, soundstage etc Some bottleneck was there but not manifested openly, i was sensing that something may be lacking without the faintest idea what it is and how to adress it... This become gradually clear when i PASS OVER THIS bottleneck with an improving acoustic, which means i become conscious of where i come from and where i was going... |
@mahgister gotta disagree. The technology can easily be the bottleneck once the acoustics are addressed properly. An integrated amp however means less technology integration to get right. The experts have addressed that for you and the product solution is solved for you regardless of room. Now you can deal with the thing unique in each case which is the acoustics of the room and integrating just the speakers to amp and room. Much easier to get right technically. All electronics are different still however so even an integrated amp may still be the bottleneck in the end. At that point if it matters you want a better integrated amp. It all matters. Just a matter of how practically one goes about getting all the parts of the system right. The complete system includes the room and ones ears which are always different in each case. Cheer! |
I never say that the technology has no bottleneck ... I say the opposite... read my post another time ...
You are right this time too... But you miss the essential point... Any technological upgrade fpor the better will suffer the lack of acoustic control and will work UNDER his peak potential level unbeknowst to you especially if you come from a lower design to a better one, you will appreciate the improvement but you will never know that this same system is able to deliver way more in a controlled acoustic environment... This is my point... I done negate that any technology can be replaced by a better one... I negate that a system/speakers will replace by itself room acoustic... In the future with an A. I. expert system integrated to the room yes .... My point is simple, we cannot judge all problems amd limits pertainig to a system/speakers without a room adapted to it... Simple... This does not means that you are wrong... This means you miss the important point to judge any system limits : acoustic... Not upgrades... |
Having read the editorial, I am not sure what the point is. It seems to be arguing simultaneously that smallish upgrades may unlock the Pandora box of beauty previously concealed, and also that one shouldn’t hesitate making an huge upgrade to one end of a system even if the rest of the system isn’t in the same league. To the first part my response is “Duh”…hasn’t we all had that experience? One small change and everything seems to snap into focus? And to the second part, all I can say is that isn’t my experience. If one link in the chain severely hampers everything else, it doesn’t matter what you do with everything else, you have to fix that one issue |
I can accept it costs more to produce better performing components. But there is some voodoo physics in "high end" products. One example is speaker cables costing tens of thousands of dollars. The issue of skin depth attenuating high audio frequencies is an example that can be easily calculated. A pair of 8 gauge solid cables has the resistance changing from 0.005 Ohms for DC to 0.01 Ohms at 20 kHz for typical lengths. This in series with 4 speakers attenuates signal voltage by less than 0.01 Db. Cable marketers caught in this junk science lose all credibility for me. There are other claims: differences in signal path length of a few millimeters at the speed of light smear the sound and stored static dipole polarization in loudspeaker insulation can be tested by putting the insulation next to another cable with the speaker disconnected. The first cable is connected to the speaker and not to an amplifier. Such stored dipole energy from one insulator should be possible to hear in the connected speaker if insulation were an issue. It does not.
|
@drbarney1 +1 |
Wonderfully and simply stated. All the best, |
Well said... And not a word on the HUGE change coming from acoustic treatment and control... For sure... Who want to know that a 100,000 bucks audio system is not enough to reach a hi fi sound most of the times...
Helmholtz method is the key... Acoustic is the door... |
The alternatives or choices for most of us is not ultra high end versus low cost design... Even Helmholtz method will not change my very good Sansui AU 7700 old design in a Top Berining ZOTL amplifier... But for all people with audio system at any price the main MULTIPLIER of S.Q. is acoustic and psycho acoustic methods... I used Helmholtz method which adress the action of resonators and diffusers... I used Classical room treatment too where the SURFACE balance between absorbtion/reflection/diffusion is key... I even used "tweaks" which work well like Schumann generators at low cost and ionizers... But none of that will transform the design quality of my Sansui in a ZOTL... But give me a ZOTL and i will certainly used acoustic and all the other controls i already used but in a complete different way accordingly to the meeds of the new components... And i prefer a sansui in a controlled room anyway at many costlier design in an uncontrolled room...
In a word if like me most people you own relatively good component but low cost one it is better to use acoustic method than buying an upgrade piece... But we are not all in the same situation... i own a dedicated room, most dont... I dont need esthetical design, most need them... Then my experience teach us something that cannot be applied for everyone needs and everywhere... One thing cannot change, acoustic is the key to Hi-Fi... Not upgrading generally ... Especially if we want to live with a good ratio S.Q./price... No expansive system can fic a room, and anyway any system at any price will benefit from acoustic... No one sell a ZOTL to buy a Sansui with a "tweaks" for sure though... 😁😊 But i prefer my Sansui in a controlled room to a ZOTL in an uncontrolleed room... I hope i have been clear... No speakers beat the room said an acoustician...I dont remember his name...No amplifier too...But no room will make a bad design a better one...Acoustic method OPTIMIZE the working of what we already have, bad and good component... The effect of acoustic is huge but only Christ transform stone in bread...
|
@jpwarren58 Headphones. Or hang a bunch of foil and crystals. @mahgister swears by the. No mahgster I am not saying they do not work. But if I did that my wife would have left me at the Poland Ukraine border 2 weeks ago….. That is not flying here. |