If you have something like this at home you can get that 3d sound. What passes for "high end" here not so much.
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 posts total
I listen to this with a 500 bucks system in my acoustically controlled room.. Then... Is costlier gear better? It is common place fact to say yes... But acoustic for example matter more than any brand named choice especially if the basic gear is already well chosen... Simple scientific and experimental fact.... In acoustic there is an "optimal" possible return for ANY gear choice which is over anything else or over most possible upgrade..."accelerating" return is like diminishing return a very fast end process related to engineering quality /price ratio... Optimization process are slower and deeper process with no link to any marketing conditioning... Optimization ask more for TIME consumung listening experiments than money consuming upgreading spree... You cannot replace acoustic improvement with a change of brand in gear, but you can upgrade any gear without changing it when you adapt the room to it.... |
@asctim Yes, what you say has a lot of merit.. Normally, marginal, or incremental, return is easiest to understand if only one thing is changed at a time. Even that can be tricky with audio. Should something else be changed as well, like knowledge or appreciation through learning, this complicates but does not invalidate the principle. This is why the words "äll other things being equal" are often used. Actually (and I digress), the more you learn and discern about what matters, you may find yourself spending less than you otherwise would have on that next bit of kit. The landscape has changed and any meaningful comparison with the previous change becomes problematic. I suspect that may be the opposite intent of Mr Harley’s editorial. I hope I’ve understood you correctly. {edit - having taken my time tapping that out I now see others have contributed in a meaningful manner so anyway...} 2nd edit - to be abundantly clear, I am talking about marginal or incremental changes in sound quality or spending, like little bite size portions - I speak not of levels of, or total, enjoyment or expenditure. They are increasing, even when marginal may be decreasing.
|
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: |
@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. |
- 130 posts total