2. speakers
  3. 175053-9627

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. 

 

 

ghdprentice
danager's avatar
danager
884 posts
 

Look, if you throw $500K of high-end gear in a spare bedroom, it’s gonna sound bad

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

mulveling's avatar
mulveling
1,774 posts
 

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

@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
You: I disagree with your hypothetical scenario’s conclusion, let’s hash it out more

😅

danager's avatar
danager
884 posts
 

@mulveling 

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.

johnk's avatar
johnk
1,973 posts
 

It's not about how much you spend but about how much you know. I've heard cheap DIY systems built by knowledgable hobbyists rival the most costly setups.

musicaddict
370 posts
 

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

More to discover