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.
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 $.5 million… now, over a million… although I am sure it is even better (I can’t imagine how)..
But listening to that system was so mind blowing… so much better than anything I could conceive of, it just completely changed my expectation of what a system could be. It was orders of magnitude better than anything I had heard.
Interestingly, as impressed as I was… I did not want “that” sound, as much as I appreciated it. It still expanded my horizon as to what is possible. That is really important, as it is really easy to make judgments on what you have heard and not realize the possibilities… like never having left the small town in Kansas (no offense).
I keep reading these posts about diminishing returns. That isn’t the way it works. I recently read an article by Robert Harley in The Absolute Sound called the Law of Accelerated Returns that captures the concept perfectly. March 2022 issue. The possibilities in high end audio is incredible. Everyone interested in it in any way deserves to hear what is possible. It is mind expanding.
- ...
- 130 posts total
I just posted in the ONTI Cat8 cable thread about what 2 ethernet cables for a total of 95$ 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 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...
|
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. |
- 130 posts total