The Law of Accelerating Returns

@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!

@mahgister gotta disagree. The technology can easily be the bottleneck once the acoustics are addressed properly.

I never say that the technology has no bottleneck ... I say the opposite... read my post another time ...

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.

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