Law of Accelerating Returns

"10-04-14: Dgarretson
I've always thought of this phenomenon in abstract terms as an example of Xeno's Dichotomy paradox. As one approaches the (unattainable) goal of the Absolute sound, progress is experienced not as the distance travelled from the point of origin, but rather as a closing of the gap that remains. If one's system is 90% of what it can be, then a 5% progress to 95% is perceived as a 50% improvement-- closing the remaining gap by half. At 95% of goal, progress to 96% of goal is perceived as a 20% improvement in performance. This is why relatively small incremental improvements can be meaningful."

The only way you can assign percentages as a representative of performance is if you know what the end result is, and that it can be attained. If you don't know what 100% is, then 50% and 20% (or whatever), is meaningless.

Zd542,
I think that in this context, using percentages to measure differences is meaningless. I think that that was is meaningful is that small perceived improvements do seem very significant to the listener.

It's always been argued here by some on A'gon that small levels of improvement don't warrant the praise and accolades given. I've been on the side of giving credit where it's due, no matter the level of improvement, and to state it in glowing terms as it's the beauty of the results that justify the praise.

I like Harley's perspective.

All the best,
Nonoise

I don't live in the reality that audio reviewer live in. It's important to remember that TAS is a magazine that has taken to calling $15,000 power amplifiers and $18,000 loudspeakers "bargains". There was a time when the magazine didn't have to resort to obscure and convoluted reasoning to justify what its writers heard.

From the article:

The second reason why The Law of Accelerating Returns applies to an audio system is something Meridian Audio co-founder Bob Stuart calls The Increasing Importance of the Smaller Difference. He posits that humans are naturally inclined to make very fine discriminations, such as differences between two champion dogs of the same breed. Dog aficionados aren’t interested in the differences between dogs and cats, or between different breeds of dogs, or even between mediocre and stellar examples of the same breed, but they are fascinated by the very finest differences among the breed’s elite dogs, some of which are invisible to the untrained eye. The smaller the difference, the greater that difference’s importance to those who care about such things.

I think he's making a valid factual observation, but I also think that the observation does not support the stated conclusion.

I would put it that as reproduced sound more closely approaches the sound of live music, two things occur:

1)Small differences become more perceivable.

2)Perceived differences become more important.

I think that both of these points can be illustrated by considering the situation of two components or systems being compared while using a terrible sounding recording, and then while using a great sounding recording. With the first recording, Garbage A may sound different than Garbage B, but who cares? With the high quality recording, though, differences between the components or systems are likely to be both more perceivable and more important.

None of that means, however, that “the smaller the difference, the greater that difference’s importance to those who care about such things.”

Regards,
-- Al