Law of Accelerating Returns

The article begins with a false premise that the cost of audio equipment is directly related to its quality. Part of the joy is finding products that are fantastic values. At the lower end of audiophile equipment I think finding an objective sonic improvement that the vast majority can agree on is far more likely than with the extreme high end where I think it is more about preference and differences than objective undisputed differences.

I think he has a point to be considered, but is something that is more in parallel than at odds with the law of deminishing returns. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

"10-04-14: Onhwy61
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."

I don't see what the big deal is about that. The main purpose of the magazine is to review and discuss high end/expensive audio gear. Its to be expected that they review these type of components. As far as calling 15k amps and 18k speakers a bargain, why not consider taking it a face value? The comment may be valid. For example, I think the Vandersteen Model 5 is a very good value when compared to speakers that are far more expensive like Wilson and Avalon. Its all relative.

Hey that's a pretty good argument for buying more audio stuff. Let me try it on my wife and report back.

I am not sure Zeno would approve of this but if one's system is 90% then a 5% improvement from that starting point would put it at 90.5

Please check my math, it was never my strongest subject in school.

I think Mceljo is correct. I like the idea of looking and finding the best VALUES. I've tried cable which costs about as much as a small car and have had better results with much less expensive wires. That's just one example.

The often astronomical cost of high-end components can be rationalized and justified in many ways. After being even a small player in this game for many years, I'm convinced that past a point, as audiophiles pursue "accelerating returns" it's really about "STUFF". It is no longer about the music. So often, today's great stuff is tomorrow's trade-in.

There are no "laws" involved. if you spend x amount on a system and it sounds good, and then you spend x+ to "improve it" what law is at work besides the law of thinner wallets? It's seems ludicrous to me to try to mathematically quantify the level of improvement and somehow correlate it to the amount of money spend.

I suppose in theory, if you're system is "99%" there, and you get another .5% maybe you'd think that was a substantially accelerated ROI. :) Yeah, maybe.

I think a valid comparison can be made with high-performance car engines, something I know more than a little about. X amount of dough will yield X horsepower. To get maybe 5% more HP (no not THAT HP!) will cost exponentially more than one's initial investment. Is it worth it??? I guess a lot of that depends on how deep your pockets are.

Please, no snarky comments using the word "accelerating!" :)

Robert Harley seems like a very nice man but he does have a magazine to run. The never-ending quest for the "Absolute Sound" can help the economy but it can also make you crazy.

It's been said many times before, but think about how many concert tickets or disks a person could buy if he/she didn't buy that bazillion dollar next component.