An analogy for sound improvement in high end gear

Ah, gotcha. You hit the nail on the head; buying according to need. I went the other way. From a stereo integrated to a good AV amp that fulfills what I need an amp to do.

 

I was not being negative, if it came across that way it was not intended. It's difficult to pick your words if you are saying something other than The Beatles are Awesome without it getting misinterpreted in such a big forum.

I appreciate your comment, you get the spirit of my post

All I was trying to get at was, I think I understand where audio enthusiasts are coming from with the never ending upgrades. That is, a constant quest for improvement and I imagine curiosity. That's where I was coming for with the the drag car Analogy ...... Huge amounts of effort, research, experimentation and cash to get marginal improvements. The flaw with that analogy though is that a car can be measured in time, but with music or visual, opinion comes in the equation.

BTW, I am not a car guy... I am a musician.

 

I have 3 midland systems and they all sound so different that choosing better is foolish and much of my enjoyment is based on the quality of what I am playing. Each system has a turntable of different makes and carts and phono stages and different amps and certainly speakers. Nothing is crazy money expensive. In one I have some very affordable JBL 3-way bookshelf speakers I am using in the near field to my listening seat at least 4 feet away from any boundary and I am enjoying that presentation, with less bass than from my vintage AR-58 3 ways with a 12". Not a fair fight, but the detail and staging is excellent for what the JBL's cost. Just a difference perspective.

I listen to all of my home studio recordings on each to gain an understanding of how that work might sound to my clients. They hear it on all three as well and can make sonic choices on a new take if they wish. It is pretty easy to start chasing your tail in changing out this and that, but improvements can be made for sure. I just got off that wagon long ago as spending money on just different happened all too often.

I would now rather spend more on better mics and mic pres than my listening gear anymore. My systems give me plenty of enjoyment and my fretting about what I don't have is long gone. Contentment is a wonderful thing. Some might say that is the same as "ignorance is bliss" if someone heard my systems and said, "Why haven't you fixed that"?

You must enjoy what you have or you have missed the point of being a music lover, and become a gear lover. It is not what it is, but what it does.

 

Im tired of the suggestion that audiophiles are throwing their money away. That's exactly what I took from "I look at the gear some of you guys have and think " bloody hell, so much money to listen to music for questionable improvement"

He keeps saying he didn't mean anything by it and a few of you think I overreacted. Fair enough. I'll answer his question.

The value I receive from the audio equipment I purchase far exceeds the value I receive from the money it took to purchase the system.

 

As I see it can theoretically be possible, if using the same components in a system, to step by step do some improvements, that is the end will be very small. It will not work trying to find different components with the same type of step by step improvements, as the components will likely be too different, and will in fact just yield a different sound. A sound that will be very hard tell if it´s totally better, or worse.

 

I don't think the OP is being negative, just inquisitive. I see no malice in his posts. And I've read LOTS of post from people with very high end rigs moaning about how much they had to spend to achieve¨ little but substantial differences¨ or ¨going the extra mile¨ or whatever. Won't name names, though. So it's not just the OP's imagination.

I know I'd spend tens of Ks on audio if I could afford it. Whether it would or not be that huge of an improvement over what I have I dunno because I haven't been there yet. I mean, it WOULD be for sure, but my old pair of lugs are used to the same amps I've owned for 20 years. And the speakers and sub I've owned for 8 years now. It would not be easy, but I think I'd start by a a pair of Palladium towers and a couple of esoteric subs, some Luxman japanese amplification, super-nice cabling, etc.

I've made sure every penny I've dropped on audio stuff so far meant a HUGE improvement to my ears. And I don't regret anything.

 

Or the other way around

 

The bet way I can answer your question is with this statement: sometimes a marginal improvement with one component (and that one component can be a piece of equipment, an interconnect or an acoustic room treatment) results in the entire system being transformed. In other words, the whole system falls into place or hits the sweet spot where everything is in tune with everything else. All because of a marginal improvement brought on by a large sum of dollars spent in one key area of the system.

So, yes. Past a certain level there is a point of diminishing returns with individual components, but the actual return can turn out to be quite substantial vis a vis the synergy of the whole system.

I hope that made sense.

 

Interesting.

I can only reference guitar equipment as that is my area of skill.

I have found that lots of little things all add up to good sound, reliability road worthiness etc.

But every now and then you find one little thing that makes a mig difference. I'll spare you an example.

I think are the type of improvement/s you are alluding to.

 

There is certainly a factor fo diminishing returns when it comes to audio equipment. if you were to graph the cost to sound quality relationship, you would get something like this:


The axis titled "Estimate Accuracy" would be Sound Quality, and the "Estimation Effort" would be Cost. We can see at a certain point you need to spend a significant amount for a marginal. Every person needs to decide for themselves where on the curve they want to be. Personally, I want to be very close to the point where it starts to flatten out. Others may not be able, or want, to spend even that much, as they may be happy enough with the SQ before that point. I can tell you though, that point isn't going to be in the few thousand dollar range, so if you're not there, sound noticable improvement can be had for a reasonable amount of money.

But just the amount of money being spent doesn't tell the whole story- it's also about synergy, the listening environment, etc.

 

Actually the racing analogy may not be bad. The curve above is similar to a power vs ET curve but inverted. Even most newbies to the racing world don't comprehend the logarithmic nature of it. it's not uncommon for the uninitiated to think when they get from a 12.5 to an 11.9 that they "are just a few tweaks away" from a 10, having no clue that it'll likely take a 50% HP gain to get to 10 and then maybe double that to get to a 9. Once in the 10's tenths start getting tougher and tougher to squeeze from a car. I know, I've been sitting at 11.2 for a year and a half trying to squeeze off a 10 from my 4500lb beast! Now trying to get her from 185 to 190 in a standing mile with 650HP. A friend runs 207.9 and that extra 22MPH takes almost double the HP.

 

Are you Lewis Hamilton can you appreciate or drive a very fast car
Do you have golden ears, some claim to ,they can name mics on a session, or hear differences in expensive amps
Not many though

 

Some good posts here, so I'll only add that as you upgrade your system over the years, certain improvements can mean that other changes that previously could not be heard, are now audible. An example: when I upgraded my speakers, I heard system issues that were not audible on my previous speakers. I upgraded my cables, power line conditioning and bought additional tools to optimize my turntable setup (i.e, digital scale, Fozgometer, test record, etc.) and those system issues disappeared. I'll almost certainly never be able to afford megabuck equipment, but my goal is to have the best sound possible on the budget I think is appropriate.

 

I like to think more in terms of hi performance rather than hi end..you can get audiphile results wthout breaking the bank,,,hell, I have to laugh when I read reviews of extremly expensive gear that's outperformed by less expensive stuff, Oppo being an example of great product for the money. You have to know your limitations and then do your research, part of which is getting out there and auditioning gear.

 

Sorry, but to be honest you are taking the extreme here... to justify your original proposition that is not well supported at all.

Edit: You are not mental, you just have a questionable view of others systems/gear due to a lack of experience.

Pretty common in this hobby, I have been there at the beginning myself.....and if you do climb the ladder in the area of reproduction in a home setting your view could be entirely different from the one you state in the OP.

No angst here, just a different perspective

 

I'm also not saying that we can't get enjoyable playback out of a very modest system, because we can

Everyone has different aims, and points of where they are satisfied.

I would suggest that you can take that system and tweak it with little outlay, It's amazing sometimes what some inexpensive tweaks can do

Edit: Oh, I should have explained better in my first post here. Over time I have not know what improvements can be had with better gear, it was only once I had heard the differences myself that I understood.

Edit2: I keep thinking of things
It's about what tickles ya' fancy most also, and the fact that you are a guitarist might mean that you would get more enjoyment out of spending our hard earned on that gorgeous axe you have lusted after

 

I like this a lot... a plot of "Main Sequence" HiFi ... but we're always looking for, or even say we have found, that piece of kit that plots to the left of that curve.

 

As one who took that ride back at the turn of the century, I can say there are noticeable improvements along the way. There does come a point though where the improvements turned out to be differences more than improvements.
Improving the listening room and equipment setup has been the most beneficial work in my quest for satisfied listening.

The turn of the century, holy crap.

 

These analogies of marginal improvements and diminishing returns have some truth in them. Another metaphor occurs to me, one that I like because it emphasizes hi-fi solidarity and amity rather than sharp class differences.

Going hi-fi, whether your system is relatively modest or megabucks, artisanal, and state-of-the-art, is like a ticket into a beautifully designed, acoustically lovely performance space. Most people, the non-hi-fi masses, are happily milling around in the lobby with the concert being piped in through mediocre ceiling speakers and screened on video monitors. But we're together inside this resonant, organic auditorium that faithfully projects the music to every seat in the house. The more expensive the ticket, the better the seat. Spend enough, and you're front and center getting spritzed with sweat when Pete Townsend windmills a chord. But even the seats way up in the balcony are delivering the real deal. Everybody with a ticket is already a winner. But over time it can be fun to work your way up into the orchestra rows.

 

I always equated upgrading gear or "tone chasing" to the following:

It's like a drinking binge - you are always "trying to get a little better than before."

 

The car analogy is often misplaced (although I use it too sometimes to talk about hi-fi) but the OP's use of it may work to make a couple points:
1. 1/4 mile times ('drag racing' in U.S. parlance) is not a measure of how a 'sports car' performs overall. So, too, systems that can produce thunderous bass or analytic detail- impressive in the short term- may not prove to be the kind of thing that you want to 'drive' over the long haul, to get the most enjoyment out of the 'drive.'
2. assuming you accept my starting premise, you could build a car that is unbelievably nimble, a joy to drive and overall, delivers years of satisfaction from a modest base- a Mazda Miata or an older Porsche 911 can be a platform for something that could squirrel through the twisties and zero in on the line better than the latest uber bling exotic that is featured on magazine covers.
Does this take experience or some know how? Yes, I suppose. In the same way that someone who hasn't experienced what a decent sportscar, well driven, can do on the backroads. The analogy at this point is stretched, perhaps, because the measure of a great sports car may take some skill as a driver to extract, but 'by analogy,' if you are exposed to musical systems, you don't need golden ears to go 'Aha!' -sounds more lifelike and vivid across a range of material, over the long haul, without fatigue.

 

Generally speaking, there are no giant leaps in high end and yes - beyond a certain point, very minor improvements often come at a substantial monetary premium.

Ironically, some of the most significant improvements can be had by addressing some of the more fundamental principles of high fidelity at relatively little cost - such as loudspeaker placement & room acoustics, for example.

 

AGREED. after living with one for 13 years now, i can attest that an older A/V amp like the 1990 PIONEER VSX-D1S receiver can deliver good powerful listenable sound in SPADES.

i am quite sure it is hardly the best one can aspire to, but at the $150/$300 or so mean average price one can find good used examples for today,
the VSX-D1S AVR is possessed of a fantastic value/performance/build quality ratio that is DAMNED HARD TO BEAT;

 

It is also all about timing. A modest improvement after living with your system for ten years is a much bigger deal than if you make an change while still paying for the last one.

Try to be happy with what you have for as long as you can, don't go chasing dragons. The absence of desire is path to enlightenment.