Accelerate means the rate of improvement will grow exponentially, rather than tail off asymptotically...My read of Hartley’s article Is that small relative increments in costs can create proportionally larger emotional perceptions of improved sonic experiences…For now.
My view is that while Hartley’s observation is potentially true in some cases, it is not universally applicable across all components or in time.
First, it is limited to system components (e.g., sources - digital servers, DACs, tonearms, cartridges etc) that are the weakest chain in the link (in terms of contribution of noise/artifacts) relative to other components where the technology is more mature (e.g., speakers).
Second, even for those components where the oversized impressions occur now, unlike Moore’s empirical law, they cannot continue indefinitely because there is, in principle at least, a theoretical limit to how good the system can sound - it can’t sound better to the observer than being present at the original live recorded event, unless the observer’s auditory perceptions are modified in some way after the original live event!
So the “acceleration” of the rate of the perceived improvements in the reproduction of sound, which are admittedly subjective, will slow down as technological improvements slow and/or you reach the physical limit of not being able to sound any better than the original.
The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Below is a quote from a post today by Steve Williams on the Taiko Extreme thread on WBF that serves as another example of a “non-diminishing returns” increase in the perceived sound quality from, in this case, a software change which had minimal cost:
“For my ears it was the biggest sound quality improvement in my system EVER. I finally stopped listening at midnight last night and I still haven't begun to listen to all of my files stored in the Extreme
“I am still wrapping my head around what I heard yesterday and it is such a huge uptick that I am still trying to understand what happened. I too watch Emile fly through the install in just a few minutes and it was done. Everyone with an Extreme needs to have this new OS installed.
“Simply put I have never heard my system sound so good as it did after the OS install.”
This is another example where the source component (Music server) is the apparent weak link in the system and small costs in technology upgrades create “non-diminishing returns” (linear or greater marginal/rate changes) in sound quality because the rest of the system was freed from the previous source constraints to perform at a higher level.
Of course, we can expect that after a certain point, the rate of sound quality increases will start to decrease and will once again return to the “diminishing returns” part of the curve.
Determining where and when that point will occur is anyone’s guess.
“For my ears it was the biggest sound quality improvement in my system EVER. I finally stopped listening at midnight last night and I still haven't begun to listen to all of my files stored in the Extreme
“I am still wrapping my head around what I heard yesterday and it is such a huge uptick that I am still trying to understand what happened. I too watch Emile fly through the install in just a few minutes and it was done. Everyone with an Extreme needs to have this new OS installed.
“Simply put I have never heard my system sound so good as it did after the OS install.”
This is another example where the source component (Music server) is the apparent weak link in the system and small costs in technology upgrades create “non-diminishing returns” (linear or greater marginal/rate changes) in sound quality because the rest of the system was freed from the previous source constraints to perform at a higher level.
Of course, we can expect that after a certain point, the rate of sound quality increases will start to decrease and will once again return to the “diminishing returns” part of the curve.
Determining where and when that point will occur is anyone’s guess.
Last edited:
Given the lack of a scale to measure improvements in perceived sound quality, words such as “accelerate” or “exponential” raise, as some others have suggested, more questions than they answer.
So perhaps more qualitative terms such as “diminishing returns” or “non-diminishing returns” or some other alternatives may be more appropriate.
So perhaps more qualitative terms such as “diminishing returns” or “non-diminishing returns” or some other alternatives may be more appropriate.
I just saw your pics , beautifull .
But seeing you mentioning all the other (sold ) power amps , it would be very interesting to read your comparison comments on those, may be in another thread
My experience (not at audio shows) is that there is a big difference between using a good DAC and using on OCD digital system.
It really came home to me just this week as I was auditioning a NAD M33 all-in-one Streamer, DAC, Preamp/Amp as a multi-component back up for the inevitable component breakdown (especially amps in my case).
The NAD, which is well respected, was sounding pretty good running straight from an ethernet cable. But then I switched over to the Extreme Server+ Nagra tube dac+Atmasphere pre and Boenicke class D amp and difference was profound. If I'd had my DartZeel amp (out for repair) in the mix it would have been a big level higher still.
FYI:
www.stereophile.com
Forget about the sound of the recording
Hello, and Happy New Year! I'm greeting you in October 2021just before Halloween, in anticipation of Stereophile's publication deadlinebut by the time this magazine arrives in your mailbox, it'll be after the holidays.
www.stereophile.com
Excellent article (and some good reply comments as well). Best line was that as an engineer, he considers his job to simply "disappear". Same thing we say about what we want our gear to do!FYI:
Forget about the sound of the recording
Hello, and Happy New Year! I'm greeting you in October 2021just before Halloween, in anticipation of Stereophile's publication deadlinebut by the time this magazine arrives in your mailbox, it'll be after the holidays.
Here is Robert Harley's interesting piece in TAS, September 2014, "The Law of Accelerating Returns":
www.theabsolutesound.com
This view rebuts the criticism of Roy's statement as hyperbolic:
First, by improving one link in the reproduction chain you better reveal the qualities and characteristics of every other component in the chain. For example, replacing a preamplifier that is slightly opaque, shaves off a layer of very fine detail, and compresses dynamic contrasts with one that is much more transparent, resolving, and dynamic allows you to hear, for the first time, just how transparent, detailed, and dynamic your sources, cables, and loudspeakers really are. The upgrade isn’t just to the preamplifier; you’re unlocking the potential of every other component in the signal path . . .
The Increasing Importance of the Smaller Difference . . . posits that humans are naturally inclined to make very fine discriminations, such as differences between two champion dogs of the same breed. . . . The smaller the difference, the greater that difference’s importance to those who care about such things.
From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns - The Absolute Sound
From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns -
www.theabsolutesound.com
This view rebuts the criticism of Roy's statement as hyperbolic:
First, by improving one link in the reproduction chain you better reveal the qualities and characteristics of every other component in the chain. For example, replacing a preamplifier that is slightly opaque, shaves off a layer of very fine detail, and compresses dynamic contrasts with one that is much more transparent, resolving, and dynamic allows you to hear, for the first time, just how transparent, detailed, and dynamic your sources, cables, and loudspeakers really are. The upgrade isn’t just to the preamplifier; you’re unlocking the potential of every other component in the signal path . . .
The Increasing Importance of the Smaller Difference . . . posits that humans are naturally inclined to make very fine discriminations, such as differences between two champion dogs of the same breed. . . . The smaller the difference, the greater that difference’s importance to those who care about such things.
Last edited:
Here is Robert Harley's interesting piece in TAS, September 2014, "The Law of Accelerating Returns":
From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns - The Absolute Sound
From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns -
Does this 2014 version make any different points than Harley's TAS commentary with the same title in issue January 2022, that we have been discussing in this thread? Cf. posts #311 - #319, etc.
Yes, @tima , I do indeed think it is possible, and I am increasingly trying to do so.
I did a search here for the words "beauty and truth", and your thread popped up. I am interested in revisiting this subject because I am engaged with some audiophiles in a discussion about amplifier distortion, specifically Lamm SET versus Pass SS, their distortion characteristics, and what distortion means to our enjoyment and listening experience.
One participant wrote that he sometimes misses the "midrange beauty" of one (tube) amp compared to the "honesty" of the other (SS) amp, but in general he listens more to the SS amp because it has lower distortion, less coloration, is more dynamic, and has better deep bass, at least as matched with his speakers. He started using non audiophile terms, perhaps not music language, to describe two different amplifiers. He then used more audiophile terms as he became more specific about the differences. I told him that was a very interesting way to put it and explained why.
For me, "beauty" and "honesty" (truth) are not opposed but inherently linked, as they are when listening to live music. I generally do not hear the beauty of the music if the system's presentation is distracting. In the concert hall, we listen to what the musicians are playing as we hear its beauty: the beauty of the composition, and the beauty of the conductor's interpretation, the beauty of the musician's playing, and the beauty of the instruments' individual timbres as they fill up the concert hall.
The higher distortion amp was described as having a more beautiful midrange than the more honest amp. I am not sure the role measurements have in telling us what sounds more real. Ironically, Vladimir Lamm developed a set of measurements that reflect the sound that his listening subjects preferred. His amplifiers are the result of that research and they have more measured distortion than some others. Does this make them less truthful? In this context, what does describing an amplifier as "honest" or "truthful" really mean?
I now increasingly judge a successful amplifier (or system, or set up), not by how it sounds compared to some other amplifier of perhaps a different design typology, but to how it reminds me of real music. A year and a half ago, I compared my now former SS amp to a borrowed hybrid design. I suppose in the comparison process I did compare the two sounds to each other, but the critical and quite obvious difference was how each compared to my memory of live music. One took me right to the music and away from my room. The other took me right back to the system I knew so well, but suddenly did not like so much. It was this distinction that drove my preference. I heard immediately which sounded more realistic, and I made my choice then and there. One amplifier had lower distortion and was more "honest" on paper, but the other one sounded more realistic (truthful/honest) - and the important thing was that I heard more beauty in its presentation also, all the very aspects of beauty I listed above. I chose the amp with more measured distortion because I thought is sounded both more beautiful and more truthful.
As I reflect back on that afternoon and try to describe the comparison to others, no audiophile terms come to mind. What I remember is how each presented the music in my room, and which sounded more realistic. Which amp put me in front of the musicians? Which amp got me more engaged, lost in the notes, and moving to the beat? Which made me forget where I was? This comparison confirmed for me the value of a live reference acting as a guide and how integral what we perceive as the truth is to beauty when we try to assemble a system which will remind us of what we experience when listening to live music. I am now just learning that the language we choose to use to describe what we hear can go a long way to conveying to others what we find compelling. Or it can confuse them further.
Last edited:
Peter, I like what you wrote - you know I agree with you. I will respond somewhat indirectly.
One participant wrote that he sometimes misses the "midrange beauty" of one (tube) amp compared to the "honesty" of the other (SS) amp, but in general he listens more to the SS amp because it has lower distortion, less coloration, is more dynamic, and has better deep bass, at least as matched with his speakers.
I'd be curious to ask the basis of his view that the solid-state amp has lower distortion, less coloration, greater dynamics and better bass.
Distortion is typically a child of measurement, for example,. total harmonic distortion (THD) and claimed as a property of an amplifier. Basically distortion is the difference between the input signal and the output signal, and THD is how much distortion is due to the harmonics in the signal. A sinewave is fed to an amplifier and is measured by a THD analyzer, comparing each harmonic to the fundamental, or by canceling the fundamental with a filter and measuring the remaining harmonics. Or so I understand from reading.
The distortion of an amplifier usually is known by reading manufacturer specs or submitting the component for analysis to someone who has the equipment to take audio component measurements. I assume your 'honesty advocate' is using some published measurement as the basis of his belief that component X offers less distortion. The inference is that X is better because it has a better number. Then comes: the sound of X is preferred because it has lower distortion. Then comes the great leap: Good Amplifiers have lower distortion.
Here distortion is a number. How does that number tie to reality? Play the same music with two amplifiers having different measured distortion numbers and point to a passage where the greater distortion is evident according to what we hear. Is that measured distortion audible? Or do we simply claim what we're trying to prove, namely that the sound from the amp with lower distortion measurement is truer or more honest because it has a lower distortion measurement?
Of course the view that holds to better measurement as the criteria for assessment is the basis for the rise of subjective audio. Early reactionary radicals such as Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson argued that amplifier assessment is best made with our ears by listening. They and others went on to create a vocabulary for describing sound and components. That vocabulary replaced numbers and measurements, ears replaced measuring equipment. In contrast to the likes of Julian Hirsch and Stereo Review, new magazines such as Stereophile and The Absolute Sound sprang up to teach the new vocabulary.
The subjective audio approach captured an audience early on and it grew rapidly. Nowadays it is the presumed and preferred way to talk about stereo systems. Imo part of the appeal to subjective audio is its democratic nature - anyone can engage in it without the need for 'fancy' measuring equipment. People quickly picked up on the subjectivist magazine vocabulary and started throwing words around.
That led to two different 'problems' or issues we see evident today. One was the reaction to subjectivism by those who believe that reality, including sound, is properly described with measurements and the principles of predictive repeatability -- empirical science offers the best way to describe sound. Since hearing is claimed to be subjective the fallback is to take the Hirsch approach to amplifiers and apply it elsewhere in audio. These two approaches (objectivist and subjectivist) vying for dominance we see played out daily in audio forums. Two engaged areas that come to mind are source recording and playback (analog vs digital) and wires (power cords and speaker cables).
The other 'problem' coming out of subjective audio is different. Empirical audio uses tools and equipment to take measurements of various electric signals such as sine waves. Subjective audio listens do not listen to signals or defined sounds but to recorded music. Its product is an account or description of what is heard. And those descriptions are held to be entirely relative to the individual making them. Compared to empirical audio the problems are two-fold: there is no reference independent of measurement and here the measuring equipment (ears) is highly variable - there are as many instances of measuring equipment as there are listeners. This has led to the view that the results (descriptions) from each listener are equally valid. No assessment is more right or correct than any other -- opinion is all there is. That is largely a sacred tenet on subjectivist audio forums.
Bifurcating sound and music into truth vs beauty is an audiophile playing with words -- I don't see where it helps. There is so much of this vs that, putting things into made up categories and little boxes for the purpose of applying logic to them, all for the purposes of discussing and arguing. They more I read it, the more I think it is a glaze of nonsense spread across the forum. ... sorry I'm starting to rant.
Great thoughts Tim… I tend to find that good tube amps are considerably more honest in a whole sense. In terms of music I find truth in itself beautiful. Some seem to conflate measurement as some absolute truth. Don’t get me wrong when it comes to pure science all I want is honest measurement. But for the experience of music I find measurements can fail to reflect for me the greater experiential truth.
Last edited:
Yesterday I revisited the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, listening to Theodor Currentzis leading the Concertgebouw Orchestre through Mahler's 4th (and Shostakovitch 2nd Piano Concerto with Melnikov).
Words fall short to describe the expansiveness of the room and the space all overtones and colours get. Tons of work to be done at home and I'm suspecting there is no way to recreate the vastness of tonalities as it probably is impossible to capture them in any recording...mikes simply lack the surface area to cope with all the intricacies of nuance.
The performance was a once in a lifetime...wow, and sigh. Mahler performed by an orchestre that has Mahler in it's DNA, yet not in any way near this performance...I've never seen so many members of the orchestre fiddling with tehir instruments in the hall during the break, they were on the edge, and at their best. The solo's by the first violin player were breathtaking, double bass strings, the trumpet, the wood blowers, they all were excellent, the whole was stunning....next level plus!
Words fall short to describe the expansiveness of the room and the space all overtones and colours get. Tons of work to be done at home and I'm suspecting there is no way to recreate the vastness of tonalities as it probably is impossible to capture them in any recording...mikes simply lack the surface area to cope with all the intricacies of nuance.
The performance was a once in a lifetime...wow, and sigh. Mahler performed by an orchestre that has Mahler in it's DNA, yet not in any way near this performance...I've never seen so many members of the orchestre fiddling with tehir instruments in the hall during the break, they were on the edge, and at their best. The solo's by the first violin player were breathtaking, double bass strings, the trumpet, the wood blowers, they all were excellent, the whole was stunning....next level plus!
Last edited:
Marcel,
I’m so glad you were able to experience such a once in a lifetime event. I love Mahler and I get goosebumps just entering a grand hall even before the event starts! I can only imagine your amazing experience.
I was just catching up with this wonderful thread. And as a side note, to me, the subjective judgement of a musical experience through your stereo is all about the emotions you experience while listening - including the level of engagement. And how close this experience comes to reproducing the emotions of a live event with all the inherent limitations and exception of that comparison - rather than the left brain descriptions sometimes used to describe a proxy for the emotional experience (e.g., soundstage, bass, density, etc.).
the most interesting takeaway message for me was that the recollection of the sound fingerprint of the hall was spot on but better in reality!
Similar threads
Members online
- Salectric
- RSB
- KeithR
- miniguy
- thekong
- Mike Lavigne
- gds7368
- Ravel
- cdka
- blackswan
- MRJAZZ
- thedudeabides
- digit_linn
- Koetsu123
- dennis h
- sujay
- ChrisSoundLab
- Lee
- SeagoatLeo
- R Johnson
- andyo
- audlike
- Kingrex
- Florian
- Carlsbad
- orrman
- Argonaut
- Artnet
- Porsche
- trekpilot
- ecwl
- WLP3
- Rejean
- rob
- Another Johnson
- rspyder
- Camus
- godofwealth
- J007B
- F208Frank
- Dishman442
- Dvuc
- GroovySauce
- Jackl3y
- five
- 3rdRock
- Nsxturbo
- Stbo
- RickS
- hols
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |