The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[tima]

And we’re all familiar with the concept of diminishing returns applied to audio where incremental expenditures/effort produce less (not linear) improvement in the quality of the sound reproduction (however you choose to measure it) than the previous equal expenditure/effort.

The increments that I’m talking about are not diminishing or difficult to discern. We can’t really use the word linear or exponential to describe the increment because that assumes a quantifiable scale for musical enjoyment which we don’t have. Perhaps a better term is order of magnitude change

The reason I quoted the review by Mr. Gregory, was the language used by Stirling and the reviewer, expands on the traditional audiophile jargon that misses the point that the purpose of listening is how it makes you feel, and why it makes you feel that way.

Well spoken. A thoughtful and cogent alternative offering to what has been called arrogant and naive.

 

[microstrip]

I am a fan of Roy Gregory, but after that review excerpt was posted here I received an urgent alert from the Hyperbole Police!

I don't care how good a component reportedly sounds. A serious declaration that a component has vanquished the law of diminishing returns strikes me as cringey.

I quote myself in another thread :

I have written before that the engineering law of diminishing returns is overrun by the audiophile law of the hyperbolic differences. Once we are educated to perceive and valuate the differences, small subjective aspects can make the difference between a good sound reproduction and an astonish quality sound reproduction experience.

Unfortunately DAC's, that are supposed to be still an evolutionary product, seem to be a good example of it. Being essentially a digital listener I have no doubt that my unreasonably expensive digital system has been and is a key part of my system for the way it can present the maximum of the recording information in a way I find realistic.

 

[marty]

I'm thinking you have the wrong guy Marty; do you mean Mr. Gregory - Roy Gregory?

Be that as it may, I'm genuinely surprised at all the heavy breathing over his comment on diminishing returns. The Hyperbole Police are known for tripping over themselves in their effort to justify their own existence. Rather than thinking a 'seasoned' audio writer is arrogant and naive, could it possibly be a bit of British humor or a comment to make you widen your eyes a bit, or pull your leg or even get people reading and talking about his review?

Someone will be along shortly to let you all out of the net.

Correct. Thanks. My bad. I have edited accordingly. My apologies to Mr. Weaver!

 

[bonzo75]

Correct. Thanks. My bad. I have edited accordingly. My apologies to Mr. Weaver!

7 letters here or there it's all the same. Gregory, Weaver, Karmeli, Lagonda...you can use them interchangeably

 

[bonzo75]

it goes without saying that such a remark should be prefaced with IMHO in capital letters, although I find it unlikely that any comments by Mr. Gregory can rightfully include the “H”.

This sums up his reviews. So I don't care how experienced he is, and how well he can listen, I am sure it is very high on both counts. but I trust his reviews least

 

[bonzo75]

“after sober introspection and sober analysis”

Never listen to your own system sober, and if you have visitors do not let them analyse sober

 

[cmarin]

Never listen to your own system sober, and if you have visitors do not let them analyse sober

Couldn’t agree more!

 

[andromedaaudio]

Cmarin nice system( rives room design ) you have got !

Do you have pics ?

 

[marty]

7 letters here or there it's all the same. Gregory, Weaver, Karmeli, Lagonda...you can use them interchangeably

This sums up his reviews. So I don't care how experienced he is, and how well he can listen, I am sure it is very high on both counts. but I trust his reviews least

Never listen to your own system sober, and if you have visitors do not let them analyse sober

Ked, you're on a roll today!!! Made me smile.

Best advice for audiophiles might well come from Joseph Campbell (famed American thinker, writer, anthropologist, and professor of studies on mythology) when he simply said: "follow your bliss".

 

[cmarin]

Cmarin nice system( rives room design ) you have got !

Do you have pics ?

Hi Andomeda,

Thank you for your kind comments. You reminded me to update my signature page to reflect the sale of the VAC Statement 450 monos, Gryphon Mephisto monos, and the upgrade to the Mk3 version of the Totaldac d1-12. I'll PM them to you.

 

[cmarin]

The Law of Accelerating Returns

I just opened the TAS March 2020 issue and interestingly enough, given the recent topic in this thread about diminishing returns, ran into Robert Hartley’s column “The Law of Accelerating Returns”

The last quote summarizes the article well:

“The Law of Diminishing Returns is often used to dismiss the highest of high-end gear - it costs so much more but the performance are marginal at best. But in my experience, when it comes to audio systems and our perception of reproduced music, it’s the Law of Accelersting Retruns that prevails.”

Indeed …an interesting read to say the least.

Hyperbole?

 

[PeterA]

Well the CH precision M1 model designation to M10 is certainly an acceleration. 10X. To put it in some kind of musical terms, I’m reminded of the YouTube videos where a violinist will compare three or four violins a different price points and then the viewer is asked to listen to the differences.

An accelerated return might be described as something like the young student playing an entry-level instrument going all the way up to an accomplished soloist playing a rare and beautiful sounding instrument. The playing, the tone of the instrument, and the price all reflect and acceleration. Is this what happens going from the M1 to the M10 stereo and then monos? Now that would’ve been an interesting case for Roy Gregory to make because it combines sound and music appreciation.

 

[tima]

The Law of Accelerating Returns

I just opened the TAS March 2020 issue and interestingly enough, given the recent topic in this thread about diminishing returns, ran into Robert Hartley’s column “The Law of Accelerating Returns”

The last quote summarizes the article well:

“The Law of Diminishing Returns is often used to dismiss the highest of high-end gear - it costs so much more but the performance are marginal at best. But in my experience, when it comes to audio systems and our perception of reproduced music, it’s the Law of Accelersting Retruns that prevails.”

Indeed …an interesting read to say the least.

Hyperbole?

Ah yes Mr. Harley - accelerating toward what?

I haven't read that article, but 'accelerating' suggests the increments of progress are following one another more rapidly than in the past. I'm somewhat sceptical of that. Are we in a golden age of mega-watt solid-state amplifiers? Or digital bit processors? Given the audiophile language of today, if one perceives change happening faster I daresay it is not progress.

Well the CH precision M1 model designation to M10 is certainly an acceleration. 10X.

Big bucks requires big model increments to satisfy big buyers.

 

[morricab]

Ah yes Mr. Harley - accelerating toward what?

I haven't read that article, but 'accelerating' suggests the increments of progress are following one another more rapidly than in the past. I'm somewhat sceptical of that. Are we in a golden age of mega-watt solid-state amplifiers? Or digital bit processors? Given the audiophile language of today, if one perceives change happening faster I daresay it is not progress.



Big bucks requires big model increments to satisfy big buyers.

I think he meant acceleration of hyperbole...

 

[the sound of Tao]

Perhaps an acceleration in the decline of all reasonable values.

 

[tima]

I think he meant acceleration of hyperbole...

Interesting notion with some truth to it, but, uh, no - that's not what Harley had in mind. Dammit , you made me read his column.

His analysis is mildly interesting but his case his weak. Without quoting, here's the idea:

Let's say you have an expensive and revealing $50K amplifier but a mediocre source. You spend $2K to upgrade your whatever DAC which now let's your amplifier reveal what it really can do. That $2K, which supposedly is a diminished return, not adding as much value as prior expenses unlocks more of your system's potential. But it's really not.

Okay, I see what he's saying. The word 'accelerating' is still the wrong word - nothing is going faster. But where I think his case is not that great is that he judges the $2K return against the entire system price whereas imo it is more aptly applied to the component price. If you had a $1K DAC is that a diminished return ... probably not ... is it an faster increased return ... well if you say so.

I still like my own take on the idea of 'accelerating returns' - smaller increments at a faster pace coupled with new model numbers and higher prices. I suppose that would be an acclerated diminished return which does not entirely disresemble (the famous resnick double negative) the current audio scene.

I like @the sound of Tao 's take as well - just not quite sure what it means.

edit: this is not to diminish the value of small incremental gains won over time, which he also goes on about.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Okay lets talk audiophile digital as my old tape machines / system dont seem to impress anyone lol .

High end audio is great the good stuff keeps getting cheaper ..... 360 S detail and the language of music

I ve tried WADIA 581 I , WEISS DAC , MEITNER MA 2 all resulting in mediocre sound not much better then my cheap dvd player , nice boxes merely .
Visited an audio show last year with 20 or 3O different digital set ups and i had the same impression , mediocre sound ( a musical language i dont understand)

 

[morricab]

Interesting notion with some truth to it, but, uh, no - that's not what Harley had in mind. Dammit , you made me read his column.

His analysis is mildly interesting but his case his weak. Without quoting, here's the idea:

Let's say you have an expensive and revealing $50K amplifier but a mediocre source. You spend $2K to upgrade your whatever DAC which now let's your amplifier reveal what it really can do. That $2K, which supposedly is a diminished return, not adding as much value as prior expenses unlocks more of your system's potential. But it's really not.

Okay, I see what he's saying. The word 'accelerating' is still the wrong word - nothing is going faster. But where I think his case is not that great is that he judges the $2K return against the entire system price whereas imo it is more aptly applied to the component price. If you had a $1K DAC is that a diminished return ... probably not ... is it an faster increased return ... well if you say so.

I still like my own take on the idea of 'accelerating returns' - smaller increments at a faster pace coupled with new model numbers and higher prices. I suppose that would be an acclerated diminished return which does not entirely disresemble (the famous resnick double negative) the current audio scene.

I like @the sound of Tao 's take as well - just not quite sure what it means.

edit: this is not to diminish the value of small incremental gains won over time, which he also goes on about.

I was making a joke...nothing more.

 

[cmarin]

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.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . does not entirely disresemble (the famous resnick double negative) the current audio scene.

If you're talking about me I do not remember ever attempting the word "disresemble." It looks, to me, like a typo.