Law of Accelerating Returns


Notwithstanding this coming from the pen of Robert Harley, I think there's a good point being made here. There are many threads here dealing with the law of diminishing returns. However, I think the way Harley puts it is perhaps more applicable to our hobby - the smaller the differences, the more important they are to those who care about such things. Read it - it's only one page.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-the-law-of-accelerating-returns/
chayro

Showing 3 responses by ps

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.
I read Harley's essay and I wondered how high was up, and if the merry go round was going too fast to ever get off.

But then again, I've never spent the kind of money it would take to assemble a "world-class" system.

I also wonder if, when you introduce a "better" component into a system and the change is dramatic, revealing alleged "weaknesses," whether that could just as well be a matter of incompatibility.

There are simply too many factors and variables.

Here's a hypothetical. Your system finally sounds fantastic after years of changing this and upgrading that. You live with it for a few more years and gradually it doesn't sound so great any more. You're bugged. You start auditioning stuff, reading the mags and forums more closely, and then start rationalizing another major chunk of bux for whatever.

But at that point does the average audiophile get a hearing test? Nah.

I'd love to see some sort of at least semi-scientific data about the percentage of audiophiles who get to the point of just saying no to more "dramatic" changes. But then what's the fun in doing that? Who wants a hobby where you stop getting any new shiny stuff. :)
I think Whart's reasoned and very well-written post says it all at least for me.