The Law of Accelerating Returns

Very few people can beat my sound quality/price RATIO... 500 bucks for the system and peanuts cost for the room..

But no one take almost 2 years to tune his room ( 100 resonators and diffusers) many months all the day listening...It is also a PRICE to pay...

 

And i dont have an opinion, only experience and experiments with acoustic huge power for improvement WITH A CHOSEN SYSTEM...It is science easy to verify that acoustic matter the most not an opinion taken from a hat...

But acoustic dont perform miracles and never transformed my very good Sansui in a Berning superior ZOTL... Only Christ make bread with stones...

But i dont give a damn about the superior ZOTL now, my Sansui i can live with it easily...There exist a minimal TRESHOLD of sound quality with which anybody can live without being frustrated...It is WHY acoustic can teach us something no upgrade will never teach us...

Helmholtz founded modern acoustic thinking listening to his resonators and he founded modern psycho-acoustic thinking about the way the ears/brain can take notice of the frequencies differentials ...

And yes cheap is too more money for me , cheaper is better ...

Anyway acoustic dont give a damn to the price cost of materials, only about their location, dimensions and ratios and acoustic content...I even used empty toilet paper rolls by the way... 😁😊

Who will dare to laugh? i will laugh the last...

Sorry to put the point over the right letter...

😁😊

Acoustic optimization is the law ...

By the way the fact that a piece of gear upgrade could GIVE more resolving sound frequency-wise is not a proof that the sound will be IMPROVED at the end ... In acoustic frequencies resolution is one aspect, phase count also and timing, and ratios and balance between reflections/absorptions/diffusions... And the pressures zones distribution in the room, and more than that the way each one speaker will adress differently each one ear matter MORE than the difference in resolving power between a SANSUI amplifier and a BERNING ZOTL amplifier... Then acoustic rule over most upgrade choices, if what you already own is already very good...

This is not my opinion, this is experience and science...Sound come from the speakers/room not directly from the amplifier or from a dac...The dac-amplifier gear convey the information with variable success yes but they cannot translate the information in sound , the speakers/room/ ears/brain system do it....Then acoustic/psycho-acoustic explain it to us...

@jpwarren58 Headphones. Or hang a bunch of foil and crystals. @mahgister swears by the.

No mahgster I am not saying they do not work. But if I did that my wife would have left me at the Poland Ukraine border 2 weeks ago…..

That is not flying here.

 

I perfectly well understand...My wife dont want to touch my audio room....I manage the necessary cleaning ...She hate my room but my better review was his: "it is very good sound and it is suprizing in this mess of a room..."

😁😊

By the way my most important tool are Helmholtz devices and methods with resonators and diffusers...

Not stones and minerals, nor Schumnan generators nor ionizers all of which worked BUT are minor improvement compared to acoustic treatment well done and acoustic mechanical control especially...

My 8 headphones are in a closet now guess why ?

But the truth dont change with our spouse status , acoustic is key...

My deepest respect to you and your dedicated wife...

 

The alternatives or choices for most of us is not ultra high end versus low cost design...

Even Helmholtz method will not change my very good Sansui AU 7700 old design in a Top Berining ZOTL amplifier...

But for all people with audio system at any price the main MULTIPLIER of S.Q. is acoustic and psycho acoustic methods...

I used Helmholtz method which adress the action of resonators and diffusers...

I used Classical room treatment too where the SURFACE balance between absorbtion/reflection/diffusion is key...

I even used "tweaks" which work well like Schumann generators at low cost and ionizers...

But none of that will transform the design quality of my Sansui in a ZOTL...

But give me a ZOTL and i will certainly used acoustic and all the other controls i already used but in a complete different way accordingly to the meeds of the new components...

And i prefer a sansui in a controlled room anyway at many costlier design in an uncontrolled room...

 

In a word if like me most people you own relatively good component but low cost

one it is better to use acoustic method than buying an upgrade piece... But we are not all in the same situation... i own a dedicated room, most dont... I dont need esthetical design, most need them...

Then my experience teach us something that cannot be applied for everyone needs and everywhere...

One thing cannot change, acoustic is the key to Hi-Fi... Not upgrading generally ... Especially if we want to live with a good ratio S.Q./price...

No expansive system can fic a room, and anyway any system at any price will benefit from acoustic...

No one sell a ZOTL to buy a Sansui with a "tweaks" for sure though... 😁😊

But i prefer my Sansui in a controlled room to a ZOTL in an uncontrolleed room...

I hope i have been clear...

No speakers beat the room said an acoustician...I dont remember his name...No amplifier too...But no room will make a bad design a better one...Acoustic method OPTIMIZE the working of what we already have, bad and good component...

The effect of acoustic is huge but only Christ transform stone in bread...

 

 

So can an uber expensive system fix an average, flawed room? If the room cannot be adjusted then what other choice do you have? Tweaks or better components? I choose better components. And how many sell expensive components after comparing to a stone or a resonator or liquid plasma cables?

 

 

 

When I read the article I had quite a laugh. We have to remember that TAS serves an industry based on the simple assumption that spending more money gets you better sound. Anyone, even multimillionaires, want to think they are receiving good value for their money so the theory of "accelerating returns" fits right into the agenda.

Well said...

And not a word on the HUGE change coming from acoustic treatment and control... For sure...

Who want to know that a 100,000 bucks audio system is not enough to reach a hi fi sound most of the times...

 

Helmholtz method is the key... Acoustic is the door...

@mahgister gotta disagree. The technology can easily be the bottleneck once the acoustics are addressed properly.

I never say that the technology has no bottleneck ... I say the opposite... read my post another time ...

An integrated amp however means less technology integration to get right. The experts have addressed that for you and the product solution is solved for you regardless of room.

You are right this time too... But you miss the essential  point... Any technological upgrade fpor the better will suffer the lack of acoustic control and will work UNDER his peak potential level unbeknowst to you especially if you come from a lower design to a better one, you will appreciate the improvement but you will never know that this same system is able to deliver way more in a controlled acoustic environment... This is my point...

I done negate that any technology can be replaced by a better one... I negate that a system/speakers will replace by itself room acoustic... In the future with an A. I. expert system integrated to the room yes ....

My point is simple, we cannot judge all problems amd limits pertainig to a system/speakers without a room adapted to it... Simple... This does not means that you are wrong... This means you miss the important point to judge any system limits : acoustic... Not upgrades...

It’s true that if the system is in good shape ie no serious bottleneck then one is free to deal with the room.

Not exactly mapman, no...An integrated solution will have his own bottleneck...No system is perfect but all system at any price can be lifted out of their bottleneck to a new bottleneck yes... But for example my actual system room is out of my past bottleneck, in a new unperceived bottleneck...I live very well with it why?

Because when we reach a certain sound quality level, we know what will be the cost of a real beneficial upgrade, only at this time we can know it... mine will be from my 500 bucks system going to a minimal 10,000 to 15000 bucks system... why i dont want to do it? not only because i dont have the money but i dont need it really... Pianio sound fill already my room, my system/speakers beat already my 8 headphones... there is always better but i am very pleased... My soundscape is the best i ever listen to anyway...

 

How can you became conscious of a bottlemeck inherent to the system in all case, especially with a  already good system like the one i own ?

I was never conscious that i listenedc in his botlleneck in the past  BEFORE i take control of the room ... why?

Because any system has his own limitations and bottleneck, then how can you know them and detect all of them in a nude room without acoustic control of any kind ?

i bought my system , i was happy, but not COMPLETELY  satisfied without knowing why...I cannot put my finger on anything...I though that all was right and at the same time all seems very  limited: timbre,imaging, soundstage etc 

Some bottleneck was there but not manifested openly, i was sensing that something may be lacking without the faintest idea what it is and how to adress it...

This become gradually clear when i PASS OVER THIS bottleneck with an improving acoustic, which means i become conscious of  where i come from and where i was going...

It is not false for sure, but this hide the essential...

The greatest bottleneck is our own room acoustic and more than that our own untrained hearing with acoustical experiments... The main bottleneck is our brain...

An acoustic concept is not an abstraction, it is a reality that must be concretely listened to...

A system or several pieces of gear exist in a room for the ears, and the bottleneck of the system must be manifested IN  the room where it is well or not well embedded to the ears and for the ears ... To understand the true specific nature of this gear bottleneck we must understand acoustic first... If not, we are embarked in a carousel of upgrades most of the time meaningless.because we are unable to listen to this gear at this optimal working peak anyway... It take a room adapted to the gear and under control for that....

Every system has a bottleneck, ie the thing that limits performance. It’s just a question of how much it matters.

 

The time I spent learning about room acoustics has been the single greatest enhancement of ALL the changes through the years of listening.. It was also the least expensive..

 

Same here...

All the rest is gear conditioned mass ignorance and selling technique...Not because all gear are equal, they are not, but matter way less than acoustic...

But even acoustic seller sell ignorance or easy to made passive costly material...

An acoustic tuning and control is too complex to be sold at low cost...

We must do it ourselves..

But it is not very popular to say to people that 20,000 bucks system or 100,000 busks one that did not matter the way they think...

Audio system are like woman, most dont want to take the time to learn them, plug and play, plug off... This is audio for most...

And their brand name is proof enough for them that it is good...They think that they know how to hear but hearing must be learned like any acoustician or musician know already...

The truth is not popular and science either is not... propaganda and publicity are more easy to swallow...

You know all that already ...

My deepest respect to you...

 

May I point out though that you seem to frequently imply that great gear might be a waste of time and money

You put your idea in my mouth...I NEVER say that ever.... 😊

i said that ONCE an audio relatively good system is chosen at any price and accordingly to your wallet, any upgrade WITHOUT and BEFORE optimization of the chosen audio system is a lost of money...

Is it clearer ?

And the improvement produced by acoustic optimization is so great, if your starting system of choice is well choosen to begin with for sure, that MOST subsequent upgrade will appear preposterous if you take in consideration the S.Q./price ratio...

I said "most", because if you start from a 50 bucks used speaker set like mine upgrading to a 100,000 dollars one, no room treatment and even no mechanical tuning will replace this upgrade and make it meaningless... It is only common sense...But dont laugh at my 50 bucks speakers, your smile risk to be colored yellow listening them in their room... 😁😊

 

May I posit that if your room is, in fact, exceptionally tuned that a great system dropped into your room would outperform an average system in the same room?

Sorry but you did not understood my point... 😁😊

First my room is relatively well optimized accordingly to my ability...Not exceptionnaly tuned...This will be a ridiculous pretense and boasting...But i am satisfied yes and very happy...It takes me months each day of tuning listening sessions...Nothing is perfect BUT....

Second acoustic tuning is not ONLY classic room passive treatment but more importantly mechanical control with two types of Helmholtz devices, resonator who diffuse et absorb selected bandwidth and diffusers who only diffuse selected bandwith...

Third, my room is mechanically tuned FOR A SPECIFIC SPEAKERS, and FOR MY SPECIFIC EARS if i drop inside my actual room a new speakers with a new dac and amplifier, all the tuning process must be redone from the beginning with listening experiments tuning adapted to the new speakers systems if i want to reach the peak working optimal level of the new system ...

Fourth, acoustic optimization can improve a low cost system OVER a costlier one ONLY if the costlier one is not itself optimized in his own adapted room and is in a nude room like most showroom or most living room ...

Then no acoustic magic trick can transform a low design quality in the highest one ever... Common sense is need... 😁😊

What is the best system that you’ve heard in your room?

Mine for sure for the reasons given above... 😊

In any room?

Homemade speakers from Tannoy 15 inches dual gold cones and big magnepans, my own past 12 inches Tannoy, Quad electrostatic speakers also , all these were better than my actual very good Mission Cyrus 781...

Then why i prefer my Mission Cyrus now to all of them...?

BECAUSE my room is optimized for the Miussion Cyrus, none of these others better speakers were in an acoustically treated room and certainly very far from a mechanically controlled room which is the only way to adapt the room to the speakers...

 

You get no argument from any seasoned audiogon participant.

The reason is simple: ONLY acoustic and psycho-acoustic can explain sound management and perception...Electronic devices are tool to convey some selected acoustical recorded information from one room perspective via a studio to my room/ears.... Audio is acoustical sound translation...Only gear marketing abusively call it pure reproduction...

 

 

 

Final word: real acousticians never boast about gear brand name guess why?

For the same reason mechanician can transform any ordinary motor to a super working one...The acoustician will make the best of whatever system is in the room...

There is always better motor and better gear for sure , but the important point is what will you make yourself of what you already have....

 

Thanks for your interesting questions...

And kind interest...

My best to you....

 

The best systems I heard were indeed expensive but I found no consistent pattern of high price leading to better sound.

Now put these system in a room which is acoustically mechanically specifically controlled for each one of them, and the relation between good sound and price will be lost forever ....

Upgrade mania is inversely proportional to acoustic knowledge and to the law of acoustic optimization ...

I don’t think Helmholtz was ever married.

 

😁😊😊

Never indeed!

 

«I divorced when she put flowers in my Helmholtz bottle»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

« Because my mouth and ass were directly openly connected tube my body is an Helmholtz diffuser»-Anonymus acoustician

 

«if my body is an Helmholtz diffuser your brain is a Klein bottle»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

«The resonator is to your ears what a vibrator is for some other organ«-Anonymus acoustic gear sellers

 

«A silence with no echo»-Zen acoustical koan

"It is not the "ONLY" way to tune a room completely"

First Helmholtz resonators and Helmholtz diffusers like said rightfully @helmholtzsoul are the main and ONLY mechanical way to modify a room and tune it and also tune each speaker for each ear by the way ...

The greeks and Egyptians and Chinese and Helmlhotz the father of modern acoustic and of psycho-acoustic thought so...

«In Helmholtz resonators, we have acoustical artifacts that far antedate Helmholtz himself. Resonators in the form of large pots were used in ancient times by the Greeks and Romans in their open-air
theaters. Apparently they were used to provide some reverberation
in this nonreverberant outdoor setting. Some of the larger pots that
have survived to modern times have reverberation times of from 0.5
to 2 seconds. These would also absorb sound at the lower frequencies. Groupings of smaller pots supplied sound absorption at the higher frequencies.»
The Master Handbook of Acoustics Fourth Edition by F. Alton Everest P.216

Second, the fact that you use DSP confuse your mind...

«Is it not better to NOT push power into frequencies that the room gets excited about because its dimensions and positions of speakers and sweet spot? Of course it is.»

DSP modify the speaker response only , the H.R. and H. D. modify the speakers and room relation by modifying each of them at the same time for psycho-acoustic effect for EACH ear from EACH speaker.... DSP AND MIC. are not an integral part of the room like H.R. or H. D. are in their working way....They are used to modify the source information to your taste and adjust in ONE chosen way the speakers response to the room...They dont modify the room response at the same time for the speaker sorry...

My sweet spot is not IMPEDED at all by the mechanical tuning devices in the contrary, my sweet spot is created by them and not only by the precise location of my chair in a short one millimeter range but for a larger range ... Then i had a better sweetspot because he is effective in a larger dimension than one millimeter range and dont lost all his effective action after that ...

And try to adress the Schroeder frequency and bass limitations with DSP... Good luck....Room passive treatment +DSP will not do it....It takes a mechanical control of the room whose pressure zones modification are possible with Helmholtz mechanical devices to reach a better dynamic, and a better bass clarity in small room......

 

😁😊

---First, Helmholtz devices of any type are not mere  TOOLS...

You dont let tools scattered across a room after their use time... 😁😊

H.R. And H. D. are PART of the room, they modify definitively  the pressures zones distribution of the room by staying in place ...

A DSP tool and a microphone dont do that and after their job is done you remove them from the room...

 

--- Second , your warning about the modification of the sweet pot reveal you dont undertstand the way this grid work at all...The devices are there to mutually adapt the speakers and the room to one another...My sweetspot extended to a large part of the listener location than your mic/dsp method who has no value passed one millimeter or so....

I place some H.D. near the speaker bass driver or tweeter asymmetrically to help each ears to create the localization effect... I will not go into details ...

 

Is it not better to NOT push power into frequencies that the room gets excited about because its dimensions and positions of speakers and sweet spot? Of course it is.

 

The Helmholtz for example is a fix on something that is after that we have created the issue.

But it so a good treatment technology to have in the toolbox.

 

First this room "from Hell" is my laboratory, or dedicated room not a living room...
Then keep any sarcasm for yourself, people use them when they have no arguments and you seem articulate... 😁😊The photos in my virtual page has nothing to do with my actual room the images were taken before i iuse the Helmholtz method...

"Helmholtz treatment "only" work on ONE frequency and to bring down a peak in that very specific frequency and nothing more or less. Change the volume of the air cavity, or the length or diameter of the neck, and you change the frequency of resonance."

First Mechanical resonators are not DSP at all...Your comparison with DSP is flawed...
Why?

Because Helmholtz resonators (H.R.) absorb a larger bandwith and not a singular frequency...
And they DIFFUSE also other frequencies which are not absorbed...And they work in relation with the room geometry and size, and their placement is critical...Mine are mostly tubes with neck of various dimensions , some fabric cloth act as an absorbing material at the base of the tube end... They are made of different materials...

«Such a Helmholtz resonator has some very
interesting characteristics. For instance, sound is absorbed at the frequency of resonance and at nearby frequencies. The width of this absorption band depends on the friction of the system. A glass jug
offers little friction to the vibrating air and would have a very narrow
absorption band. Adding a bit of gauze across the mouth of the jug or
stuffing a wisp of cotton into the neck, the amplitude of vibration is
reduced and the width of the absorption band is increased.The sound impinging on a Helmholtz resonator that is not absorbed is reradiated. As the sound is reradiated from the resonator opening, it
tends to be radiated in a hemisphere. This means that unabsorbed
energy is diffused, and diffusion of sound is a very desirable thing in a
studio or listening room.»

The Master Handbook of Acoustics Fourth Edition by F. Alton Everest P.215

 

Also all my H.R. are of different size, not one is the same in neck, lenght, volume or perimeter....For exemple one is 8 feet in my 8feet high1/2 inches in my studio, they ALL Differ by some ratio...
Then your comparison with DSP correction which use a one test frequency is flawed.,..A DSP dont absorb some bandwidth and dont diffuse some otrher bandwidth in some ratio at the same time...A DSP enhance some PRECISE test singular frequency...

Also i had a set of specialized Helmholtz diffusers or H.D. , which are way less known devices, this H.D. are OPEN TUBES OR PIPES, all of different lenghts and perimeter , then differering in volume, with a FILTERING GAZE or cloth fabric of different densities then of different absorptions properties... One mouth is open the other FILTERED by this gaze of various fabric densities or by a set a set of various thinner STRAWS of different size.... This created a powerful diffusion in critical placement....In particular near listening position and on the speaker themselves at precise location DIFFERENT for each one speaker by the way... Guess why? 😁😊

Location is KEY.... Like i said in my previous post i use the Haas law of the first wavefronts to tune my sound for EACH ear from EACH speaker.... My speaker are modified by H.D. placement around them or on them in an asymmetrical way to increase some acoustic crossfeed of large bandwidth...I even use a double two section foldable screen behind me to increase the acoustic crossfeed by the speaker A on the  phantom image of B and speaker A on the phantom  image of A for each one of my ears...

All the tuning was made on few months period daily, it was fun and very enlightening ...The work was exactly like a piano tuning but here it is a MUTUAL speakers/room tuning.... The H.D. and H.R. devices  circle the room from the "HEAD" speker to the "TAIL" speaker with the "BELLY" of this acoustical SERPENT being  my listening location chair with the  FOCUSING lenses of the   reflected waves  of this foldable screen behind my head...
Time and timing of reflected and direct waves are the KEY...Reverberation control is key...

«A sound field in a room is composed of direct sound and reverberation. The interaural correlation follows the sinc function corresponding to the subjective diffuseness
in a room, as the distance increases from the source, when the sound source radiates random noise. However, for speech signals a listener is able to localize the
sound source even in the reverberant space. Early reflections within around 30 (ms)
of the direct sound enhance the energy of the direct sound. This positive enhancement due to early reflections can be explained by the Haas effect or the precedence
effect [18][44][45][46] in terms of the binaural sound localization.» Acoustic Signals and hearing Mikio Tohyama P.202

 

 

All my 8 headphones are in a closet now... Why ?
Because my room/speakers give me an intimacy, a dynamic, a soundscape, an imaging SUPERIOR to each one of them... I cannot go back to headphones...

When you correct the room with electronical tool unlike my mechanical devices which are part of the room, you cannot tune the room for TWO Listening locations like mechanical room tuning, and the tuning location with a microphone feed back and test frequency are valuable ONLY for a "sweet spot" which measure around one millimeter you bend the head and all ,easures are amok... In my room the sweespot are larger in nearfield listening (three feet) or my regular position (8 feet).... The regular position is more like regular speaker listening, the nearfield is nore headphone like , BUT in the two positions, acording to the recording album, the soundscape CIRCLE me almost and the listener is not in front of the music sometimes, but in the center with instruments sometimes around me...it is relative to EACH RECORDING effect... I can hears the acoustic bubble specific to each recording choices by the studio engineer...

Then before moching the lack of esthtic of my room, and his alleged efficiency think TWICE....
"Just imagine to take 100 books and place them on the floor, and scattered around on the floor around the sweet spot, and a book is far smaller than a Helmholtz resonator.. i can not imagine that mess.."

 

Your description has nothing to do with my H. grid location RESONATORS AND DIFFUSERS size and precise working location function for psycho-acoustic effect and not only physical acoustic effect , these two devices are not the same thing also...

 

The Op is right all piece of gear must be balanced with one another, sound quality design wise and price wise...

But my conviction and experience is that it is acoustic/psycho-acoustic science which can make the greatest differences...

You cannot undertstand and control timbre at will, nor imaging, nor soundstage, nor LAV/ASW factor ratio by BUYING and only upgrading piece of gear sorry...

You must learn how to listen first, and this is possible only by acoustic listening experiments...Hearing is not MOSTLY a question of taste and pure frequency detection, it is an acquired HABIT related to a complex object : the soundscape...And the soundscape is not reducible to only the audible linear range frequency concept, but is constituted by phase information , time factor and timing, timbre spectral envelope, timbre time envelope, head and torso factors, many reflected waves management and TWO direct fronwaves management etc We must learn HOW to feel these various objects/concepts in our body/room ...

After that, through listening experiments not only we had learn how to treat our room according classical balance between the various surface of reflection/absorption/diffusion in relation to the room particular geometry and acoustic content, but we begin to learn also how to adapt our room response to the speakers needs and response and not only the frequence response of the speaker to the room...Speakers/ room are in a mutual adaptative process guided by our ears needs...

It is a MUTUAL OPTIMIZATION process with not only passive material treatment but also mechanical tuning with Helmholtz devices and method, essentially resonators and pure diffusers too...

Personaly i even use psycho-acoustic law of the first frontwaves and acoustic crosstalk and acoustic crossfeed with mechanical devices of my own creation located at some spot around the " head" speaker and the "tail" speaker, in function of EACH OF MY EARS listening location which is the "belly" of the "serpent", which serpent is my grid of Helmholtz devices circling the room...( 100 homemade devices)

Then there is a law which is not " the diminishing return law" or his twin conplementary law " the accelerating returns law ", two laws which are something like different perspectives on the same pudding and are so called "laws" about the gear...

But there is an objective/subjective acoustical/psycho-acoustical OPTIMIZATION LAW process which ask for an increasing learning ability to hear using passive acoustical classical room treatment but more importantly the mechanical acoustical tuning with Helmholtz method all around the listening position and around the room ...

The more important fact in audio is not the gear but acoustic and our own ability to learn HOW to hear and WHAT to hear...

It is not the gear because it is now easy in a mature audio electronic market to buy "relatively" good gear at reasonable price all along the price scale...

It is less easy to Optimize the system/room... it is here that improvement may be astounding, and more than most upgrades... In my case AT NO COST or very low cost...For sure my devices are not esthetical... I am not crafty nor rich enough to create them esthical...

For sure i dont claim also that room tuning will transform a very low cost design in an ultra high end one soundwise...This is not the point of this optimization law...

My best to all....