Law of Accelerated Returns

I don’t agree with that at all. For $500K you could make a tent sound good. Now would it sound much better than a $250K system? I couldn’t tell you that it would sound $250K better but it should sound better. Would it sound better than a $5K system? Darn tooting it would. Money spent well does relate sound quality as it does with everything else.

I’m not saying it’s practical, something I would do or really couldn’t imagine how you would actually spend that kinda money on bedroom but saying it would sound bad is total BS

@danager  That’s definitely not the point I was trying to make or argue.

Me: I’m tired of us continually re-hashing this silly hypothetical scenario
You: I disagree with your hypothetical scenario’s conclusion, let’s hash it out more

😅

@mulveling 

Sorry I missed it what were you trying say?

I was just quoting your words from your post that I disagree with and  I didn't realize that it was hypothetical.  I suspect somewhere somebody has $500K worth of gear in their bedroom and it sounds fabulous. 

Really the point is no matter how much money you spend playback  can't sound better than the original source but it can be indistinguishable. 

To me sound is binary it's better or it isn't price and how much better is irrelevant. The graph of sound quality vs dollars doesn't level out it just doesn't rise at the same rate and it doesn't dip at top end.

Now in the real world,  your / my system price is relevant but my point remains the same.   Money well spent will improve the sound until that final result is  indistinguishable from the original but like infinity indistinguishable can never be obtained. Part of it is we don't have access to the masters and part of it is that reproduction adds artifacts that we can hear with enough training.  

If I'm wrong please point out the flaws in my logic as my bank account would thank you.

It's not about how much you spend but about how much you know. I've heard cheap DIY systems built by knowledgable hobbyists rival the most costly setups.

I think the forest (mulveling's general point that good well-matched gear counts, and the 'room' although important is not magical) was totally missed for the trees (stereo in a bedroom or tent). Gotta look beyond generalizations... 

I've read Bob Harley's work since the 90s and always try to remember he is in a business that needs to survive, if not grow, to ensure his employment. However I do believe he's a music and gear lover even if we disagree on occasion.

I think any Law of Accelerating Returns relates pretty much entirely within the single domain of the audio system so well-matched as to be magical, and one where on rare occasion the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That's great. To make his point it seems Bob assumes all systems are mis-matched to a point and one more expensive magic bullet may pull it together. I don't agree.

As I understand the Law of Diminished Returns, and assuming equally well-matched systems in different price ranges, the law will apply just like it does with bicycles, cars, watches, etc. 

So, a well-assembled audio system for $10k will be great and one for $25 will be better, and $50, and $100 and so on. But, in each case the level of audible 'return' does 'diminish' for the additional dollar spent, at least to most everyone with ears and no Brinks truck in the garage...

Great discussion for sure and thanks to the O.P. for posting as I'd already read that editorial from Mr. Harley beforehand and sure had my thoughts on it.   grin

I don’t think the room is a magic box any more than any other component. It is a component, and can be the weakest link. From a pure measurement perspective it is often the weakest link, showing vast divergences from linearity at the listening position that aren’t caused by any other combination of components. Audibly that can be subjective. We all to some degree accept the room’s sound as a given and learn to listen past it, or even embrace and enjoy it. Properly cultivated it is almost universally preferred over listening in a truly reflection free space, like an anechoic chamber. One thing that’s a little misleading about the weakest link analogy when applied to audio is that it gives the idea that there will be no further improvements possible until the weakest link, or bottleneck is dealt with. My experience is that it doesn’t always work that way. Component changes can often be heard in rooms with less than great acoustics. I propose the analogy of an ideal chain that doesn’t stretch at all under load. The chain can only be as stiff as it’s most elastic link. But if other links are also elastic, then stiffening them can still make a noticeable difference even if they aren’t the most elastic link because all the elasticity adds up.