The argument against upgrading

@jl35 

l did miss out a few things ….

Those guys with one ear, the guys with no home, and the guys with the obscenely fat wallets.

All in good fun unless…….

@newton_john Taking your question at face value, you ask if an objective, incremental improvement in sound quality improves the subjective listening experience. I can only answer for me, of course, but I can say without doubt when I've improved the sound quality of my system, through equipment upgrades, room treatments, setup changes, whatever, it results in a more enjoyable subjective listening experience. When you attend a live performance, don't you enjoy it more if the sound quality is better?

Whether the "upgrade" actually produces a better sound is a different matter, but your question assumes it does. Its also a different question entirely whether the incremental increase in subjective enjoyment is within our financial capacity and if so, is something that would represent value. The first is an objective barrier, the second is entirely subjective with no right or wrong answer. I've heard $300k speakers at shows, for example, that I thought were fabulous and would undoubtedly increase my subjective listening experience. But for me, leaving objective affordability aside, the incremental increase in subjective enjoyment wouldn't represent value. Other things to do with that money that would bring me greater satisfaction. Economists would call it "opportunity cost." 

So, I think this may be another example of trying to divine an objective universal truth from what is inherently dependent on subjective individual circumstances and preferences. I don't think that's possible.

It’s all about your individual point of reference. 

Let us suppose you "optimized, optimized, optimized" some matchbox desktop speaker with "acoustic acoustic acoustic" and thought you had some great thing going, i.e., a guy with genuinely low standards, hot air and fantasy...

Now, all of a sudden, you got placed in front of a pair of say, Klipsch Jubilees in a nice room...and got your pants blown off. My physician bought a pair of those actually after i disciplined him away from li’l matchbox/crapbox speakers....(I have an atmos rig with a six sub array that could blow your pants off too, launch you into a different dimension...such things could happen)

Now, all that time you spent ’optimize optimize optimize’ (got some miniscule gains here and there) some lil crapbox with ’acoustic acoustic acoustic’ would be all in vain, completely meaningless, a waste of time....

So, long story short, get different points of reference from guys with serious rigs, to establish a goal worth pursuing...Your improvement metrics evolve when you establish a serious point of reference. At the least, you’d know how to not waste your time with meaningless rigs and meaningless tweaks (it’s still a low caliber rig in spite of all that wasted time).

It doesn’t even have to be that expensive, can also be done in a relatively affordable fashion. A well optimized rig and room built around say, even a affordable pair of Tekton Moabs, a pair of subs, diy treatments and a halfway decent amp could do it for a lot of guys.

But, if you’re sitting in a living room, can’t treat anything, subject to waf restrictions (has to be a lilsht matchbox speaker), etc ...such things are simply not possible. Just drop the standards, hit the play button and try to enjoy some music. Don’t worry yourself to death about incremental, this and that...if you simply don’t have the foundation for jawdropping sound (to begin with).

For example, i have a desktop office rig in my office room. I don’t even bother too much with it because it has serious limitations (when placed in context/ in light of above mentioned). On the desktop office rig, I just drop the standards, hit the play button, find new artists, etc and can still have a good time. 

Hope that helps

@newton_john  wrote

By design, the original question makes no presumptions about the absolute quality of a system or the philosophy underpinning it.

Rather it concerns the effect of making an incremental improvement in sound quality to any system. It challenges the generally held assumption that this objective improvement must automatically translate into a better subjective listening experience.

Is this assumption valid? What can be said in support of it? How can success be assessed? Does success depend on the qualitative characteristics of the improvement? ie. noise and distortion reduction, imaging, dynamics, solving the problem of bass in real rooms, removing digital artefacts or overcoming listening position limitations.

Sarcasms dont replace thinking brain...

--No acoustical optimization of a low cost system can suddenly make it equal to an optimized high end system in an acoustic dedicated room...Once this truth is said...

-- Any optimization well done of ANY system at ANY price will put it at his  optimal working peak ... Thats my point...

-- Anyone can think that budget determine high end sound experience, it is not even false, it is an half truth; what determine a great sound experience is mechanical,electrical,acoustical, optimization and wise use of DSP ...

-- Anyone  can give sarcasms and mock low cost system claiming that because a system always exist which is better and pricier, the acoustic experience which we can enjoy on a low cost one is pure deception and ignorance... Sorry but the goal is the same for everyone:  all acoustics factors must work in some balance...

-- It is why i called "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" or M.A.S.T.  when the optimization process gave us  an acceptablee ratio of this acoustical balance between all factors and parameters implied...

--Only idiots will call high end system the only one able to give us satisfaction...And insult anyone with a low cost one...Nowadays it is very easy to reach M.A.S.T. if we learned optimization process basics with a relatively good synergetical system at any price ... 

Important remark:

No amount of optimization can replace a wise upgrade but conversely no amount of upgrade can replace optimization (mechanical,electrical,acoustical and DSP ).. This is common sense i must repeat here because some will distort my posts  with their  useless childish sarcasms...

@mahler123 

​​​​​​with all due respect-and I have enjoyed many of your posts on other topics-I had read the post that you referenced prior to making my most recent post.  I have just re read it, per your request.  And I stand by my earlier comment.

  I am glad that you enjoy music, your current system, and don’t feel a need to upgrade.  I have been in the same spot for a bit.  However the previous upgrades that I made definitely enhanced my enjoyment of music that I loved, in some cases causing me to significantly respect composers or works that I hadn’t fully appreciated prior.  I guess your mileage varies.  Have a nice day and continue to enjoy the music 

Thank you.

I haven’t given up on upgrading altogether. I won't refuse offers to try out new kit or novel ideas. Only a couple of days ago, I managed to reconfigure the networking side of my system to obtain a slightly smoother sound from streaming.

It’s more a matter of wanting to better understand what it does and the rationale behind it. Perhaps, I am just a little more sceptical than I have been in the past and thus needed to ask the question.

It has been a learning experience. Also, I have taken on board Tom Martin’s Major  Problems of Believability. 

I tend to agree with him that upgrades or changes that involve imaging, dynamics, bass room resonances, overcoming digital artefacts and listening position limitations are most likely to be successful. It is the more common attempts by manufacturers at reducing noise and distortion that Tom suggests may only lead to incremental improvement.