The argument against upgrading

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. 

@kerrybh 

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

Well, that's the frustrated physicist in me. Of course, you're absolutely right.

@deep_333 

Hope that helps

Yes, it all helps. Thanks. 

@mahgister  

some will distort my posts  with their  useless childish sarcasms...

Don't let anyone stop you. I enjoy your posts. 

Thank you all for helping me grapple with my upgrading neurosis. Every comment is valuable. As my father used to say, the more ways you look at something, the nearer you get to the truth.

Thanks for this interesting short article...

The author use the concept of "audio believability" which include way more  external  factors than just acoustics concepts then more external factors than my M.A.S.T. concept...

I opted for a more minimal or lesser solution myself without demanding too much in terms of high fidelity in relation to a real event or believability...

Why?

Because  the problem for me appeared first and last  in term of acoustics concepts concerning the recording trade-off set of choices  of the audio engineer and my own listening room acoustic translation of these choices..

For me "believing" in the audio phenomenon playback is enjoying my system/room well optimized, it is not not being able to confuse or conflate or be in the position to be able to mistake my system/room for the "real live event"; a task possible for sure but  at a cost which will be way over the means of most people anyway...( for example i dont bother myself with deep bass at 20 hertz or 30 Hertz,my sub is low cost ) 

Upgrades for me was a means to reach this M.A.S.T. , not a race toward total "audio believability" experience...

I did this to enjoy music not to boast about my "sound"  over everyone else "sound" experience...

But i am not so humble or modest, i can today boast about my S.Q./price ratio...One of  the best possible...

It is  way enough for my music listenings without feeling envy or frustrations of any kind ... I am very proud of that... This is the reason i posted on audiogon for those with limited budget who wish to reach M.A.S.T. 

Being an audiophile for me  is a temporary working state of being anyway, till music become immersive... Passed that point  it is obsession...music is my obsession...

Will i upgrade my system in the future?

I dont want and i need to except if a piece break... And to beat my actual sound experience will cost me 10 times more money and i know exactly what to do in my actual environment (an acoustic small corner )  ...I dont need to reach this level of "audio believability" anyway  to enjoy music... If i want something near this level anyway i already have it : my top AKG K340  headphone will give me Bach organ bassier note through my body...

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