1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 196999-189205

The argument against upgrading

I’ve always assumed upgrading hifi can be worthwhile provided there is some audible improvement in sound quality. Maybe, this assumption should be challenged.

Let’s suppose I make some change to my system. I make a meaningful comparison that proves it sounds better in some way.

Before making the change, I was already able to get into and enjoy certain recordings. Surely, I can’t get into these recordings any more than that. It’s an either or thing not a matter of degree.

So what does the upgrade actually do for me in practice? I fear that more often than not it may be absolutely nothing.

I am not arguing that there is no better. Just that incrementally better may not necessarily always translate into more musical enjoyment.

I suppose this all begs the question what I actually mean by better.

What’s your view on the benefits of upgrading? How can we reliably assess whether it is effective?

newton_john
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,044 posts
 

My hobby is not about buying...

It is about learning and keeping low cost to reach the best S.Q./price ratio...

Optimizing must be learned... Nobody sell this process ...

Those who think their hobby is purchasing are not in the same hobby than me.

 

newton_john's avatar
newton_john OP
547 posts
 

@kennyc 

high-end audio is simply a hobby, and like all hobbies it’s goal is “Personal Enjoyment” (which can be the process) and not achievement  

I thought I’d already made that goal clear in my earlier posts.

If you are trying to establish some sort of “value”, you’ll never get there

No, you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Value is not an issue. I have always argued that it is meaningless to talk about diminishing returns in hifi.

What I am looking to explore in this thread is how an objective improvement in sound quality translates into that subjective personal enjoyment.

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,044 posts
 

What is the "dog which did not barked" in audio experience "crime analysis" scene ?

Often it is our own acoustical satisfaction which is not there.

 

 

--- Marketing of gear is often  the assassin of common sense acoustics knowledge, the victims are the basic acoustics concepts and their parameters. The dog that did not barked is the absence of satisfaction by a great crowd of consumers in front of their system/room listening and reading "audio reviews" promising miraculous pieces of gear instead of informing us about the knowledge of the necessary controls over our own "room/system"  experiences...
 
 
------ What are these controls of our own acoustical experience? they are the basics knowledge about the working dimensions of any system /room : mechanical (vibrations-resonance controls)electrical ( RFI-EMI controls- cleanliness,low noise levels etc ) acousticals (especially LEV/ASW ratio) DSP controls (via E.Q. tone controls,psycho-acoustics measures,filters,crossfeed and crosstalk controls, etc ) 
 
 
------  There is no such things generally speaking  as a reproduction of a live event  recorded  by a trade-off set of choices of the recording engineer reproduced through playback recordings in your living room... There exist only an acoustic translation from a set of acoustics trade-off choices (recordings)  to another set of trade-off choices which are  controlled or uncontrolled  (system/room/ears-brain) by the owner-listener.
 
 
---   Then there is no absolute good or bad recordings generally speakings  (there is only specific extreme cases of these two ) in general no recordings conditions are the same and then experiences are different from the recordings  acoustics conditions to the acoustics parameters of your system/room/ears-brain . Then speaking of audiophile recording which for sure exist is deceptive marketing or audiophile obsession, because on a well optimized and relatively good system all recordings sound different  at all levels of  good or bad...Then most recordings are acoustically "interesting" neither  absolutely bad nor absolutely  good generally when you own a relatively well optimized system/room...
 
------It is why even if upgrading is necessary and it is sometimes for us necessary to do so, and even possible for our own budget,  the true wisdom is  doing optimization before or in many cases instead of upgrading ...We must listen to which is our own system/room peak optimal working before knowing why and with what doing an upgrade... Many upgrades are unnecessary and costly...It is my experience from the last 25 years searching a good acoustic experience from my system/room...
 
newton_john's avatar
newton_john OP
547 posts
 

@mahgister 

I agree that it makes sense to prioritise system optimisation over expending large sums on new gear. However, for the purposes of my original question, this might be considered just another form of upgrading.

As I said, what I was looking to explore in this thread is how an objective improvement in sound quality translates into subjective personal enjoyment. It’s the physicist in me that needs to examine our implicit and taken for granted assumptions.

I am not sure many people fully appreciated this. Perhaps, my thread title was misleading. Nonetheless, I am grateful to everyone for giving thoughtful and helpful replies. As a result of the discussion, I have at least clarified my own thoughts on the matter. Thank you all.

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,044 posts
 

What means an objective improvement in sound ?

To some degree it is a measurable improvement by design  improved numbers  engineering and it must be also an acoustically measurable improvement then objective engineering improvement imply optimal acoustics environment ...

The problem is a subjective improvement  must correspond  to a psycho-acoustics improvement too ... Impaired hearings corrected by hearing aids are individually tailor made ...

 Then some objective improvement may appear not an improvement for some needs and some specifically biased hearings, for some subjective values with  their real objective manifestation and needs  and history.

 By the way i appreciate a lot all your posts .

Then  objective improvement cannot be the only reason motivating wise upgrading ...smiley

 

 

«Hearing evolution in man was designed such by  social survival circonstances to identify efficiently and immediately spoken words; to do this our ears/brain must have created their own non linear time working dimension, it is why acoustics imply an ecological perspective as the one given by Gibson for the eyes»--- Anonymus acoustician 

 

As I said, what I was looking to explore in this thread is how an objective improvement in sound quality translates into subjective personal enjoyment. It’s the physicist in me that needs to examine our implicit and taken for granted assumptions.

 

More to discover