Law of Accelerating Returns

When a setup is good I agree most of the difference from there comes from the recording unless perhaps you move into a better venue/room. That' s the real way to avoid those diminishing returns.

"I agree the the Vandersteen 5a is a good value, but it is not as good a value as the Quatro, nor does it represent the bargain value of the 2ce."

Why? How do you go about judging something like that?

I read Harley's essay and I wondered how high was up, and if the merry go round was going too fast to ever get off.

But then again, I've never spent the kind of money it would take to assemble a "world-class" system.

I also wonder if, when you introduce a "better" component into a system and the change is dramatic, revealing alleged "weaknesses," whether that could just as well be a matter of incompatibility.

There are simply too many factors and variables.

Here's a hypothetical. Your system finally sounds fantastic after years of changing this and upgrading that. You live with it for a few more years and gradually it doesn't sound so great any more. You're bugged. You start auditioning stuff, reading the mags and forums more closely, and then start rationalizing another major chunk of bux for whatever.

But at that point does the average audiophile get a hearing test? Nah.

I'd love to see some sort of at least semi-scientific data about the percentage of audiophiles who get to the point of just saying no to more "dramatic" changes. But then what's the fun in doing that? Who wants a hobby where you stop getting any new shiny stuff. :)

I think Whart's reasoned and very well-written post says it all at least for me.

If you double the performance, then double it again, how many percentage points is that?