chowkwan@aerospace.aero.org (08/11/90)
Enough of reviews and reports. Let's get an interesting discussion going. Please *post* your responses. A belief that is current amongst audiophiles and economists (that dismal art) is that there are diminishing returns as more $$$ are expended. With a nod to Ed Whittemore who sparked this train of what can be loosely termed thought, I think there is actually a series of plateaus. As you go from $0 to $X the law of diminishing returns does indeed set in. But for myself, when the switch is then made from transistors to tubes, a quantum leap occurs and one then starts on a new curve of diminishing returns. In other words the law of diminishing returns is local to certain classes of equipment. To give another specific example, I have heard reports that going from a 300 watt VTl to a 500 watt VTL causes a religous experience to occur. i.e. there is not just a quantitative increase in the number of watts but the system now sounds "authoritative" (tm Harry Pearson). Also, I am firmly of the cheap speaker, expensive electronics school of thought. This is one solution to the hoary old question of the correct allocation of resources within a given system. Hooking up a VTL 90/90 to some 7 year old speakers gave them a new lease on life and led me to lend credence to this philosophy (first espoused by Larry Archibald to give the opposing camp its say in this post). Also consider that the electronics have to take a signal and amplify it 1000 fold in the case of a pre-amp and probably a hundredfold in the case of the amp. It should not be surprising that a component that has to perform a 100,000 times amplification would have a profound effect on the sound. -- ray
erich@inmet.inmet.com (08/14/90)
Sorry if I sound overly contradictory, but I believe that basic premise of your posting is wrong. You assume that each of us have a static and deterministic as well as equivalent level of both appreciation of sound and willingness to spend on sound. In fact, each person has an inherently different level of appreciation. For example, to a poor man who is tone deaf, a $200 Sears stereo would likely suffice and any additional spending would be thought frivolous. Now take a millionaire who has grown up surrounded be the best in audio equipment and concert hall presentations. For this man, perfection of sound may not even be attainable with today's present technology regardless of his willingness to invest in equipment. In the first case the man has been satisfied, any further spending would be unnecessary and obviously implies diminishing returns simply because there is no return. For the second man, perfection is an unattainable goal which can be approached but never reached. So when does this man have diminishing returns?, never, because his investment always brings him closer to his ultimate goal with little relative sacrifice. Secondly, how many of us have bought a piece of equipment or even a system, only to find that some time later we wish to upgrade because the sound is no longer satisfactory to our dynamically changing perceptions of quality. A decision to spend on anything that brings you pleasure, including audio, is a personal decision that must be met by weighing factors of cost versus pleasure. If the pleasure wrought exceeds the associated cost, then you have no diminishment of your investment, you have made a logical decision to increase the pleasure in your life. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: erich@inmet.inmet.com UUCP: uunet!inmet!erich
BAAY@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (08/16/90)
G'day veteran audiophiles, I'm a beginner in audio, and this is my first posting to r.a.h-e after following this newsgroup for several months now, so please bare with me. In article <5745@uwm.edu>, erich@inmet.inmet.com writes: > Sorry if I sound overly contradictory, but I believe that basic premise of your > posting is wrong. You assume that each of us have a static and deterministic > as well as equivalent level of both appreciation of sound and willingness to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > spend on sound. Actually, I don't think that's what the original poster said at all. He simply mentioned that the law of diminishing returns applies to audio, and briefly cited his own experience on this. I agree with your observation and conclusion, but someone seems to have misinterpreted the meaning of diminishing returns. While a person may never reach his ultimate goal, he is still APPROACHING his goal on the diminishing returns curve. That is, diminishing returns refers to the diminishing improve- ments, not necessarily non-positive changes nor diminishing gross returns, you get as you approach the ultimate. Furthermore, this law does NOT require us to have equal or static appreciation for sound although I'm not certain about deterministic. It only states that your positive perception of improvements approaches "zero" as the system approaches perfection, which I find quite true in virtually anything. Hence, the law itself does not use some fixed price tag, personal evaluation, etc. as reference points for any arbitrary person and his/her perceptions at any time. Any particular curve resulting from its application represents a pattern for one particular instance, so time IS as much a variable as anything else although it may have much less influence than the actual equipment, personal taste, price tags, etc. So the law still applies to the millionaire because he will perceive diminishing improvements as his system approaches, while never achieving, the ultimate IFF everything other than his system remain constant. Meanwhile, the poor man has reached what he feels to be good enough since each successive improvement is no longer perceived as an improvement, ie. additional returns have diminished to an effective zero. The rate of diminishing, NOT diminishing returns, for the millionaire is much more gradual than that of the poor man. G | ___--- | R | __/ | O R | _/ | C2 S E | / | S T | / | ____------- C1 represents the curve for the U | / C1 | _/ millionaire, and C2 for the R | | | / poor man N | | | | S |________________ |_______________ SUCCESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS I hope I didn't complicate the issue too much with all the rambling. :) -Man- -- /****************************************************************************** * Suspect: Man F Wong Charges: Conspiracy against mankind * Status: Enhanced bioroid renegade Infiltration of ESWAT * Profile: 8^} Assault on GAIA * Last found at: baay@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (internet) * baay@crnlvax5 (bitnet) ******************************************************************************/