Finding 'good enough'

[Westsounds]

Finding 'good enough' is priceless

 

[Mart68]

The psychology of desire in consumer (surplus to needs) goods is very interesting. I've read in more than one place that the anthropologists and archeologists report that in ancient societies that had no accumulation of dynastic wealth, the most sought after surplus goods were rare and exotic.

In this hobby profit is clearly a strong motive and marketing often ties to higher margins to higher exclusivity. And my wife, who took some marketing classes, said one teacher told her that marketing is all about turning wants into needs. I find that interesting too. I think many of us end up settling with gear that we can rationalize as a balance of budget and need. But really there's no need for any of it -- its all surplus.

If you look at it like that anything beyond food and shelter is surplus. What's that 'hierarchy of needs' thing?

1120 here, after 1200 (neighbours sleep in Saturdays) I'll have a couple of hours of music enjoyment before the afternoon film. I suppose I could live without it but I'm not going to!

 

[ttimer]

ASR was very helpful in finding “good enough”. Measurements give a good indication of quality, without the need to wonder if there might be something dramatically better out there.
Moderately priced stuff like the Ascilab F6B, KEF R3 or Neuman KH120 (both at European prices) have been shown to be so good that I feel no inclination to search for anything better.

 

[Behrelec 37]

I hope that the understanding in these arguments touches many readers who are interested in the subject, otherwise it is unfortunate if the lesson is not valued. Competition is fierce in the loudspeaker market worldwide today, and as a hi-fi enthusiast I would say that the best expertise wins. I think Genelec loudspeakers should be better presented in terms of the master series on different world stages, so that understanding would increase, but since I am not connected to the company in question in any way, I am only expressing a wish. Their advantage is the Live sound image/experience of the recording that many would crave for their home more than gold, I am aware of that as a 51-year-old hi-fi enthusiast in 2025 AD.

 

[traind]

Isn't it the music itself that lifts our soul?

Yes, a better set of speakers will certainly help bring that to you a bit more wonderfully but my first conscious, meaningful connections to music as a young person had nothing at all to do with the sound quality of the radio or very modest equipment I was listening to. The wonderful thing is that if you are an adult with a work ethic you can now afford a system, however modest, that if chosen carefully will jump you way, way up the audio diminishing returns curve. If inspired, you can spend a lot more and get that next 10 or 15%. And if you then spend a ton more you can get the final 3%.

 

[Multicore]

If you look at it like that anything beyond food and shelter is surplus.

More or less, yes. But it depends on context. Clothing is essential in some environs. Transport (eg horses, camels, kayaks) in others. And then we can argue if health care and education are surplus in modern societies.

 

[Mart68]

More or less, yes. But it depends on context. Clothing is essential in some environs. Transport (eg horses, camels, kayaks) in others. And then we can argue if health care and education are surplus in modern societies.

True enough. Most of my education turned out to be surplus. If they'd taught playing the stock market instead of Latin I wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[Multicore]

True enough. Most of my education turned out to be surplus. If they'd taught playing the stock market instead of Latin I wouldn't be in this mess.

Anyway, my point wasn't about the boundary between essential and surplus but about how we (myself very much included) rationalize our spending on treats. The OP is all about how one person justifies this fine luxury treat while someone else explains how their much less expensive fine luxury treat is just as good, or whatever. Here, or on acoustic guitar forum, and in other places I've read so many variations of these arguments of treats rationalization.

And as I went on our morning hike with the wife and pooches I was thinking this over and recalled that I have even tried to externalize my choices. I posit that out of the physics, engineering, and market for treats of class XYZ and what I argue is a reasonable budget for such a treat given our home economics there emerges something akin to a natural equilibrium. In other words, given sufficient data of the kind ASR or Consumer Reports offers there exists for me and my application an objectively correct choice of treat. That strikes me as somehow chuckleworthy.

First, it's interesting that this appears to be a pattern in consumer psychology. Second, it's quite funny that it has an associated genre of apologetics on discussion fora.

 

[monkeyboy]

i don't think a few dB in frequency response will make a difference in an untreated room. The room effects will far outweigh the slight differences in response. it seems like you can get 95% of the response for about 10-15% of the money....more than good enough...

 

[Westsounds]

The wonderful thing is that if you are an adult with a work ethic you can now afford a system, however modest, that if chosen carefully will jump you way, way up the audio diminishing returns curve. If inspired, you can spend a lot more and get that next 10 or 15%. And if you then spend a ton more you can get the final 3%.

Not really that's the whole point of good enough. This diminishing returns scale is a fantasy. What returns are there, none from a point. You are talking about differences only. You can't keep improving and improving to this summit because there isn't one. You can get larger and smaller scales but even that is room dependent. Once you have ticked the box of high fidelity you are there, there's no where to go for extra returns. A fancy box, a brand name, some precious materials it only makes a difference subjectively.

 

[Westsounds]

True enough. Most of my education turned out to be surplus. If they'd taught playing the stock market instead of Latin I wouldn't be in this mess.

You might be in a bigger one

 

[TankTop]

I apologize in advance for, this, it isn’t cheap (around $100) but will blow the socks off most any bourbon you’ve ever had. Treat myself to a bottle or two a year.

 

[Westsounds]

View attachment 467259
View attachment 467260I apologize in advance for, this, it isn’t cheap (around $100) but will blow the socks off most any bourbon you’ve ever had. Treat myself to a bottle or two a year.

The only use I'd have for that is paint stripper but dedicated paint stripper would prob do a better job

 

[Westsounds]

Audiophiles get caught in this trap of believing their own BS. They often get led down paths of more or less is better. They follow trends, fads and hear things from equipment and convince themselves that this or that is sonically satisfying. It's a complete fantasy a lot of the time which often results in them going around in circles. It's a bit like a ponzi scheme in many ways. But we enjoy it, it's boys and their toys. It's something a niche crowd follow and get entangled in. Even calling it a hobby is a bit silly as its just consumer electronics which are serving a purpose. But anything can be considered a hobby if enough people get involved and things start to get specific. Collecting snails arranging flowers whatever.

It's something I became entangled in and can't look at a speaker now for instance or whatever without thinking of specs, construction, placement and usage. It's pretty bonkers really. It started from a fascination of sound and music yet has developed into any tools (toys) which are associated with it.

 

[alankila]

I dunno, that's my point. Seems useless to try to attach anything but pure personal preferences to the concept.

At the moment $10k Genelecs are good enough, more than good enough actually. I'm thrilled with that.

My 8351B pair is probably going to stick with me for life. Way better than needed and will always be crippled by the room that I play them in.

 

[traind]

Not really that's the whole point of good enough. This diminishing returns scale is a fantasy. What returns are there, none from a point. You are talking about differences only. You can't keep improving and improving to this summit because there isn't one. You can get larger and smaller scales but even that is room dependent. Once you have ticked the box of high fidelity you are there, there's no where to go for extra returns. A fancy box, a brand name, some precious materials it only makes a difference subjectively.

I think you missed my overarching point, lol.

Diminishing returns is not a fantasy, it's a well-established principle but one that can be interpreted in different ways I will give you that much.

 

[Joe Smith]

I'm tending to just focus on the music these days, my equipment is fine for me and my 66 year old ears...

 

[Westsounds]

I think you missed my overarching point, lol.

Diminishing returns is not a fantasy, it's a well-established principle but one that can be interpreted in different ways I will give you that much.

Diminishing returns is an economic principle that's been applied within this BS hobby. Diminishing returns of what though. To say DR would mean there's a scale to continuously get better on, and there is no such thing with high fi equipment. It's basically personal preference, there is only so good a DAC can sound. Let's just say for arguments sake that it is at a figure of 500. Then go out and buy five of the claimed 'greatest' in the marketplace at 10,000 each, where is the return, there is none because we have reached the limit of how good a DAC can be. Anything above that, you are just hearing an effect that perhaps appeals to you. The hifi business is complete nonsense, even applying that DR scale into it is marketings to make people believe there is more to achieve, when there actually is not.

I'm happy to be proven wrong that's what science is about. But why are we even applying economic terminology into 'upgrading' of 'good enough' equipment .

 

[MattHooper]

The OP seems to be slightly muddling the question of “ performance” and “ enjoyment.”
One of course, does not equal the other.

I guess we can bat around the idea of performance - maybe pick some great loudspeaker that represents something close to a pinnacle, like the KEF blades or whatever somebody wants to nominate, and then discuss how cheaply you can get within a certain percentage of that technical performance.

On the other hand, it seems the OP’s ultimate concern is achieving a certain level of enjoyment of his system, and wondering how much more would have to be spent to enjoy it more.

And that is of course, mostly subjective.

I’ve kept a pair of old, cheap Thiel Model 02 bookshelf speakers. They cost about $350 in 1976 when they were introduced. And this was before Thiel went for more extravagant time/phase coherent, designs.

I inherited those speakers in the early 90s from my girlfriend (now wife).

Those speakers have certain qualities that for me are almost my ideal sound. Not perfect, but what they do boy do I love it.
In fact, I can go over to my buddies place and listen to systems costing over $100,000 and I would still prefer my system with those little Thiels. And every time I throw them into my system I think “ this is all I need. I could be happy with this.”

However, ultimately I am happy to own my current much more expensive speakers, because in sonic terms they can just take me places the little 02s can’t.

But if my expensive stuff had to go away, I believe I could be quite happy with the old Thiels.

 

[Timcognito]

My wife is good enough, but if she dumps me, not sure if I'll get another. Maybe up or downgrade to a girlfriend?