Diminishing Returns?

[Carl Reid]

Ok I really need to either take some sleeping pills or get a life, but I think I'll start another thread...

So here goes:

We always talk about the law of diminishing returns in relation to our audio hobby.... (and for good reason... since double the price clearly does not mean double the quality when it comes to audio upgrades)...

So I'd love to hear at what price point different people think that diminishing returns really kicks in....

For a strictly 2 channel audio setup with just one source (whether CD, Vinyl, cassete tape, whatever)... at what retail price (sorry, no ebay specials or used equipment) could you build a competent system that would have most of the sonic performance you need?

So basically any worthwhile upgrades would cost a LOT more money at that point...

Note: this setup can be substanially cheaper than what you have now or even more expensive... just base it on set-ups that you've heard, whether at friends, stores, your own setup, etc...

Ok, I'm sure that many of the audiphiles here will laugh at my price, but I think that between $1000 - $2000 (for the entire setup, including cables) is pretty much where diminishing returns set in....

So what's your price range?

[anamorphic96]

I would say 1000 is where the point of diminishing returns kicks in with me on everything except CD players. 300 for CD players. Especially if the person listens with a blind fold and eliminates the human bias factor when comparing CD players. Most of the 300 budget players are so good that this where things kick in here.

Speakers could go higher if you really want to go nuts. But you can get some amazing speakers for 1000 or less. Hell even 500 or less buys some killer speakers these days.

[Feanor]

...
We always talk about the law of diminishing returns in relation to our audio hobby.... (and for good reason... since double the price clearly does not mean double the quality when it comes to audio upgrades)...

So I'd love to hear at what price point different people think that diminishing returns really kicks in....
....
So what's your price range?

I think you need to consider first which components are most important; this can then enlighten discussion of peak value point

Also, I think it's use full to define the listening room where the sysytem will be located: in my view it's most practical to relate to a medium sized room, no smaller than, say 10' x 12', and no larger than 18' x 30'.

So on the my hierarchy of critical components, in (approximate) order, and peak value prices:

Speakers -- US$1800 - 3000.
Phono cartridge -- ??
Power amplfier -- $1500
Subwoofer -- >500?
Phono preamp -- ??
Turntable & tonearm -- ??
Room treatments, (varies with room and furnishing characteristics)
CD player or DAC -- $1000
Control preamp -- $1500
Speaker cables -- $300
Power conditioning, (varies with the local power quality) -- <$400?
Vibration control, (again, varies by environment)
CD transport (if using a separate DAC)
Interconnects -- $40/stereo pair depending on type and length.I have declined to opine in analog components: I'm too ignorant for the current SOTA. Not to seem like an audio snob, but one needs to move beyond mid-fi -- if one's budget permits, (nobody should go into serious hock for hi-fi equipment).

[Carl Reid]

I would say 1000 is where the point of diminishing returns kicks in with me on everything except CD players. 300 for CD players. Especially if the person listens with a blind fold and eliminates the human bias factor when comparing CD players. Most of the 300 budget players are so good that this where things kick in here.

Speakers could go higher if you really want to go nuts. But you can get some amazing speakers for 1000 or less. Hell even 500 or less buys some killer speakers these days.


I'm totally in agreement on the $300 for CD players.... I find that cables and CD players are where Diminishing Returns kick in the fastest.... but one of the strangest things I've noticed is how many companies sell their 'audiophile' CD players for the same price as their integrated amps... I really have to question whether a combination of a $1000 Integrated and a $1000 CD player is really an efficient allocation of funds.... Just seems far fetched to me....

So if you spent $300 on a CD, between $500 and $1000 on speakers (so lets say $800)... that leaves you with $900 for an integrated and some cable and speaker wire.... sounds like you could put together a competent 2 channel setup for $2000 or less as well....

[Wireworm5]

I estimate diminishing returns is around $9000 cdn. This is just with 2-channel setup.For me to improve on what I have at this price point would mean getting way better speakers,better power amps. Some kind of room correction equalizer. And to do this is beyond my current budget. And I would only expect a marginal improvement in sound, but I could be wrong!
At any rate what I have now sounds better than some live venues I've been to. And if its better than that, then I think that I have acheived what I set out to do. Which was to build a Kick butt HT system. :)

[anamorphic96]

Well my system comes in at a tad over the 2000 mark. I feel it's a pretty balanced allocation of funds. If I where to upgrade anywhere in the future it would be to some larger speakers and possibly a larger amp if the room became significantly larger.

Room is currently 11' x 11'. Room treatments in this current situation will make the biggest changes in sound.

Speakers - Dynaudio Audience 42 - 850.00 out the door.
Amplifier - NAD C352 - 600.00 out the door.
CD Player - NAD C521BEE - 300.00 out the door.
Stands - VTI 24" - 119.00 out the door.
Cables - Audioquest - Diamondback Interconnect and Type 4 Speaker Cable (16ft) 160.00 out the door.

I recently had my dealer play the Rotel 1072 CD player and my NAD in a blind comparison. I could not tell a difference. However when my speakers where bumped up to the Focus 110's I could here a very noticeable difference. I guess what this babbling is trying to say is that speakers have the slowest point of diminishing returns.

[JohnMichael]

Good thread Carl. I would like to say that I agree with your choice of cd player and price point. One of the changes I would like to make in my two channel system are my speakers. I have enjoyed the SuperOne's longer than any other speaker I have owned. I like the overall sound but would enjoy a little more refinement to the sound. I would like more detail in the mids and highs without the speaker being bright or forward. I have heard speakers that I like more but their cost is out of reach. So I am trying to reach that next level at moderate expense and not have to change my current components to work with the speakers. I very much enjoy my current system but would like to inch it closer to diminishing returns.

My compnents are not expensive by audiophile standards but form a very nice two channel system. As far as price points with companies like Cambridge Audio, NAD and Rotel who make integrated amps in the $500-$600 range and the Marantz CD5001 cd player combined with a quality pair of speakers in the $800-$1,000 range would make a good system. Combined with Alpha Core, Kimber or Audioquest cables, stands if needed and attention to speaker placement in the room I think this system could satisfy for years. I think you would have to spend a great deal more money to get to the next level. Believe me if I win the lottery I do have my dream system picked out.

[emorphien]

I wouldn't waste money on overpriced cables, I guess that's just my opinion. Tried em and can't say there's a difference, and electrically there shouldn't really be much audible difference after proper gauge and shielding are addressed.

As far as CD players go, I'd say after $500 it diminishes quickly. Amps vary depending on the speakers you intend to drive, but for all the speakers I've heard it definitely starts to drop off in the $4000-6000 a pair range.

[Mr Peabody]

I will probably end up sounding like one of those elitest Jerks here but.... maybe I don't understand what you mean by diminished returns.

You all sound like you are trying to reassure one another. How can you even comment without having experienced the upper end you say is diminished? Why talk about audio as an investment anyway? Is your car, or any appliance or a pet?

You are trying to say a $300.00 CD player sounds so close to my $3,200.00 Krell, that $300.00 is the your limit? Keep telling yourself that. We all wish we could afford to have the gear we want, let's take a reality check here guys.

I had a $900.00 Kenwood CD player, then an $1,800.00 Arcam. The Arcam was night and day better. Then a Krell 250cd which was around $2,500.00. The 250cd was not necessarily better than the Arcam, just different. Then a Krell 280cd, $3,200.00, this unit was vastly better than the 250. Then a $1,500.00 DAC which is not necessarily better, just a different presentation.

Rotel is fine gear for what it is but it's not close to diminished returns.

My thought would be;

There are very good preamps in the $2,500.00 range.
CD about the same $2,500.00. You would be amazed at how good CD playback can be. Listen to the $8k T+A or the Krell 25S, astounding.
A good power amp, at least $3k.
$1k for a turntable without cartridge.
Speakers are so subjective, but I'd say about $3-4k
I believe at these prices I could put together a true "high end" system. Anything less may sound good but it won't compare, and it certainly isn't going to give you an idea of what the multi-thousand dollar systems can do.

[Carl Reid]

I will probably end up sounding like one of those elitest Jerks here but.... maybe I don't understand what you mean by diminished returns.

You all sound like you are trying to reassure one another. How can you even comment without having experienced the upper end you say is diminished? Why talk about audio as an investment anyway? Is your car, or any appliance or a pet?

You are trying to say a $300.00 CD player sounds so close to my $3,200.00 Krell, that $300.00 is the your limit? Keep telling yourself that. We all wish we could afford to have the gear we want, let's take a reality check here guys.

I had a $900.00 Kenwood CD player, then an $1,800.00 Arcam. The Arcam was night and day better. Then a Krell 250cd which was around $2,500.00. The 250cd was not necessarily better than the Arcam, just different. Then a Krell 280cd, $3,200.00, this unit was vastly better than the 250. Then a $1,500.00 DAC which is not necessarily better, just a different presentation.

Rotel is fine gear for what it is but it's not close to diminished returns.

My thought would be;

There are very good preamps in the $2,500.00 range.
CD about the same $2,500.00. You would be amazed at how good CD playback can be. Listen to the $8k T+A or the Krell 25S, astounding.
A good power amp, at least $3k.
$1k for a turntable without cartridge.
Speakers are so subjective, but I'd say about $3-4k
I believe at these prices I could put together a true "high end" system. Anything less may sound good but it won't compare, and it certainly isn't going to give you an idea of what the multi-thousand dollar systems can do.

Yes you do sound like an elitist jerk, but I doubt that you are.... when I started this thread I expected a lot more heated debate than what has been happening so far.... since Diminishing Returns is highly subjective.....

So I can understand why you might come to the conclusion that this thread is about reassuring each other that our "humble" setups sound great.... but that is far from the point of this thread....

And even though you make an excellent point with your question "How can you even comment without having experienced the upper end you say is diminished?"... it is based upon at least one SUBSANTIAL assumption... which is that you assume that no-one in this thread with a "humble" set-up has heard mutli-thousand dollar high end setups....

Also.... diminishing returns does not mean that you will get NO improvement by spending more money... I am not implying that my Rotel setup sounds as good as a Krell setup... what is being said is that the most dramatic increases in sound quality occur below a certain price.... after which you find that you have to spend a lot more money to get a big improvement in sound....

So let's say I decided to sell my Rotel preamp & amp and slap another 500 on my budget, would I really get a substantial improvement in sound quality? or would I have to double my budget to take my setup to another level? From MY experience.... I would have to double my budget to get a significant improvement....

And yes I agree that music is an investment, and you should look for the best setup that your financial constraints will allow.... but that does not mean that dimishing returns haven't already set in well below your budget....

[Florian]

Diminishing returns is the excuse for those who cant afford the Elite. *g
I had to do it, LOL dont take it so seriously. I have been too nice for a while

[Carl Reid]

Diminishing returns is the excuse for those who cant afford the Elite. *g
I had to do it, LOL dont take it so seriously. I have been too nice for a while

LOL.... Now that's more the kind of response I'm expecting...

But on a serious note.... from what I remember from your thread about replacing the Apogees, you're looking to drop $50K on a pair of replacement speakers...

So just out of curiosity.... do you think that a $50K pair of speakers sounds twice as good as $25K set of speakers... and sounds 50 times as good as a $1K pair?

I won't even pretend that I've heard anything close to a $50K pair.... so that's why I'd love to get your feedback on this....

My own GUESS is that your $50K speakers will make a $1K pair sound like a pile of crap... But I doubt that the amount you spent is directly proportional to the increase in sound quality....

That's just the point of the thread....

I base it on my own humble experience..... My first setup was a $400 all Technics setup... my current setup is almost $4K.... And though my current setup sounds Substantially better than the Technics and I never realized how much I was missing out on when I had the Technics... I really don't think that my current setup sounds anywhere near 10 times better than the Technics.... I've also recently gone listening to a number of $16K setups and though I find that they sound substantially better than my existing one... I'm not overwhelmed to the point where I can never enjoy my setup again....

So I believe that dimishing returns sets in fairly quickly in the audio world....

So do you believe that diminishing returns exists? and if so what price point do you find it sets in? (Don't feel ashamed to say $30K for a set of cables if that's what you really think)...

[Feanor]

....

Also.... diminishing returns does not mean that you will get NO improvement by spending more money... I am not implying that my Rotel setup sounds as good as a Krell setup... what is being said is that the most dramatic increases in sound quality occur below a certain price.... after which you find that you have to spend a lot more money to get a big improvement in sound....

....

One would bloody well hope that the $3500 Krell would sound better than, say, my
$250 Sony. The point is that I am essentially content with the sound of the Sony, in fact with an excellant recording, it sounds as good as I need to.

That is to say that while the Krell might sound better (even to me) than the Sony, it really doesn't sound all that much better -- and I'd be a jackass to spend the difference on the Krell. Of course, if one has a great deal of money, (or at least more money than brains), then any improvement (really or imagined) might be worth it.

[Feanor]

Diminishing returns is the excuse for those who cant afford the Elite. *g
I had to do it, LOL dont take it so seriously. I have been too nice for a while

Elitist by his own admission, and jerk because he believes the rest of us ought to respect him for it. :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa:

[RGA]

A few problems with the basic assumptions of diminishing returns:

1) an assumption that spending more will get you better -- while it is certainly true it is also certainly not true that this happens all of the time or even most of the time. You can certainly find a $600.00 componant that will perform far better than almost everyone elses $2000.00 unit -- but this too is subjective based on experience and preferences. What is it that you value in the system and what is practial for your living space -- if your room is 20 by 15 then you are far better off with a system designed for that space than spending $200k on a speaker designed for a 50X75 space -- no matter how good the speaker is it will royally suck in the small room it was not designed for.

Componants are far more system dependant -- saying that X amplifier at $3000.00 is better than Y amplifier at $1500.00 might be true in one system and completely untrue or opposite in another.

Diminishing returns you have to define in qualitative versus quantative terms in my view. You can spend little money and get a system to cover the human hearing frequency spectrum and get relatively flat response. So in terms of bass output, treble output and midrange output and other technically satisfying terms like imaging sounstage and other sonic feats then yes spending 10k on that subwoofer to go from 20hz to 10hz looks great on paper but not really a big improvement on what you can actually hear or relavent to the vast majority of recordings.

Sound quality improvements though are more subjective usually smaller in total difference and more subtle. The question though can;t be reduced to some number -- it is subtle and subjective and so if someone wishes to pay triple for something that offers - to the buyer - a subtle but important improvement that makes him able to listen longer with less fatigue then it is a critically important upgrade whether it is noticeable in 30 seconds of a track though may not occur.

The trick is to not be swayed by anything but your own compass. Reviews, neighboritus (keeping up with the Joneses or other forumers spending), technobabble etc will only serve to make this more about a hobby than actually providing you with a good sounding system.

I have heard some breathtakingly expensive systems that do not live up to the hype and some that do but don;t mistake the toy factor in audio -- A honda Civic is practically a much better reliable form of transporrtation than a Ferrari which will need continuous service to keep running. I could make many cases as to why the Civic is a MUCH MUCH better car than a Ferrari -- but the Ferrari is a vastly superior car for the intended purpose behnd the Ferrari -- it'll go damn fast and handle. Too often though people look at the price and forget about the intent.

In other words many people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

[SlumpBuster]

Diminishing returns is the excuse for those who cant afford the Elite.

And imperceptable differences that cannot be duplicated reliabably in double-blind testing are an excuse for those who have spent what they know to be too much regardless of purchasing ability. :D:cornut:

That's okay Flo, I predicted it before and I'll predict it again. It's only a matter of time before you cash in your whole kit and put the money into a new intrest. Like motorcycle racing or something.


Sorry, I had to. Right back at ya.

[blackraven]

This subject is so subjective, no pun intended. I've heard $30,000 systems and thought whats the big deal. For me the most important piece of equipment are speakers and I'd say the diminishing returns start at about $2,500. CD players about $600-1000 and amplifiers about $1000 maybe less when I compare my $500 JVC AV reciever to my $2,000 adcom receiver.

[emorphien]

I know what you mean about systems being a let down. I heard Aerial 20Ts hooked up to Ayre components and was thoroughly bored to death by it.

[SlumpBuster]

Here's my honest input. Diminishing returns is a phrase taken from the financial investment world and applied, in this context, to consumer products that are subject to artificial markup, price controls, and instant depreciation once it leaves the shop door. Yes, I know what Carl is referring to, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass. But it is an inapplicable concept.

The real question is not "When do components start to sound the same, or at least not be worth the difference?" That is not the question because any answer I give would be inherently colored by my financial position, ethics, priorities, past, present and future. The answer will invariably be "This is how much I would spend on X." The real question is "What dollar value do I put on hi-fi reproduction of music." I don't think the question of a $5k speaker being only half as good as a $10k speaker cannot be separated from a persons overall financial bent.

I know Flo was half taking the piss, but he also half wasn't. There is no way I would spend $50k on a pair of speakers, and its not because I can't afford it and its not because I couldn't hear the difference between his appogees and my paradigms. But it is because I have more "valuable" things to spend $50k on (to use RGA's word). Accordingly, because two people have different financial perspectives, they will give two different answers regarding diminishing returns. Not because one has better hearing, or because one is more discerning, or because one has a bigger bank account, but because one puts more or less market value on the reproduction of hi-fi sound. Example: I just bought a sofa for $3000. I'm sure there are lots of people that think that is frivolous amount of money for a couch and wouldn't spend more than $300, I know because some of them are in my extended family. But then there are plenty of other people that think a good sofa doesn't come less than $10k. Where do diminishing returns begin for sofas? See, that's what I mean about applying the concept of demishing returns being applied to a consumer good. We will all argue around the table when we apply it to audio, but apply it to sofas and you can see how silly it is.

Also, a person's definition of what would be dimishing returns changes over time. i.e. to answer the question directly, I think $5k is that starting point of deminishing returns on speakers. But I probably would have said a $1000 ten years ago and will probably say $10k ten years from now. That is not a reflection of the deminishing return changing or my tin ear turning to gold, but is more accurately a reflection of "How much would Slump spend on a pair of speakers he liked?" Rather than "Does Slump think any more cash would just be a waste?"

[Carl Reid]

One would bloody well hope that the $3500 Krell would sound better than, say, my
$250 Sony. The point is that I am essentially content with the sound of the Sony, in fact with an excellant recording, it sounds as good as I need to.

That is to say that while the Krell might sound better (even to me) than the Sony, it really doesn't sound all that much better -- and I'd be a jackass to spend the difference on the Krell. Of course, if one has a great deal of money, (or at least more money than brains), then any improvement (really or imagined) might be worth it.

LOL.... I think you get what i'm saying about diminishing returns, though I wouldn't quite say that someone is stupid for spending the additional money....

I might be totally impractical for most people, but for the truly affluent with more money than they know what to do with.... it might make just as much sense to drop $200K on a 2channel setup as to just leave it in some miscellaneous bank account in Grand Cayman...

[Carl Reid]

A few problems with the basic assumptions of diminishing returns:

1) an assumption that spending more will get you better -- while it is certainly true it is also certainly not true that this happens all of the time or even most of the time. You can certainly find a $600.00 componant that will perform far better than almost everyone elses $2000.00 unit -- but this too is subjective based on experience and preferences. What is it that you value in the system and what is practial for your living space -- if your room is 20 by 15 then you are far better off with a system designed for that space than spending $200k on a speaker designed for a 50X75 space -- no matter how good the speaker is it will royally suck in the small room it was not designed for.

Componants are far more system dependant -- saying that X amplifier at $3000.00 is better than Y amplifier at $1500.00 might be true in one system and completely untrue or opposite in another.

Diminishing returns you have to define in qualitative versus quantative terms in my view. You can spend little money and get a system to cover the human hearing frequency spectrum and get relatively flat response. So in terms of bass output, treble output and midrange output and other technically satisfying terms like imaging sounstage and other sonic feats then yes spending 10k on that subwoofer to go from 20hz to 10hz looks great on paper but not really a big improvement on what you can actually hear or relavent to the vast majority of recordings.

Sound quality improvements though are more subjective usually smaller in total difference and more subtle. The question though can;t be reduced to some number -- it is subtle and subjective and so if someone wishes to pay triple for something that offers - to the buyer - a subtle but important improvement that makes him able to listen longer with less fatigue then it is a critically important upgrade whether it is noticeable in 30 seconds of a track though may not occur.

The trick is to not be swayed by anything but your own compass. Reviews, neighboritus (keeping up with the Joneses or other forumers spending), technobabble etc will only serve to make this more about a hobby than actually providing you with a good sounding system.

I have heard some breathtakingly expensive systems that do not live up to the hype and some that do but don;t mistake the toy factor in audio -- A honda Civic is practically a much better reliable form of transporrtation than a Ferrari which will need continuous service to keep running. I could make many cases as to why the Civic is a MUCH MUCH better car than a Ferrari -- but the Ferrari is a vastly superior car for the intended purpose behnd the Ferrari -- it'll go damn fast and handle. Too often though people look at the price and forget about the intent.

In other words many people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

I agree with this post, those are some of best points I've heard re: diminishing returns...

I did try to simplifiy things substantially in my initial post.... but it is challenging to have this discussion without complicating matters...

As for the Civic versus Ferrari.... 100% true... Two interesting examples I've found in the audio world are 1) B&W speakers... I really love the sound of the 800 series but I find the sound very fatiguing.... so if I was to upgrade to 800s, I would have to cut my listening sessions short 2) Flo's Apogees.... being sold because they require a powerplant to run them.... So they may be audio nirvana when he plays them... but are not practical for everyday listening...

And yep reviews can be total nonsense.... I've heard so many products that reviewers raved about and I honestly thought 'what's the big deal?'....

[emorphien]

It sure isn't worth getting this upset over. It's interesting to hear what everyone has to say based on their experience with various equipment. You guys are getting a little serious about a fun discussion.

[Florian]

Well it was only meant as a joke, as mentioned above.

I was going to write a more detailed report but what the hell. I heard a Genesis 201 yesterday and a large Odeon horn. Both over 85 thousand. The only speaker that was better in one area was the Genesis with its bass towers. I guess it could do more "physical" damage but to call my Grand sub bass system slouchy would be crazy as they are essentily two Krell Master Reference Subwoofers.

Will i sell my system, most likely not as i have yet to hear something that is in an acceptable distance to it. So far, no luck. And finding one again is impossible with only 20 pairs in existance.

So i guess i need to work for the powerbill and enjoy these heating monsters.

We would have to take retail price. It was 85K in 93 and sold for over 230K in Germany. Is it 230 times better then a 1K speaker? Nope! Is it 10 times better then a 2.3K speaker? I would actually say yes to that, even tough logic permits it.

This hobby is crazy and obviously diminishing returns are there, but if you want to take it to the extreme, hell then why not? Is the system 10 times better then some Nautilus? Oh yes-... it will play with much more resolution, much more power, slam, dynamics etc... but is it easier? Heck No! You need a huge room, TONS of money for power amps (not some cheesy Krells like i use) ....is it all over my head? Yep.....but man so is a Ferrari, Lambo, a huge house and all those nice other things. Doesnt mean they cant be enjoyed :-)

And lets not forget the bragging rights on some cheesy internet forums..... ***disclaimer: Mr.Flo does not support the said statment eventough he things this forum is not one at all *** kiddin....

[Carl Reid]

Here's my honest input. Diminishing returns is a phrase taken from the financial investment world and applied, in this context, to consumer products that are subject to artificial markup, price controls, and instant depreciation once it leaves the shop door. Yes, I know what Carl is referring to, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass. But it is an inapplicable concept.

The real question is not "When do components start to sound the same, or at least not be worth the difference?" That is not the question because any answer I give would be inherently colored by my financial position, ethics, priorities, past, present and future. The answer will invariably be "This is how much I would spend on X." The real question is "What dollar value do I put on hi-fi reproduction of music." I don't think the question of a $5k speaker being only half as good as a $10k speaker cannot be separated from a persons overall financial bent.

I know Flo was half taking the piss, but he also half wasn't. There is no way I would spend $50k on a pair of speakers, and its not because I can't afford it and its not because I couldn't hear the difference between his appogees and my paradigms. But it is because I have more "valuable" things to spend $50k on (to use RGA's word). Accordingly, because two people have different financial perspectives, they will give two different answers regarding diminishing returns. Not because one has better hearing, or because one is more discerning, or because one has a bigger bank account, but because one puts more or less market value on the reproduction of hi-fi sound. Example: I just bought a sofa for $3000. I'm sure there are lots of people that think that is frivolous amount of money for a couch and wouldn't spend more than $300, I know because some of them are in my extended family. But then there are plenty of other people that think a good sofa doesn't come less than $10k. Where do diminishing returns begin for sofas? See, that's what I mean about applying the concept of demishing returns being applied to a consumer good. We will all argue around the table when we apply it to audio, but apply it to sofas and you can see how silly it is.

Also, a person's definition of what would be dimishing returns changes over time. i.e. to answer the question directly, I think $5k is that starting point of deminishing returns on speakers. But I probably would have said a $1000 ten years ago and will probably say $10k ten years from now. That is not a reflection of the deminishing return changing or my tin ear turning to gold, but is more accurately a reflection of "How much would Slump spend on a pair of speakers he liked?" Rather than "Does Slump think any more cash would just be a waste?"

Though I understand your points.... one thing I will say... is that I don't intend diminishing returns to be just a question of how much are you willing to spend on a setup.... since that changes with your income and priorities...

For me, I believe diminishing returns kicked in at probably around a quarter of what I spent on my current setup (and I haven't even upgraded my speakers yet)....

I know that I've simplified and bastardized the concept of diminshing returns from the pure economic sense substantially.... but I still need to try and differentiate between the an optimum price point i.e. what you are willing to spend on a setup and the point at which you stop getting as much value for your money as you initially received...

So put it this way... at $1000 you might find that a CD player is subjectively worth twice the value of a good $500 player... but you may only find a $2000 player to provide a 25% improvement over the $1000 one.... but since you can easily afford the $2k player, you still choose to buy it.... So $1k is where diminishing returns sets in, but $2k is your optimum price point.... (yeah I know there are whole lot of assumptions and subjective valuations there but it's probably the best way I can describe the concept)...

[Florian]

There is a bit of a concept problem here. Ya cant judge a 7K CDP and a 1K CDP BOTH on lets say a Apogee C-Minor (smallest hybrid) cause its not good enough to show up the performance of the 7K player.

One player that is at least 7 times better then a 1K player (the ones i know) is a Goldmund CD36

[Carl Reid]

There is a bit of a concept problem here. Ya cant judge a 7K CDP and a 1K CDP BOTH on lets say a Apogee C-Minor (smallest hybrid) cause its not good enough to show up the performance of the 7K player.

One player that is at least 7 times better then a 1K player (the ones i know) is a Goldmund CD36

I'll agree with that... it's a good point...

I doubt I'd hear any difference hooking up a $5K Classe CD player to a $200 Sony CD Receiver versus a $300 Marantz CD Player with the same Sony Receiver.... The Sony just wouldn't be good enough to show the difference...

[Carl Reid]

It sure isn't worth getting this upset over. It's interesting to hear what everyone has to say based on their experience with various equipment. You guys are getting a little serious about a fun discussion.

Not sure if you're talking about me.... but I haven't got the impression that anyone is really getting upset over the discussion (at least I know I'm not)... but I think it's a fun debate... and I really like hearing different oppinions on both where diminishing returns kicks in and whether or not the concept even makes sense when we apply it to consumer goods...

[Florian]

Oh yeah, and i forgot to add.

You guys really think i paid anywhere close to 50K for that speaker? LOL.... I am not rich, i dont even know how to pay my next rent. I got fired from my last job cause they hired to russians who work for less. The "trick" to get super speakers at a low low price is to understand the people who bought them.

All Apogee Grands where bought by millionares. The guy in Jerusalem bought two pair at the same time. Thats 170K in 93' ;-)

Rich people abuse these, mine where used as a party speaker. They drove the **** out of it! The front was scratched (had to redo that), 3 of the internal amps where overheated. (Mind you those drop over 3200 watts!!!!!). Those are getting fixed right now. So they had a problem with it and noone could repair it, so they dumped the speaker in a Garage along its huge wooden crates. Well i found it and bought it for around 9K. :cornut:

I traced down the design who built this thing and i got the schematics and all the building plans. Now i am restoring it. The electronics will be done in Febuary and for the mean time i designed a passive crossover until the whole thing is done.

Rich people i know are lazy, they dont give a crap about a 100k plus speaker system. They buy it to show off to their friends and when its down they sell them to some looser, not expecting they can fix it. So i drove throgh Austria and Switzerland into Italy and we moved 1.4 Tons of speaker out and i am waiting for half a year to enjoy them fully. Is it worth it to me? Yes!





Flos HIFI tricks..... my journey

Buy Maggie 0.5 and a Computer

traded the computer in for Maggie 1.6's

traded in the 1.6's plus 2K for Maggie 3.6

traded in Maggie 3.6 for Apogee Scintilla

traded Scintilla in for Apogee DIVA

sold DIVA for 12K and bought Grands :-) :-) :-)

[emorphien]

Not sure if you're talking about me.... but I haven't got the impression that anyone is really getting upset over the discussion (at least I know I'm not)... but I think it's a fun debate... and I really like hearing different oppinions on both where diminishing returns kicks in and whether or not the concept even makes sense when we apply it to consumer goods...
I don't remember who it was anymore and it doesn't matter. Whoever was nitpicking over the idea and felt the need to start arguing that. No fun, keep the thread fun! :5:

[hermanv]

Without some frame of reference, this thread is meaningless. A $65 portable CD player and $50 worth of headphones will get you sound you could barely touch in 1960 for any amount of money. I've heard some of that stuff, in terms of resolution, bandwidth, detail and lack of noise, it didn't get there.

Do I have a $65 CD player and $50 headphones, actually yes. Do I listen to music with them, almost never.

Diminishing returns has much more to do with how much of your "disposable" income you allocate in exchange for the enjoyment you get from good sound. I know people who can afford the very best equipment and have absolutely zero interest in better sound. I also know those who have problems spending $100 who dream regularly of better equipment.

Diminishing returns are determined by your wallet not your ears. That $75 complete system from Wallmart will in fact produce recognizable music. Assuming a knowledgable consumer, as you spend more, it gets better . There is no “knee” at which there is a sudden decrease in return on investment. Yes, you get less and less as you spend more and more, but you still get incrementally better sound.

Many simply don’t care, when people I’ve known hear a truly good system, most remark, “Wow, I had no idea what I was missing”. Yet they don’t rush out and buy a high end system or improve their home system in any way.

[emorphien]

If ya don't like it, don't post. Sheesh.

[Mr Peabody]

Slump and herman hit on some good points as far as motivation and decision making. It's a lot to do with priorities, means and what satisfies us. I need therapy, I probably have a lower income than most of you here yet I am willing to work it out to where I can have a better than mid fi system. If that means buyin used or on credit, so b it. I listen to music morethan I watch TV and I thoroughly enjoy my hi fi gear. But this is my only hobby, some of you may need funs for Golf or whatever. I am at a place now where I can honestly say I am satisfied with my system. If I had more money, I might be tempted to upgrade somewhere but part of me don't want to take a chance on spoilig what I have now. I''m sure a better DAC or preamp wouldn't hurt anythig. I have reache the limits of my means for now, thankfully, that and being satisfied came close to the same time.

You may think the reason I'm satisfied is because I've reached the end of my means but that's not true. I have some credit line if I really really wanted to upgrade. Before I was restless always checking on line for good deals or something better. With my current system in place I don't have the desire anymore to do that. Krell is good stuff and certainly provided a "wow factor" but for some reason I was not content. With my current Conrad Johnson gear, I am perfectly content to sit and listen as long as I can. It's like I am fully aware that there is better equipment but it no longer matters. Is that what you are talking about Carl? Maybe our tastes are satisfied by differen levels of gear or maybe we all have found the gear that just does it for us. Or, maybe it's varying degrees of passion, or addiction.

Now that I have heard high end gear and at least have enough means to put my hands on some, I would not be satisfied with Rotel or Adcom for a main system. There's nothing wrong with them but to me what I have now, the expense is well worth the difference in listening enjoyment I receive. Apparently, most of you don't feel that way, for whatever reason..

[hermanv]

..edit... I listen to music morethan I watch TV and I thoroughly enjoy my hi fi gear. But this is my only hobby, ...I am at a place now where I can honestly say I am satisfied with my system. If I had more money, I might be tempted to upgrade somewhere but part of me don't want to take a chance on spoilig what I have now.

Before I was restless always checking on line for good deals or something better. With my current system in place I don't have the desire anymore to do that. Krell is good stuff and certainly provided a "wow factor" but for some reason I was not content. With my current Conrad Johnson gear, I am perfectly content to sit and listen as long as I can. It's like I am fully aware that there is better equipment but it no longer matters. Is that what you are talking about Carl? Maybe our tastes are satisfied by differen levels of gear or maybe we all have found the gear that just does it for us. Or, maybe it's varying degrees of passion, or addiction.

Now that I have heard high end gear and at least have enough means to put my hands on some, I would not be satisfied with Rotel or Adcom for a main system. There's nothing wrong with them but to me what I have now, the expense is well worth the difference in listening enjoyment I receive. Apparently, most of you don't feel that way, for whatever reason..IMHO you initially spend money in this hobby to minimize the negatives, glare, etch, boomy bass, etc. Getting rid of that stuff gets rid of fatigue. Suddenly you can listen and enjoy music for hours. Next if you have the financial reserves, you try and maximize the positives. Taut and deep bass, crystal clear midrange and lots of air in that tweeter. These things start to transport you into the music.

There seems to be a kind of trick. That is to maximize resolution and detail without bringing forward that harshness or grain that so colors most electronic reproduction. It's not that easy. A new speaker often reveals a weakness in the power amp, next after fixing that problem you can tell the source doesn't measure up. Now it's back to the pre-amp and notice I haven't even mentioned cables. Each piece has it's own limitations and the problem seems to be that the weakest piece effectively masks the problem of the next weakest piece.

This is how you climb on the upgrade merry go round. Like so many others, I initially couldn't believe what some of this stuff costs. Now both poorer and wiser, I do understand how easy it is to discover that you didn't buy well, that for the same money you could have done better.

It seems to me that as your equipment improves, so does your ability to hear shortcommings. The equipment has to be good enough where you can identify what is and what is not wrong with the sound, what it is that's not satisfying.

On a site I enjoy http://www.10audio.com/ There is a decent definition of a good system. If the sound is good enough, you can't read a book or do other things because the system will distract you to the point where you end up just listening, abandoning your other pursuits.

[Carl Reid]

This thread is NOT about:

1) Bashing forum members who spend a lot of money on their setup.... As far as I'm concerned, if you can afford to drop $50K on your 2 channel setup and you really enjoy it, then there's nothing wrong that! I'm sure most of us even those with a $1K setup have friends and family who think we are total lunatics for spending that much when a simple Aiwa minisystem could "do the job" for $200....

2) What is your current/dream system.... Diminishing Returns (which I readily admit is a flawed concept, but since it's 'Economics' it's all about flawed assumptions anyway) is not a question of how much did you spend or how much are you willing to spend.... it's more a question of at what price do you think you're not getting as much value for your money as you initially got....

3) That everyone on this site is gonna come to a consensus on where diminishing returns sets in.... That's Impossible... we will not even be near an agreement... but the purpose of the thread is just to facilitate an open discussion and share ideas and opinions... There is no right or wrong answer here.... only opinions... so feel free to share them....



@ Florian - even if you had actually spent $50K on speakers, there would be nothing wrong with that if you think it's worth it... We all waste money on all kinds of useless crap anyway.... so why not save it and put it towards something you really like.... I mean... why does someone who has a perfectly good Honda Accord for everyday use, save up their money to buy a Porsche for the weekend?

Oh I think I may have an idea for your Apogee situation.... why don't U keep the Apogees (much like a weekend Porsche) and use them when U need audio nirvana just a few times a month to keep the power bill down.... and buy some more modest less power hungry speakers for everday use... maybe some Maggies....

Oh yeah, one last thing... buying used is very much the way to go.... I'm with you on that... and I'm pretty sure that my next upgrade will likely be used.... since you can easily get high-end gear in good or even excellent condition for half price on the used market... hell... some lucky guys got my old NAD Integrated and CD player for about half the price of new gear.... and those were in excellent condition .... I don't think I'm quite ready for buying and restoring gear yet though.... but maybe one day...



@ Mr. Peabody.... You actually have pretty much the same approach I'm moving towards.... which is that if you have only one expensive hobby, then you can afford to dump more money into it than what seems 'reasonable'.... it's part of why I stick to 2 channel and have not bothered with HT.... for the price of a really crappy HT system, you can easily get a decent two channel setup....

[blackraven]

I'll probably catch alot of flak over this statement but I doubt that most people would be able to tell the difference in the sound of a $1,000-1500 amplifier vs a $10,000 amplifier with the CD player and speakers being equal. (that is assuming the brightness of the amplifiers are the same). I would bet my last dollar that if you did a double blind test you would find that people would pick the higher priced amp only 50% of the time. I bet the same would be true for comparing CD players just because everyone hears things differenty.

When I bought my Mag Q1.6's, I Iistened to them on an NAD reciever and a $10,000 amp with the same $10,000 CDP and could not tell the difference in sound. My wife and other people in the store could not tell the difference either. I beleive that once you reach a certain point in quality that the benefits of going up in price gives very little in return except for very demanding speakers which may have certain power requirements. I think that most (not all) benefits of high end equipment (excluding speakers because they are so subjective) can be measured with electronic equipment but doubt the human ear can tell the difference.

[Florian]

When I bought my Mag Q1.6's, Iistened to them on an NAD reciever and a $10,000 amp with the same $10,000 CDP and could not tell the difference in sound. My wife and other people in the store could not tell the difference either. I beleive that once you reach a certain point in quality that the benefits of going up in price gives very little in return except for very demanding speakers.

Now dont be offended but i believe that in a second too. Try the same on a Maggie 3.6 and higher and its easy. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and offer this treat for anyone who wants to visit me. Bring any CDP, AMP or DAC to my place and try it on the Grand. But no wimpy amps please ;-)

[jrhymeammo]

Oh yeah, one last thing... buying used is very much the way to go.... I'm with you on that... and I'm pretty sure that my next upgrade will likely be used.... since you can easily get high-end gear in good or even excellent condition for half price on the used market... hell... some lucky guys got my old NAD Integrated and CD player for about half the price of new gear.... and those were in excellent condition .... I don't think I'm quite ready for buying and restoring gear yet though.... but maybe one day...



It's crazy to buy quality gears new in this hobby unless you cannot find it used. Regardless of the cost, we buy everything because we believe they are worth the cost. I dont think I'll ever spend $5000 on a Patho, but at around $2000 I'll start thinking....

[basite]

Well i found it and bought it for around 9K. :cornut:


that has to be THE best price/performance rate ever!!!


anyways, (note that this only goes for "If i had the money")it depends on what i'm buying. i can see myself spending 1000-1500 on a tt but i don't see myself spending that on a cd player, those prices would stop about $500-$600, and for carts, the denon dl-103 i have now was a bargain, and it was definately worth it, but i don't see myselfs spending over 1k on a cartridge, the same goes for cables, cheap standard cables have to be replaced, i refuse to use cheap cable in my system, but i don't see the point in having $750 cables, my dad has $150 MIT cables, and they do their job just fine. maybe a little more can be spend on cables, but certainly not $500.

then, amps and preamps, these things may have higher price tags, but at $3000 i think i'll stop, exept when they are really really really nice, like a Mcintosh or so, those could be an exeption,

speakers on the other hand, :ihih: if i had 20k to spend, at least $12k would go to speakers, but that doesn't take away that there is still alot to dream about.

do take note that when i have that money, i wouldn't spend it on "top of the line" pioneer speakers (yes, they have 8k speakers, i heard them, and they suck.) or the most expensive denon surround receiver/amp, i'd rather spend that money on a "entry level" Mcintosh...

that said, i think i am dreaming at this moment...

Greetings
Bert.

[E-Stat]

Do I have a $65 CD player and $50 headphones, actually yes. Do I listen to music with them, almost never.
I was thinking along the same lines. I will suggest, however, that by using really good headphones or earbuds, you can get demonstrably better sound using CD Walkmen/Ipods. Increase that budget to say $135 street for a set of Shure E3s, and you get really nice sound. And I do listen to music with my Sony Walkman cum Shure earbuds quite a bit when I travel.

Does my main system deliver two hundred times the enjoyment of the portable system? No, but then again it does things the portable system cannot.

rw

[E-Stat]

It's crazy to buy quality gears new in this hobby unless you cannot find it used.
You have a good point. I have purchased many a used component - as long as it was a well made unit with a strong manufacturer behind it. I saved about $10k buying fresh-from-the-factory refurbished speakers. The only real difference was that the steel frames were a bit scuffed. :)

rw

[hermanv]

Going back and reading my posts, I see that I didn't make myself very clear. The original questions implies there's some sudden point at which the amount of improvement decreases a lot per dollar spent.

I don't really think this is true. I do think the curves of cost vs improvement converge. That is, I agree you get less improvement per dollar as more dollars are spent. I just have a really hard time with the idea that at some fixed amount (say $2,500) you've made the best possible cost benefit decision. I believe this point is different for each and everyone of us, it's related to how much we can afford versus how much we care. Some people care a lot and spend a disproportionate amount of their income this way, other care little and are quite delighted with a mass market system.

So I am leary of advice that says you should spend X, because more is inefficient and less won't do the job.

Once you get past the sticker shock, I agree strongly that used makes a great deal of sense. We might easily disagree on the sonic qualities of many expensive brands, but most of the high priced stuff is solid, well made, with quality parts, it will last a long time.

[Carl Reid]

Going back and reading my posts, I see that I didn't make myself very clear. The original questions implies there's some sudden point at which the amount of improvement decreases a lot per dollar spent.

I don't really think this is true. I do think the curves of cost vs improvement converge. That is, I agree you get less improvement per dollar as more dollars are spent. I just have a really hard time with the idea that at some fixed amount (say $2,500) you've made the best possible cost benefit decision. I believe this point is different for each and everyone of us, it's related to how much we can afford versus how much we care. Some people care a lot and spend a disproportionate amount of their income this way, other care little and are quite delighted with a mass market system.

So I am leary of advice that says you should spend X, because more is inefficient and less won't do the job.

Once you get past the sticker shock, I agree strongly that used makes a great deal of sense. We might easily disagree on the sonic qualities of many expensive brands, but most of the high priced stuff is solid, well made, with quality parts, it will last a long time.

Hmmmm.... so if I'm understanding you correctly.... you don't believe that at some price point... say $2500, that increase in price versus increase in quality suddenly changes from say a 1:1 ratio to maybe a 3:1 (with price being the former and quality being the latter).... but you think that there is gradual (maybe consistent) decline in the Price/Quality ratio....

so initially with say a $100 system you have a 1:1 but by a $2000 system maybe you have only a 1:0.8 etc.....

If that is what you are saying, then that sounds likes an interesting conclusion.....and actually seems quite feasible..... so in that case diminishing returns doesn't occur at a specific price point along a graph but is a constant convergence (or maybe divergence) of increase in Price versus increase in sound quality....

[hermanv]

That conforms to my admittedly limited observations.

It's of course impossible to speak in absolutes. I certainly haven't heard all brands, maybe not even most. So this is opinion based on my personal experiences.

At lower prices, speakers should dominate the expense bias.

As you pass around $5,000 for speakers, the sonic characteristics of each brand of exotic amp starts to become distiguisable. Different amplifier characters show up.

Much past those amounts, suddenly every last part affects the end result. Synergy becomes very important, so lots of time is needed and a few wrong purchases are almost gauranteed.

[Dusty Chalk]

I understand your question, I'm just having a hard time putting together a system. Here's what I have so far:

Source == NEC CD-ROM < US$50 (I forget the model number and exact price, but it was a very popular "flavour of the month" a year or two back)
Speakers == Insignia NS-B2111 (oh, look, they're on sale again (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7705307&type=product&id=1138085354138&ref=06&loc=01)) < US$50
Amp...? I don't want to flout the Sonic T, because I haven't heard it in this setup yet, although I have heard it with others and it is quite good.

Yeah, the law of diminishing returns kicks in early at Chez Chalk (pronounced in French-ish, "shawk", only here, due to being pretentious), but then, I don't always believe that that's the point one should strive. I, myself, have another law, the law of "minimal threshold" that needs to be surpassed. Basically what that means is, I have a minimum threshold that I would like to see surpassed, and then I have to budget myself to get there. In retrospect, I wasn't entirely happy with my purchase of the Creek OBH-11 headphone amp, but the OBH-11SE surpassed my minimum threshold and still does -- it is the bare minimum that I can recommend -- if someone is happy with something less good, then I tell them to look elsewhere for recommendations (than to me).

There's also that entire problem of subjectivity in terms of defining "better". I have a friend who's a detail freak, whereas I am a bass-head, and we can rarely reconcile certain equipment (he has a particular pair of headphones that are too bass-light for me, but are excellent in detail). So to him, those headphones are the best in the world, whereas for me they don't even meet my minimum criteria for frequency response (I want them to be at least more or less flattish for most of 20-20k). I don't care how much they cost (and they do cost a lot), they're not good enough for me, based on my weighting of certain characteristics.

So what we all have to do is judge these things based on lowest common denominator -- I feel comfortable recommending the NEC and the Insignias to anyone on a budget (though there will always be exceptions, of course), based on certain criteria that I made up and that I am not stating. For example, when pressed, I will admit that I wouldn't use the Insignias without a sub, myself, because I'm spoiled that way. You really are giving up the last octave on those. But 99% of the time, most people will be so happy with the octaves they are hearing, they won't miss the one or so that they're missing. I also think they don't have a lot of detail -- they're a bit congested, but then I've heard multi US$K speakers, and I know what is possible. For their pricepoint, they're impossible to beat.

[Carl Reid]

I'll probably catch alot of flak over this statement but I doubt that most people would be able to tell the difference in the sound of a $1,000-1500 amplifier vs a $10,000 amplifier with the CD player and speakers being equal. (that is assuming the brightness of the amplifiers are the same). I would bet my last dollar that if you did a double blind test you would find that people would pick the higher priced amp only 50% of the time. I bet the same would be true for comparing CD players just because everyone hears things differenty.

When I bought my Mag Q1.6's, I Iistened to them on an NAD reciever and a $10,000 amp with the same $10,000 CDP and could not tell the difference in sound. My wife and other people in the store could not tell the difference either. I beleive that once you reach a certain point in quality that the benefits of going up in price gives very little in return except for very demanding speakers which may have certain power requirements. I think that most (not all) benefits of high end equipment (excluding speakers because they are so subjective) can be measured with electronic equipment but doubt the human ear can tell the difference.

&


Now dont be offended but i believe that in a second too. Try the same on a Maggie 3.6 and higher and its easy. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and offer this treat for anyone who wants to visit me. Bring any CDP, AMP or DAC to my place and try it on the Grand. But no wimpy amps please ;-)


I can't believe you two haven't been ripped into yet for that claim... Time to start the pain... lol...

Ok seriously, is it possible that your observations might be due to using Planar speakers rather than traditional cone/box speakers? I don't know if either of you tried that same test with non-planars....

The reason I suspect it might be due to planars is based on a recent review of the Magnepan MG20.1 in Sounstage:

"The MG20.1s are not for would-be reviewers or equipment jockeys. Other speakers, some that cost far less, can tell you more about the other products with which they are used. As transparent as the MG20.1s are through the midrange and especially the treble, they still present music their own particular way, taking over your listening room more than giving you a pristine view into everything upstream and each recording."

So the vibe I get from that review is that the maggies are not paricularly good for comparing different upstream components such as CD players and Amps....

[hermanv]

There is this question about the goal of a music reproduction system. Beethoven's 9th is arguably one of the greatest compositions ever written. While the music is recognizable on a $60 boom box, there is no sense of awe. The sense that this music is reaching across the centuries to stir basic human emotions requires more than that boom box.

For me, the purpose of my system is to allow me to hear artists practicing their craft. It's supposed to be stirring; it's supposed to raise gooseflesh. When everything is working, the eyes tear at the sense of wonder, stunning stuff.

I'm not even much of a classical fan, but I know good work when I hear it. That's why I spend the money, I get very good compensation for the expense.

[Dusty Chalk]

You can achieve the same effect by standing in the frozen food aisle of your local grocer.

[hermanv]

You can achieve the same effect by standing in the frozen food aisle of your local grocer.True, but my system will do it even when I'm wearing a winter coat.

[Ajani]

Ok I really need to either take some sleeping pills or get a life, but I think I'll start another thread...

So here goes:

We always talk about the law of diminishing returns in relation to our audio hobby.... (and for good reason... since double the price clearly does not mean double the quality when it comes to audio upgrades)...

So I'd love to hear at what price point different people think that diminishing returns really kicks in....

For a strictly 2 channel audio setup with just one source (whether CD, Vinyl, cassete tape, whatever)... at what retail price (sorry, no ebay specials or used equipment) could you build a competent system that would have most of the sonic performance you need?

So basically any worthwhile upgrades would cost a LOT more money at that point...

Note: this setup can be substanially cheaper than what you have now or even more expensive... just base it on set-ups that you've heard, whether at friends, stores, your own setup, etc...

Ok, I'm sure that many of the audiphiles here will laugh at my price, but I think that between $1000 - $2000 (for the entire setup, including cables) is pretty much where diminishing returns set in....

So what's your price range?

I wonder if any of our views have changed in the year since this thread was born. I guess mine have.... I no longer really see diminishing returns as a specific price point for each category of product, but more of a continuous decline in the "more money to increased performance" ratio.

Though I still can't see the reason to spend more than $1k on a CD player - actually I probably wouldn't even spend $300 on a CD player, since I'm a die hard Computer audio fan now... but to each his own....

[nightflier]

I'll second what Basite said: Florian's upgrading technique has got to be the best way any of us common folk can afford truly high-end gear.

And as someone who is probably the poorest of all his friends in this hobby, I also agree with how "rich" people treat their toys. Much of what I've had the chance to hear was either in someone else's home or needed extensive repairs. The trick in the latter scenario is to only purchase products you know you can get repaired. There is an electrical engineer in my company who is an absolute genius with golden ears and is willing to repair stuff for free, but how many of us have a similar situation they can depend on?

On the other hand, I had an opportunity to purchase a pair of Dynaudio C4's some time back, but the cabinets and drivers weren't just trashed they were destroyed - and Dynaudio wasn't going to repair them at a cost that would have been in my price range (now if I can't afford the repairs, I really shouldn't be owning them) but man would I have liked to have them - anyhow, someone else offered more for them and they were gone quickly enough. I consider those one of my big hesitation-related missed opportunities.

Back to the topic, I'm of the opinion that the diminishing returns line is a steady one and does not have a sudden change in slope. I can say however, from what I've listened to in my own home that it takes expensive gear to hear the differences in other expensive gear. A case-in-point I think we can all agree on is with speakers, especially if you consider how dependent they are on the amp driving them. I would almost go so far as saying that the two can't be considered separately. What I mean by that is that what will sound satisfying in a good speaker cannot be evaluated without considering the synergy with its associated amp. This is also true of a cartridge-turntable relationship or a room-speaker relationship. When you consider these things, it is nearly impossible to set a price-point for a sudden increase in diminishing returns on individual gear.

Also, a $300 CDP can be made significantly better with a very good DAC. For example, put an $1000 DAC with a $300 player and you will have a pairing that will rival many (though not all) $2000 standalone players. Likewise a good $1000 phono pre can do wonders for a mechanically sound TT. I'll even go so far as saying that certain tweaks do wonders (especially with phono). Or in the case of speakers, a good stand can substantially improve the sound of a bookshelf speaker, just as spikes have this effect on floor-standers. This isn't a hard & fast rule for every combination, but I think this affects the diminishing returns relationship.

Finally, as someone else mentioned, I concur that there are some components, like a DAC or amp, that can have a very long useful life while others like a CDP or cartridge a very short one. The price people are willing to pay for these items in considering their price improvement ratio would be a very different linear relationship, although I would still maintain that it would be mostly linear.

Anyhow, that has been my experience. I will say that a $1000 or less speaker has substantial compromises, even with $1000 or less components. Speakers are unique in this respect because they are ultimately the point with which we are linked to the system (i.e. through our ears). To be perfectly fair, the same could be said of headphones. With that in mind, I don't think there is a speaker under $2500 that can give me the satisfaction I am looking for in a 2-channel system. I know this sounds snobbish (and I don't mean it to be), but I think this is where I am at on this journey. Only a few years ago I would probably have said that this price point was more like $500.

Oh, and while I see the utility in owning a Honda vs. a Ferrari, I will say that with that example, the relationship is not as linear. This is because you can get 90% of the performance of a Ferrari with a Viper or Saleen (I have driven all three). What you may loose along the way, though, is the oohs and aahs or people who thought they saw what you were sitting in as it flew past their 4-banger that they will struggle to keep on the road from the wake you created. Also a Ferrari-class car is far more visible to a larger number of people (despite how fast it may zip by), than any stationary sound system tucked deep inside the proverbial man-cave (or woman-cave, sorry F.Autumn). Hence people are going to pay far more for the Ferrari than the Saleen, even if the performance doesn't warrant it. Actually, band-for-the-buck, I'd put my money in a Porshe (and, no, I'm not talking about their overpriced re-branded VW Toe-rag).

[hermanv]

Although the upgrade spiral has it's own built in silliness (you end up buying the same function more than once) it does allow you to spread the cost out over time.

If you do some homework, you will find certain brands have good staying power. So an item made by one of these brands will loose very little value over time assuming only that you bought it used to begin with.

Two other advantages of spreading the upgrade spiral over time are that you get to listen in the meantime and if you are alert, a good deal will come along that you are now primed to jump on.

I now have a system that's pretty good, it took me a little over 10 years to assemble. I sold most of the old stuff to help pay for the new. I learned a lot as I grew my system and I owned something listenable the whole time.

Did I buy some functions more than once? Yes, but each pass, I knew more about what I wanted and more about how to listen for it.

There is one other route and that is the DIY option. See the site by that name. Savings may be less than you think, it turns out that first class components are not at all cheap.