Thoughts on Diminishing returns

[Mr Peabody]

My position is diminishing returns can apply in some circumstances but not a blanket or across the board statement based on an arbitrary price point..

I find often times the term is used on forums to justify ones reason to stick with what they have or in an attempt to make others look foolish for having expensive higher end gear. I don't recall anyone here doing that. Of course, most here have high end gear, LOL

Maybe it's not so much diminishing returns as people may spend a bit more money but actually be making more of a lateral move.

What brings this to my mind is a recent upgrade. I was given a good deal on a demo 526 preamp with DAC. I was allowed to try it in my system. When I did, I instantly felt I had entered a new realm of hi fi. Before commiting I went through an exhaustive exercise of putting amps in and out of my system, trying different combinations to actually create a diminishing return. I could not. The 526 retail is twice the retail of the Pass XP10 and Hegel HD30 and the 526 was obviously better, no matter which amp I used with the Pass/Hegel. Even with the 512 into the XP10, which is somewhat dispreportioned based on retail pricing, I wasn't able to create what I'd call a diminishing return.

"Diminishing returns" is subjective, no way to measure it. I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether a unit is worth twice the price tag. How would you measure twice as good? Is it at the point of an easily noticeable improvement?

Either way bashing high end or claiming a blanket diminishing return, like anything over $5k, or whatever monetary point you feel diminishing returns would kick in, is not correct. IMO.

Not only is this subjective, I'm also speaking in general terms as there's always an exception, like a value priced over achiever. I feel it's important for audiophiles, especially newer, to understand that there is higher performance as the price goes up. Like anything debateable, hear for yourself, then, form your opinion.

[GSOphile]

Interesting topic. The point of diminishing returns in this hobby is no doubt personal and subjective and probably depends a lot in monetary terms on what we've already invested in our systems. I think sometimes we may 'justify' a component that delivers a different (but not necessarily better) sound, e.g., maybe we've just grown tired of what we have! A couple of approaches that may help in avoiding buyer's remorse: try the new thing in your own environment before buying... and have some goals in mind early in the process (e.g., what characteristics of my system's sound am I trying to change/improve and how much am I willing to spend).

[Mechnutt]

If it sounds better even just slightly and it is worth it to you then why not buy it if you can afford it.

I agree, there are a lot of people that have lesser gear and I suspect out of jealously, they try and make you look foolish. I see it all the time on other forums. I got lambasted on the AC forum when I received a pair of Spatial Audio M3 speakers and compared them head to head with my Magnepans. I reported that the Maggies sounded much better in my system. I had friends come over and they said the same thing and how disappointing the M3's were. People were trashing my Maggies and me lol.

Bryan, congrats on the new Levinson!

[steinkrieg]

Great topic! One point to add is that "diminishing" still usually means "better"... even if only slightly better. Yes, there is gear out there that is 2x or 3x or 4x the price of whatever unit you are comparing to, and sometimes the price has nothing to do with quality of sound (or even quality in general). This is a tough part about the hobby... You can't really tell by looking. YOUR ear hears things differently from others and you need to make your own choices. Still, the education from forums like this one can absolutely help inform your decisions... If you LISTEN to the right people. ha!

[Mikado463]

lets not forget ones almighty ego plays a part in this as well .........

[Mr Peabody]

Care to elaborate?

lets not forget ones almighty ego plays a part in this as well .........

[Al M.]

"Diminishing returns" is subjective, no way to measure it. I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether a unit is worth twice the price tag. How would you measure twice as good? Is it at the point of an easily noticeable improvement?

Either way bashing high end or claiming a blanket diminishing return, like anything over $5k, or whatever monetary point you feel diminishing returns would kick in, is not correct. IMO.

Not only is this subjective, I'm also speaking in general terms as there's always an exception, like a value priced over achiever. I feel it's important for audiophiles, especially newer, to understand that there is higher performance as the price goes up. Like anything debateable, hear for yourself, then, form your opinion.

Good topic. It really is subjective. My upgrade to Reference 3A Reflector monitors from Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors (price $ 12K vs. 3K), as well as changing my amp to an Octave RE 320, has vastly improved, and made much more believable, the reproduction of string quartets, which greatly depends on the capable rendition of subtle micro-detail. On my system this reproduction is as good and convincing as I have ever heard. On all other music, from jazz rock over piano to orchestral, there are also significant and to me important improvements, but I would not rate them quite to be as spectacular as on string quartets, the convincing reproduction of which is dear to my heart.

So it also depends on the music you are playing, and on your sonic priorities, just how much of a difference it makes. Of course, to someone else an upgrade like mine might be just as significant for other reasons.

In any case, to me the upgrade certainly was anything but a case of "diminishing returns".

[Mr Peabody]

I was really impressed with Ref 3 speakers and a big fan of Octave.

Good topic. It really is subjective. My upgrade to Reference 3A Reflector monitors from Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors (price $ 12K vs. 3K), as well as changing my amp to an Octave RE 320, has vastly improved, and made much more believable, the reproduction of string quartets, which greatly depends on the capable rendition of subtle micro-detail. On my system this reproduction is as good and convincing as I have ever heard. On all other music, from jazz rock over piano to orchestral, there are also significant and to me important improvements, but I would not rate them quite to be as spectacular as on string quartets, the convincing reproduction of which is dear to my heart.

So it also depends on the music you are playing, and on your sonic priorities, just how much of a difference it makes. Of course, to someone else an upgrade like mine might be just as significant for other reasons.

In any case, to me the upgrade certainly was anything but a case of "diminishing returns".

[mep]

I think the law of diminishing returns for audio is primarily to show that increases in spending on your system aren't linear with regards to the sound quality increasing. For instance, if you started off with a $5k system and you replaced it with a $10k system, your sound quality is not going to increase by 2x. And this doesn't take into consideration the money you would lose from selling your $5k system in order to purchase your $10k system. The higher the value of the gear in your system, the less linear the increases in spending become with regards to the potential increase in sound quality. It doesn't mean you can't buy meaningful improvements to your system, its just that meaningful improvements become much more expensive.

The other side of this is that without careful system matching, you can easily buy much more expensive gear that is a lateral move or a backwards move in sound quality which is an expensive lesson to learn.

[mep]

Good topic. It really is subjective. My upgrade to Reference 3A Reflector monitors from Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors (price $ 12K vs. 3K), as well as changing my amp to an Octave RE 320, has vastly improved, and made much more believable, the reproduction of string quartets, which greatly depends on the capable rendition of subtle micro-detail. On my system this reproduction is as good and convincing as I have ever heard. On all other music, from jazz rock over piano to orchestral, there are also significant and to me important improvements, but I would not rate them quite to be as spectacular as on string quartets, the convincing reproduction of which is dear to my heart.

So it also depends on the music you are playing, and on your sonic priorities, just how much of a difference it makes. Of course, to someone else an upgrade like mine might be just as significant for other reasons.

In any case, to me the upgrade certainly was anything but a case of "diminishing returns".

Would you say that your new speakers which costs 4x more than the speakers you replaced them with sound 4x times as good?

[still-one]

I think the law of diminishing returns for audio is primarily to show that increases in spending on your system aren't linear with regards to the sound quality increasing. For instance, if you started off with a $5k system and you replaced it with a $10k system, your sound quality is not going to increase by 2x. And this doesn't take into consideration the money you would lose from selling your $5k system in order to purchase your $10k system. The higher the value of the gear in your system, the less linear the increases in spending become with regards to the potential increase in sound quality. It doesn't mean you can't buy meaningful improvements to your system, its just that meaningful improvements become much more expensive.

The other side of this is that without careful system matching, you can easily buy much more expensive gear that is a lateral move or a backwards move in sound quality which is an expensive lesson to learn.

Nicely stated and I agree.

[Al M.]

Would you say that your new speakers which costs 4x more than the speakers you replaced them with sound 4x times as good?

No, but that is not the right question to ask.

My Schiit Vidar amp makes pretty good music, even though it cannot compete with my Octave RE 320 amp. It costs $ 700. But does it make much better music than my $ 65 Chinese class D amp that I once bought from Amazon for speaker break in? I don't think it's even twice as good, but it cost > 10 times more! It's not that the Schiit Vidar is bad -- it is well regarded in its price bracket -- but that little $ 65 class D amp is embarrassingly good. So if you just go by music per dollar, even in the $ 700 price class you go by diminishing returns. My stock car radio also makes music, but does a $3,000 stereo make 15 times more music?

Not really. You see, the music per dollar argument simply doesn't work.

For my situation, the better question to ask would be if I got a subjectively spectacular upgrade for, in my terms, a still very reasonable amount of money? And did I get that upgrade on much cheaper terms than in a different system context that would not be as tailor made for me? To all that I say emphatically, yes! And as such I don't think "diminishing returns" really applies in any meaningful way.

[Mr Peabody]

As far as linearity, how do you know? Just because in your judgment, you, don't think there's twice the difference, the next guy might feel it is twice the difference.

I can give you two examples, of IMO, there's twice the difference at near twice the price; the Hegel 590 is easily twice better than the 360, and, the Levinson 526 at $20k with phono stage and DAC, is easily better than the 326s straight stereo preamp at $10k. Not only is it a much better value due to those phono/DAC features, it's a better preamp section.

I agree that may not always be the case.

I think the law of diminishing returns for audio is primarily to show that increases in spending on your system aren't linear with regards to the sound quality increasing. For instance, if you started off with a $5k system and you replaced it with a $10k system, your sound quality is not going to increase by 2x. And this doesn't take into consideration the money you would lose from selling your $5k system in order to purchase your $10k system. The higher the value of the gear in your system, the less linear the increases in spending become with regards to the potential increase in sound quality. It doesn't mean you can't buy meaningful improvements to your system, its just that meaningful improvements become much more expensive.

The other side of this is that without careful system matching, you can easily buy much more expensive gear that is a lateral move or a backwards move in sound quality which is an expensive lesson to learn.

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=Al M.;259925]No, but that is not the right question to ask.

My Schiit Vidar amp makes pretty good music, even though it cannot compete with my Octave RE 320 amp. It costs $ 700. But does it make much better music than my $ 65 Chinese class D amp that I once bought from Amazon for speaker break in? I don't think it's even twice as good, but it cost > 10 times more! It's not that the Schiit Vidar is bad -- it is well regarded in its price bracket -- but that little $ 65 class D amp is embarrassingly good. So if you just go by music per dollar, even in the $ 700 price class you go by diminishing returns. My stock car radio also makes music, but does a $3,000 stereo make 15 times more music?

Not really. You see, the music per dollar argument simply doesn't work.

etMaybe I'm not understanding, but, I think you just said the same thing as Mep, just in different words.

[mep]

No, but that is not the right question to ask.

My Schiit Vidar amp makes pretty good music, even though it cannot compete with my Octave RE 320 amp. It costs $ 700. But does it make much better music than my $ 65 Chinese class D amp that I once bought from Amazon for speaker break in? I don't think it's even twice as good, but it cost > 10 times more! It's not that the Schiit Vidar is bad -- it is well regarded in its price bracket -- but that little $ 65 class D amp is embarrassingly good. So if you just go by music per dollar, even in the $ 700 price class you go by diminishing returns. My stock car radio also makes music, but does a $3,000 stereo make 15 times more music?

Not really. You see, the music per dollar argument simply doesn't work.

For my situation, the better question to ask would be if I got a subjectively spectacular upgrade for, in my terms, a still very reasonable amount of money? And did I get that upgrade on much cheaper terms than in a different system context that would not be as tailor made for me? To all that I say emphatically, yes! And as such I don't think "diminishing returns" really applies in any meaningful way.

Al-Thanks for making my points about diminishing returns with your examples.

[Al M.]

Maybe I'm not understanding, but, I think you just said the same thing as Mep, just in different words.

Perhaps I did, but in the last paragraph of my post (that you didn't quote) I argued for why I think the "diminishing returns" argument is on shaky ground and doesn't really apply to my upgrade.

Also, since the non-linearity of gain per price already starts at an extremely low price level, as I pointed out, the music per dollar argument is already doomed to an ad absurdum early on, before it even applies to what we call High End.

And if the music per dollar argument is absurd, how meaningful then is an argument of "diminishing returns" as it is usually presented?

[Mike B.]

Well I hope the big spenders don't stop their obsession. I don't mind picking up yesterday's big thing for 50% less on the used market

[Mikado463]

Care to elaborate?

just the fact that the word 'subjective' has been used in many of the responses is but one way that ones ego can influence. trying to out-do the next person buy spending more, not necessarily achieving 'better' yet satisfying your ego. Our egos are fed and satisfied in different ways .......

[Mr Peabody]

Got it. LOL, I don't have to worry about trying to out spend anyone, you don't enter a donkey in the Kentucky Derby.

just the fact that the word 'subjective' has been used in many of the responses is but one way that ones ego can influence. trying to out-do the next person buy spending more, not necessarily achieving 'better' yet satisfying your ego. Our egos are fed and satisfied in different ways .......

[UltraFast69]

Got it. LOL, I don't have to worry about trying to out spend anyone, you don't enter a donkey in the Kentucky Derby.

Now that is funny!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Smile]

just the fact that the word 'subjective' has been used in many of the responses is but one way that ones ego can influence. trying to out-do the next person buy spending more, not necessarily achieving 'better' yet satisfying your ego. Our egos are fed and satisfied in different ways .......

This thread is limiting returns to money. The return from a high end audio system is primarily intangible.
But yes, hifi and nearly everything else in the world has diminishing returns.
I have sex with the most beautiful woman in the world. The first time is more rewarding than the 1000th.

[brad225]

This is in reference to Dave (Mikado463)

Care to elaborate?

Have you not witness audio clubs that are really mens - Mine is Bigger than Yours- Club.

[Mechnutt]

I am not sure that you can put a number as to how many times a system sounds better. Does any one know what 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x sounds like? It is all subjective. You can't quantify it. I can see terms like it is slightly better, moderately better greatly better or what ever term you want to use.

[brad225]

I am not sure that you can put a number as to how many times a system sounds better. Does any one know what 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x sounds like? It is all subjective. You can't quantify it. I can see terms like it is slightly better, moderately better greatly better or what ever term you want to use.

Absolutely agree Mechnutt. It can be subjective since it is our own ears and opinion but can't really be subjective since how do you measure or make rules for improvement.

[MikeCh]

Absolutely agree Mechnutt. It can be subjective since it is our own ears and opinion but can't really be subjective since how do you measure or make rules for improvement.

Only by a jury of your peers....? LOL

I kid, I kid

[Mr Peabody]

No, I don't get out much, LOL. I do see how that might happen.

This is in reference to Dave (Mikado463)



Have you not witness audio clubs that are really mens - Mine is Bigger than Yours- Club.

[Mikado463]

This is in reference to Dave (Mikado463)



Have you not witness audio clubs that are really mens - Mine is Bigger than Yours- Club.

LOL, how true Brad !

[JohnJ]

Having always been a frugal, value oriented type of guy "diminishing returns" was a major factor in any purchase. That said, as time goes on the fine line of diminishing returns is continually re-defining itself; be it audio equipment, food or lawn mowers.

[SCAudiophile]

My thoughts on diminishing returns are rapidly diminishing

[Mike]

In other words, when is good enough, good enough?

For someone like myself who is now soundly in the “it all matters” camp, the bar for diminishing returns is pretty high. But just like consumers, dealers also have to look at this proposition on a daily basis.

[Al M.]

Maybe it's not so much diminishing returns as people may spend a bit more money but actually be making more of a lateral move.

If room acoustics and speaker setup are not properly addressed, at some point any 'upgrade' becomes a mere lateral move.

To paraphrase Art Noxon from ASC (the tube trap company): if you don't take steps towards proper room treatment, your room acoustics may at some point be so limiting that true improvement of sound through gear upgrades cannot be achieved anymore, and the audiophile is left with each upgrade being just something different, another flavor, but never an actual step forward in sound.

From my own personal experience on work to improve my room acoustics, I agree with that opinion.

Granted, there may be the exceptional room where no or just marginal treatment is needed. Much more likely though is if an audiophile doesn't perform serious room treatment, he may never realize even half of the potential his gear is really capable of.

[Mr Peabody]

If only those of us could cure the disease that would get us to "good enough", LOL

In other words, when is good enough, good enough?

For someone like myself who is now soundly in the “it all matters” camp, the bar for diminishing returns is pretty high. But just like consumers, dealers also have to look at this proposition on a daily basis.

[Mordante]

If room acoustics and speaker setup are not properly addressed, at some point any 'upgrade' becomes a mere lateral move.

To paraphrase Art Noxon from ASC (the tube trap company): if you don't take steps towards proper room treatment, your room acoustics may at some point be so limiting that true improvement of sound through gear upgrades cannot be achieved anymore, and the audiophile is left with each upgrade being just something different, another flavor, but never an actual step forward in sound.

From my own personal experience on work to improve my room acoustics, I agree with that opinion.

Granted, there may be the exceptional room where no or just marginal treatment is needed. Much more likely though is if an audiophile doesn't perform serious room treatment, he may never realize even half of the potential his gear is really capable of.

True, that is why I have 3 absorption panels on my ceiling and two Daad4 bass traps. IN the future I might like two more DAAD4 traps. Nu sure if my g/f will tolerate that.

[Mikado463]

If room acoustics and speaker setup are not properly addressed, at some point any 'upgrade' becomes a mere lateral move.

To paraphrase Art Noxon from ASC (the tube trap company): if you don't take steps towards proper room treatment, your room acoustics may at some point be so limiting that true improvement of sound through gear upgrades cannot be achieved anymore, and the audiophile is left with each upgrade being just something different, another flavor, but never an actual step forward in sound.

From my own personal experience on work to improve my room acoustics, I agree with that opinion.

Granted, there may be the exceptional room where no or just marginal treatment is needed. Much more likely though is if an audiophile doesn't perform serious room treatment, he may never realize even half of the potential his gear is really capable of.

agreed 100%, your 1st sentence speaks volumes. As for those in the 'it all matters' camp, while true, it matters nothing without first a proper 'foundation' !

[bzr]

True, that is why I have 3 absorption panels on my ceiling and two Daad4 bass traps. IN the future I might like two more DAAD4 traps. Nu sure if my g/f will tolerate that.

Seriously, unless it's her house....???
Diminishing returns, ... there are some on here that have the same qualities, I'm one of them. Components, well, thats just easy,... how much joy does it give you.......

[Mordante]

Seriously, unless it's her house....???
Diminishing returns, ... there are some on here that have the same qualities, I'm one of them. Components, well, thats just easy,... how much joy does it give you.......

My girlfriend and me have been a couple since 2001. We bought this house together 10 years ago. So it's as much her house as it is mine.
The audio set is in the living room.

[OliverTurner]

Well I hope the big spenders don't stop their obsession. I don't mind picking up yesterday's big thing for 50% less on the used market

AGreed.

[OliverTurner]

My wife and I bought our current house in 2001, my system is in the living room as well.

[Ritmo]

Welcome to AS OT!