Yes, you past the point of diminishing returns as soon as you go past your first boombox. The laws of diminishing returns hit early and hard, just as in any other hobby. A $10,000 watch is not 1000 times better than a $10 watch. Same goes for audio gear.
You have stated twice that you are very happy with the sound of your system. My advice would be to buy more music and just enjoy it. Don't let others spend your money for you, unless you are just dying to throw money around. If you are happy, there is no need to seek out unhappiness.
Cheers,
John |
Joecasey, do you understand what the law of diminishing returns means? I never said that spending more money would not improve a system sonically, most times it does. However, it is not on a linear scale. A $20,000 system does not sound twice as good as a $10,000 system. It's more of a logarithmic scale, which would indicate that there is diminishing returns on money spent.
I have listened to many systems priced from $2,000 to $500,000. Yes, the $500,000 system was great, but it wasn't twice as good as the $2,000 system. It could have been....if the $2,000 system was defective, or poorly assembled. Obviously, YMMV. |
08-06-14: Truemaineiac
Have you ever spent time with a good tube and analog system? I assume you are talking to me? If so, yes, my whole system is tube based, phono stage, preamp and amp, and vinyl is my primary source. My point is simply this: I have owned $125K system previously, but due to economics, I have cut back and I am currently running about a $30K system. Was the previous $125K system better? Yes. However, if one were to try and quantify the difference, which I agree Joecasey is ludicrous and ridiculous, there is no way the $125K system was even twice as good. I would say maybe 10-20% better....for 4X the cost. That, in my humble opinion, reflects the point of diminishing returns. I have also heard quite a few less expensive systems, and the only way something sounds twice as good, regardless of price, is if one of the systems is defective. Now I know that many folks will quantify improvements they have made in their systems over the years, this was a 5% improvement, that was a 10% improvement, heck, I even used to do that myself. However, after disassembling my $125K rig and going back downstream did I realize that those dozens and dozens of 5-20% improvements I heard over the years were mostly imaginary. Since I could scale back to less than 25% of the cost and only lose a small percentage of performance. I was quite stunned actually, to find out just how good a much less expensive system could sound. |
Knghifi, I know another Audiogon member who sold his Andra II's for speakers that were less than half the price of the Andra II's, but much better sounding in his opinion. Spending more money can get you better sound quality, spending less money can get you better sound quality. So what does it all mean? |
I agree with you Macrojack, I feel that diminshing returns hit very hard and very early in this hobby, earlier than most here would agree with.
That said, there is one flaw with your logic, the sentence "that reward will not be commensurate with the outlay". The main problem is that while the outlay can be measured, the reward cannot be measured. So while some may say they spent 50% more money and improved their sound by 100%, others may say they spent 100% more money and improved their sound by only 5%. The money can be measured, the satisfaction gained from money spent cannot be measured, so diminshing returns will mean different things to different people.
I've stated my case. My current $30K system sounds about 90% as good as my $125K system was. So that is my reasoning behind believing that diminshing returns hit hard and early. I'm sure that a nice $5K system could give my rig a run for it's money.
However, back when I was assembling that $125K system, I swore that each little upgrade was adding another 2%, 5%, 10% improvement to the sound. It was only after tearing the system down and rebuilding a much less expensive system that I realized that all of those dozens and dozens of 5% improvements could not have really existed if a $30K system was 90% as good as a $125K system.
Point being, since the return (musical satisfaction) cannot be quantified, whether it is diminishing or not cannot be measured. |
@Douglas_schroeder, I was reffering to dozens and dozens of "upgrades", maybe even a hundred, over a period of 15 years. I didn't just go from a $25K rig to a $125K in two weeks and proclaim a 5% or 10% upgrade. I'm talking upgrading fuses, yes a 4% improvement, upgraded power conditioner, 5% improvement, upgrade power cord, 5% improvement, upgrade phono stage, 10% improvement, upgrade cartridge, 10% improvement....etc., etc., etc....
So if all of those perceived improvements were actually real, or calculated correctly, then how come undoing it all only set me back to 90%? I am not saying that the incremental gains did not exist, only that they were probably not nearly as big as I thought they were at the time. Perhaps what I was thinking was a 5% improvement, was in actuality only a 0.25% improvement.
Yes, this is all said in hindsight. Obviously, if I had known that quadrupling the outlay would only increase performance by 10%, perhaps I would not have travelled that road. I may have just spent that money on some more exotic vacations. ;^) |
Philosophical, or possibly a rhetorical question.....definitely a question with no absolute answer. |
08-20-14: Knghifi
Unless your methodology is throwing darts at recommended list with your eyes closed, no way a $25K is 90% to a $125K rig IMO. Remember, one mans 10% is another man's 1000%. I'm not a member of the "this gear blows that gear out of the water", or "this cable makes that cable sound broken" clubs. There are many in this hobby who love to over-react, and overstate gains, been there, done that. Until you have been up and down the mountain you cannot judge it's full scale. It always looks big when you are simply climbing. Just curious, can you list the major components of your $25K and $125K rigs? I have an open mind ... maybe I can replace my $100K+ with a $25K rig and get 85%? Sorry, that seems like too much work, and I'm not looking to damn any products. Let's say the old big rig (circa 2008-2009?) was 17% speakers, 24% electronics (including phono stage), 18% analog front end, 6% digital (more of an analog guy, still am), other 35% was cables, power cords, power conditioning, tweaks and accessories. |
