Douglas_schroeder,
You stated "Yet, we have mass delusion in this hobby in that everyone thinks their rig is right at SOTA sound. No one wants to admit they are a long way from the upper echelon." Your statement is a slight exaggeration. Yet there is a lot of truth in it. At each level it is difficult to imagine things sounding any better. This is normal. Yet there are always improvements that are possible within budget constraints -- if we dare to push the envelope a bit. |
Last year I replaced Eggleston Andra II, bought new retail for $21,000 with TAD Evolution One also bought new retail for $30,000. After a year of ownership, I concluded there's NO diminishing returns. My subjective algorithm is, ZERO buyer remorse, BEST the Andra in every way ... NO contest!, SQ still surprises me every time I play music and one of the best and most satisfying audio purchases ever.
TAD is not 1.5X superior than Andra but much much much ... higher IMO. Microjack, ... what's your algorithm to computing diminishing returns? I want a definitive number. |
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? |
So what does it all mean? Hobbies such as Audio, Automobiles ... where results cannot be measured or quanified, law of diminshing returns or increasing returns don't apply. Results are all SUBJECTIVE ... SQ NOT a function of price. Now if you have a farm growing crop where results can be MEASURED. You hit law of dimishing return when it doesn't increase the crop size by adding more fertilizer. My .02 |
I think the main menu is that no system will never reach the pinnacle. There is always more to be done. The problem is making the best possible choices within our budget to improve the sound quality. Diminishing returns? You never know till you add the next element to your system. You may be surprised, maybe not. I do not subscribe to the notion that returns begin to diminish after such and such a point in time. |
From your responses, I gather that a goodly number of you are unable to grasp the concept of diminishing returns. I know that this failing is not due to lack of information because the essence has been explained in this very thread.
The Law of Diminishing Returns does not state that no further improvement can be attained. It says that beyond a given point in your refinement trajectory you will pass a point beyond which further improvements come at an ever increasing cost ... that the reward will not be commensurate with the outlay. It has nothing to do with your audiophile justifications or your arbitrarily assigned philosophical contrivances. In fact, it may have nothing to do with many of you at all. In a nutshell: your "bang for the buck" is headed for the red. However, the person who started the thread wants to know if he has passed that point and I say he has. I am not saying that he should or should not continue his pursuit from a hobbyist standpoint but I will continue to assert that, from a purely economic perspective, he like the rest of us has stepped off the deep end and is drifting ever further from shore. |
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. |
I understand the definition of Diminishing Returns. My main point is if you can't measure reward, diminishing returns is up to the person writing the checks to decide. |
Macrojack, from my perspective you are the one who seems not to be able to get it. The law of diminishing returns is simple; we get it.
What you don't seem to see is that you have set the point of diminishing returns painfully low, and others disagree, and you have no way to demonstrate that we are wrong. Your opinion on where the law of diminishing returns kicks in is not absolute; somehow you seem to think it is. It is nothing other than your opinion, "...beyond a given point in your refinement trajectory you will pass a point beyond which further improvements come at an ever increasing cost ... that the reward will not be commensurate with the outlay." I have been trying to tell you that you are declaring what cannot be proven.
Jmcgrogan2 gets it, as he points out the same thing, that you are appealing to an absolute which does not exist.
Jmcgrogan2, I find your logic strained. Now that you left the $125K rig you state that the incremental gains didn't exist because you built a rig that's 90% as good? I would suggest you were doing things wrong then, when it came to your high priced rig, because at that point - at any point - one should not settle for a 2%, 5% or even 10% gain/improvement, but more like a perceptual 25% or 50% improvement. It is not worth a lot of money, if I were to state what I consider diminishing returns from a perspective of performance, to gain only a perceived 2% or 5% improvement, so if you were spending big dollars and content with that, I suggest you were vastly overspending to improve your rig. As a consequence, I can see why you think diminishing returns sets in quickly. However, I think it had more to do with your methodology of system building than anything else.
Simply building a lower cost rig that beat the prior higher priced one assembled does not demonstrate that generally lower cost rigs come oh, so close to higher priced ones. If you now nullify your previous impressions/conclusions about the $125K rig you had, distrusting them, how are we supposed to put confidence in your declaration that the lower end rig is so much better? Maybe if you went back to a $125K rig you would change your mind again!
But, you are correct in concluding, "since the return (musical satisfaction) cannot be quantified, whether it is diminishing or not cannot be measured." |
Macrojack, perhaps you should quit while behind and stop further embarrassing yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you and you don't get to dictate what's ABSOLUTE.
Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not going to work. There's NO best in audio! |
@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. ;^) |
this is one of those essentially unsolvable metaphysical queries with no right or wrong answers. i sort of agree with knghifi--where and whether one has hit the point of diminishing returns is ultimately up to the person writing the check. the way i look at it, while you certainly can objectively measure aspects of audio performance (e.g. signal-to-noise ratios, distortion levels, etc.), it doesn't necessarily follow that you can measure "improvement" on such basis, since so much of audio appreciation is inherently subjective--i.e. a component with "better" measured performance may not necessarily sound better to you for a whole host of reasons.
i'd also submit that people tend to fix their point of diminishing returns on the bases of their budgets. for example, i maintained for a long time that while the sonic differences between, say a $300 cdp and a $2000 cdp were very significant, the difference between that $2000 cdp and a $5000 cdp were only incremental (and, in my opinion, perhaps not cost justified). undoubtedly, if i had had more disposable cash, i would feel otherwise, and would set the point higher.
back to the mill..... |
I suspect you maybe meant to say "philosophical question" not "metaphysical question." Metaphysics is an interesting subject all of its own.
Metaphysics is interesting but doesn't pay the bills. - A. Einstein |
Philosophical, or possibly a rhetorical question.....definitely a question with no absolute answer. |
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.... Unless your methodology is throwing darts at recommended list with your eyes closed, no way a $25K is 90% to a $125K rig IMO. 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%? |
It turns out there is no point of diminishing returns. The Taliban invented that whole concept because they hate our freedoms. |
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. |
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. Agree! Precisely what's diminishing returns for one is increasing returns for another. 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. A list of major components will provide some context in your results. NP! |
You hit the point of diminishing returns when you want to justify not spending any more money. |
