"I'm a believer"

FWIW, while speakers are the single most important component in your system, I can't agree that diminishing returns is relevant, but 'relevance' can only be determined until after you have 1) Developed listening skills, and 2) Determined what sound you like and how you can obtain it. We all seem to chase 'better' speakers, yet in our early years really don't know what 'better' is and we know that. So we search. When we find that speaker and then try to improve on it we see the rule of diminishing returns set in as well as a high degree of frustration. :-)

This is, of course, nonsense. Most speakers are much better than they seem, you need appropriate source amplification and cabling to make them sing. In any case, so -called law of diminishing returns is subjective, if your hearing is good enough and your wallet is even better $20k for a cable that makes things sound just a touch better is a good move.

This is, of course, nonsense.

Of course the OP point to a real problem here ... And It is not non sense at all..

Most speakers are much better than they seem, you need appropriate source amplification and cabling to make them sing.

Speakers must be not only driven by the right synergetical amplification ,

They must also be embedded mechanically well : vibration resonance control are mandatory ..

They must be also connected to the house/room/system electrical grid , then the control over the signal/noise ratio is mandatory ...

Least but not last thinking that cables will replace acoustic embeddings controls of the coupling speakers/room ,because you even do not mention it, is pure blissfull ignorance ...

In any case, so -called law of diminishing returns is subjective,

Another half truth from you : the diminishing returns TRESHOLD is a ZONE which is subjectively and objectively DETERMINED by acoustics precise concepts and experience and not merely by "taste", it is also determined  by  qualitative design grounded in psycho-acoustic experience not by price tags as the main factor ...

if your hearing is good enough

The hearing must not so well be as "good", it is not enough at all , but trained in ACOUSTICAL experiments in a room ... And musically educated ... We must learn how to hear and what to hear and this has nothing to do with the numbers of audio pieces you will buy and brag about here ...

your wallet is even better $20k for a cable that makes things sound just a touch better is a good move.

This sentence is so preposterous i will only quote it ... 😊

Audio Nirvana at the end of the Yellow Brick Road journey to Audio OZ is a variable reward to different people . This is a well travelled philosophy approach … And yes …achieving it does not have to be tied to an ever-expanding or increasing wallet outlay to attain a like favourable outcome.

I spend three times as much time being entertained on my $5000 “B” system than my $50,000 “A” system. 

Very important post  which must be read by any beginners ... Thanks ...

udio Nirvana at the end of the Yellow Brick Road journey to Audio OZ is a variable reward to different people . This is a well travelled philosophy approach … And yes …achieving it does not have to be tied to an ever-expanding or increasing wallet outlay to attain a like favourable outcome.

I spend three times as much time being entertained on my $5000 “B” system than my $50,000 “A” system. 

I spend three times as much time being entertained on my $5000 “B” system than my $50,000 “A” system. 

In that case, perhaps you could swap the labels 

if you can get great sound from cheap speakers and good amp, then perhaps amp will have more diminishing return and be the boss. 

Rule of diminishing return, after all, isn't the only factor of the audio hobby.

Rule of achieving certain goal can sometimes break any other rule you can think of.

IMHO and years of investing, listening etc as mentioned by the OP. I think that speakers are the final destination of delivery to our ears for every dollar spent to achieve that utopia we all seek. But I think also we must agree that the speaker is the single most affected or influenced by the environment of the room in which they are placed. Room dimensions, furniture, occupancy of the room, wall hangings, open or closed door and the list goes on and on. All these with even the most minute of change are factors in what we hear. I too have heard speakers that alone double my investment in my whole system, and walked away thinking ‘what am I not getting’ for that kind of money. And others times I hear speakers that I would think of as small room system speakers and thought ‘why in the heck did I spend what I spent’ . So we have to eventually, well me anyway, just say this is my system and I will make the best of it and put on your favorite record and relax and enjoy the music and relive the pleasure it has brought you through the years.

Again my opinion and mental island of refuge for sanity’s sake

+1 to the comments by @theo about the room.

Speakers interface with the amplifier and the room. Both interfaces must be compatible.

With most speakers and short speaker cables and most solid-state amps, pairing with amplification is not a big problem. Still, amps are voiced a bit differently, and one wouldn’t want a bright amp with a bright speaker. When using tube amps, system synergy becomes more important because of their high output impedance.

As to the other interface, room acoustics are always important. Cheaper speakers in a good room will usually sound better than more costly speakers in a poor room. These differences are huge, and what can be achieved by improving room acoustics is far more important than swapping cables, DACs, or in most cases, amplifiers.

I may not want to know the answer, but why one sock?

The vast majority of speakers  the internal Xover is the weak point ,to save monies 

most people never question what they can’t see .

having over 20 years in upgrading my own speakers and others Audio friends 

gains as high as 15% better is not uncommon ,, good parts are not cheap ,

please keep this in mind ,you can actually even dictate the tonal balance .

Personally the front end like the digital front end equally important  for quality for it provides the music good or bad , if the quality is not real good it cannot be made up down stream.

Simply because a boutique audio manufacturer produced a mega buck product that conforms to their idea of a “reference” sound, does not equate to that product being tolerable in your personal system. 

 $20k for a cable that makes things sound just a touch better 

You couldn't have described the  "Rule of Diminishing Returns" any better!

Room dimensions, furniture, occupancy of the room, wall hangings, open or closed door and the list goes on and on. All these with even the most minute of change are factors in what we hear.

Because most people never tried to acoustically control a room , passively and actively with mechanical devices as resonators. they cannot imagine the deep audible powerful impact of the presence of even a single straw of specific dimension and location in a room .. Period...

Remember that a speaker is a resonator among possible other resonators in the room ...their distribution matter ...

I too have heard speakers that alone double my investment in my whole system, and walked away thinking ‘what am I not getting’ for that kind of money. And others times I hear speakers that I would think of as small room system speakers and thought ‘why in the heck did I spend what I spent’ .

The reason why this is so, is because the acoustic control of the couple speakers/room/ears is the main factor in audio not the dimension of the speakers or his price tag or even measured specs ... Any speakers well designed of any price in an adapted room will sound at least reasonnably good if you give it to someone knowing basic acoustic ...

It will reach and pass the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...This threshold exist not only subjectively but objectively ... As the diminishing returns threshold which is also a subjective/objective FACT determined by subjective history of the owner and objective qualities of the design and acoustic coupling ...

It's the ROOM!

In my experience, any speaker or other type of audio equipment will only truly shine in a properly treated room.

I've been to three audio shows in the past several years (Axpona, Tampa, PAF) and I have come to the conclusion that the concept of diminishing returns doesn't apply very well to speakers. Rather, there is just no solid correlation between price and performance. Like the OP I have heard megabuck speakers that didn't sound good and I've heard several moderately priced speakers that sounded wonderful. I don't think that I can attribute this to non-optimum amplification or source equipment because I trust the speaker manufacturer to know what components work best with their speakers. In many demonstrations the cables and power conditioning cost more than my entire system and I my system was better, at least to me.

To put it another way, I've heard six-figure speakers that sounded amazing and I've heard others that sounded mediocre. I'm a geezer - I've had this hobby for 50 years - and I've concluded that once you get into the audiophile range of gear (thousands of dollars per piece, not hundreds) the value proposition seems to break down. One would think that a million dollar system would be life changing but I have not found that to be the case. It's not that diminishing returns takes over, it's more that it's a crapshoot. My favorite speakers of all time are the MBL 101 E Mk II and while they are certainly expensive ($80K) they outperformed speakers that were multiples of their price.

We have to take into account that a manufacturer’s "statement piece" is just that. It is a statement of the capabilities of the manufacturer. This would suggest a "no compromise" approach to EVERY aspect of the speaker in the range of "world class" speakers.. This would mean that everything you see, touch, and HEAR would stand up to (or exceed) the best of the best. Including esthetics.

I would suggest that the "law of diminishing returns" starts at about $50. Part’s Express offers a pair of 4 1/2" 2-way bookshelf speakers for around that price. Okay, you double the price ($100) and get bass extension. So, are improvements to 2 of the 10 octaves worth TWICE the price. "Common sense" say’s "No!!" The emotional, audiophile side of us says "Yes!. So, we keep doubling the price until we arrive at, say, $60k. Is a $120k speaker twice as good? Just revert back to the $50-$100 upgrade example for your answer. The same rules apply.

So the "ultra top end" has a market for those whose life choices are "this AND that", unlike us morals who have to choose between "this OR this."

Hope those six figure speakers hang around for a while. Even if their "diminishing returns factor" don’t pass the "4th grade math" test, yet put a smile on the faces of their owners.

There is definitely a Rule of Diminishing return just as there is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. I suspect that the Venn diagram of those two circles would be close to one circle in some cases for certain audiophiles. For example, someone subconsciously suffering from the Sunk Cost Fallacy has spent years and enormous amounts of money in their pursuit of perfection and yet never attain it as perfection does not exist. So each subsequent purchase is rationalized as moving closer to audio perfection. Yet the reality is they would not / could not admit - even with hard facts -  that the recently purchased $100K speakers are marginally better or equal to the $10K speakers or even the $5K speakers because they suffer from the Sunk Cost Fallacy. The diminishing returns set in long ago for each dollar spent.

The Rule of Diminishing Return applies to many industries where the marginal performance gains do not justify the cost, yet at the high-end market of consumable goods, the real reason is justification for many that they can exhibit how they can "afford" to pay $150K for certain speakers, or $200K for a vintage Jaguar, or any luxury item for that matter. Some may actually know they're getting no real qualitative improvement for their investment because the point is to exhibit their wealth. 

i concur with your post description...

I will only add that sound perfection does not exist and as you said it is true ...

But the acoustic factors scientifically really exist that described all aspects of good sound in acoustics ...

Because most people focus on gear price tag for audiophile experience not on acoustics factors which are way more deep than only room acoustic , they accept to spend money but they dont invest the big amount of time in the acoustics necessary studies and experiments ...

They became then obsessed fetichist and brag about their fetisch chosen  object sold by them as a solution to all problem ( for exemple EQ or cables or tube amplifier etc )  ... The gear and cables are their hobby ... My hobby was for few years acoustics thinking and experiments to create a good audiophile experience at any price with anything reasonnably good and with synergy for sure to begin with  ... Acoustics principles and facts dont change with price or specs  of the gear ...

And for those who dont know how to read, i dont claim that my speakers at low price beat more costly one in performance ... I claim that there exist a minimum acoustical satisfaction threshold and we can pass over it at low price if we understand basic acoustics ...

There is definitely a Rule of Diminishing return just as there is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. I suspect that the Venn diagram of those two circles would be close to one circle in some cases for certain audiophiles. For example, someone subconsciously suffering from the Sunk Cost Fallacy has spent years and enormous amounts of money in their pursuit of perfection and yet never attain it as perfection does not exist. So each subsequent purchase is rationalized as moving closer to audio perfection. Yet the reality is they would not / could not admit - even with hard facts - that the recently purchased $100K speakers are marginally better or equal to the $10K speakers or even the $5K speakers because they suffer from the Sunk Cost Fallacy. The diminishing returns set in long ago for each dollar spent.

The Rule of Diminishing Return applies to many industries where the marginal performance gains do not justify the cost, yet at the high-end market of consumable goods, the real reason is justification for many that they can exhibit how they can "afford" to pay $150K for certain speakers, or $200K for a vintage Jaguar, or any luxury item for that matter. Some may actually know they’re getting no real qualitative improvement for their investment because the point is to exhibit their wealth.

One thing for certain is how much speaker is needed to get the job done well relates mainly to room size and the cost to get the job done well in most people’s rooms at home is moderate on the grand scale of how much speakers can cost. Overall design and build quality does matter and powered subs are a great way to get the job done easier and for less cost. BEyond this the other things that matter are getting the right speakers for the room set up well and personal preferences.

On the overall cost scale, a pair of Vanatoo acitves alone can get most folks over teh finish line alone at least in a smaller room for well under $1000. Add a sub and you have a setup that is hard to fault in most rooms. These in particular are overachievers in a small package due to smart design including nicely applied DSP and built in amplification (each is bi-amped....no kidding!). Check them out! I would suggest any newcomers start with these and if you determine you need better from there go for it!

@waytoomuchstuff I agree with what you're saying but I think there are actual qualitative steps in manufacturing quality across many sectors including audio components and speakers, but the ceiling price point where diminishing return sets in, in my experience, is probably the upper-end of the mid-range components available these days. After that, you're entering the luxury end where people (IMO) are paying to display the item more so than having the expectation of a huge jump in performance.

For example, my vintage Craftsman tools are of better quality than the new Lowe's Craftsman tools purchased for about the same price (adjusted for inflation) but only because I think they are. My Wera sockets and torque wrenches are better quality than the comparable Park Tools and the price point shows it but only because I know what to look for quality wise. If I hand a hex wrench made by Wera or Husky to my wife so she can tighten a 5mm bolt on some cabinet she wouldn't care to know which one was "better" as either one gets the job done.

I know when I spend my money on certain things I focus on getting the best quality for my $ knowing I have a ceiling to that quality for the $.

@mahgister Oh I agree on the acoustics of the space probably being one of the most important factors in getting the acoustical characteristics you're hoping for out of the components and speakers you have. I know that if I went out and spent $5K or $10K on speakers for my set-up, it wouldn't be a wise investment. My listening room is an open-plan living room/kitchen with high ceilings and off-center listening positions. I can't acoustically treat the room. As it it, my wife complains about the stand-mounted bookshelves I have now.

We're planning out our forever house and my man cave will be a listening room/library with a drawing/writing desk and 2 comfortable lounge chairs. That room will be acoustically treated and dialed in and I will probably plan on spending $3K at the most for a final set of speakers. My current set of speakers is fine for the space they're in since I primarily use headphones for critical listening and the bookshelves are used for background listening coupled w/ wireless speakers in other parts of the house. 

I know that if I went out and spent $5K or $10K on speakers for my set-up, it wouldn’t be a wise investment. My listening room is an open-plan living room/kitchen with high ceilings and off-center listening positions. I can’t acoustically treat the room. As it it, my wife complains about the stand-mounted bookshelves I have now.

+1. Very wise! My experience is throwing money at gear to battle an acoustically challenged room is a losing proposition. The room is what it is for the most part and calls more than ever for making smart choices. Often less setup just right turns out to be more.

+1 mapman

+1 bipod72

😊

@bipod72

I can’t disagree with your points. But, I think the key question is: "Did the customer get their money’s worth?" We have to recognize the intangibles in this equation: "owning the best of the best" or at the very least not having your "audiophile" friends look down on you because you don’t own "real hifi gear" -- the stuff the industry gurus say is pretty spectacular, Having a nice "trophy" sitting in the room is ample justification for some. Its not the "wrong" answer for those with the means to do so.

As I dealer, part of our Mission Statement was "Help people reward themselves for being successful." Some days it was a $12.95 wiring harness for a car stereo system. Other days it was a $1M fully automated home with high end home theater. From my perspective, it was unethical to deny someone the opportunity to audition better gear. Something a step (or two) above the price point they were interested in. No pressure. Just expanding their experiences with what high(er) performance audio can do.

For some, a $100k upgrade represents less than 1/10 of 1% of their net worth. A good call. As long as, in their minds, they're getting their money’s worth.

By the way, I own some old cars and a couple of older homes. I do most of the maintenance myself. I get the tool thing.

inna,

anyone that spends $20,000 for a piece of wire is either stupid or has more money than brains, ask yourself this question what can they do to the piece of wire to make it worth $20,000 or $40,000 or $80,000, absolutely nothing and most of these companies that are charging that are using OFC wire which is the cheapest wire for audio that you can buy, anyone that knows anything knows that OCC single crystal is far superior to anything OFC at any ripoff price and that was proven over 50 years ago already so anyone that uses OFC is behind the times and as for speakers there's only a very few companies that use it internally for their speaker wire because it's about 4 to 5 times the cost of cheap OFC junk.

"...there is no other item in high end audio that fall under the "Rule of Diminishing Returns" like loudspeakers."

I disagree strongly with that statement, but hey, you do you.

"...anyone that spends $20,000 for a piece of wire is either stupid or has more money than brains,..."

Ahh yes...another thinly veiled insult hurled from the cheap seats.

How about if someone is running $500k worth of amplification? (D’Agostino Relentless monoblocks, for instance...) Are they stupid then? More money than brains?

Or a "money no object" pursuit of the absolute pinnacle in audiophile sound quality?

@kennymacc

In all my personal experience in this great hobby of ours, IMHO, there is no other item in high end audio that fall under the "Rule of Diminishing Returns" like loudspeakers.

I have to disagree.

I don’t think that diminishing returns applies anywhere in audio.

For an example; my rich cousin was recently deciding between Pass Labs, or CH Precision at a substantial difference in price (to drive his Von Schweikert Ultra 9 speakers). What did he get for the 5 figures he had to lay out for the difference? A small, but noticeable improvement in soundstage size and depth, a bit better layering. Maybe a bit better attack/decay.

He spent more in just the difference between the amps, than most people spend on their entire systems. Ask him if he passed some point of diminishing returns, and he will tell you, emphatically no.

Remember, there are 100’s of millions of people out there, who listen to all their music as MP3’s, on their smart phones, on $20 earbuds, that think that even people who have spent a modest few grand on an audio system, have passed the point of diminishing returns.

Seems to me, that the point of diminishing returns for a lot of people, mysteriously starts at the point that their ’sour grapes’ kicks in.

@simonmoon 

"Seems to me, that the point of diminishing returns for a lot of people, mysteriously starts at the point that their ’sour grapes’ kicks in."

Or their wallets give out.

😉

Saying that the diminishing return point does not exist or vary arbitrarily , is speaking of audio experience as the average audiophile ignorant of acoustics and which believe that only the gear design matter and the price tag ...

There is difference between my low cost modified speakers and more refined and costly one, this is a commonplace fact nobody can contradict and some are ready to pay the price for them ; once this is said this does not means that acoustic factors , as dynamics, transients, timbre, imaging , soundstage, immersiveness and other spatial acoustical qualities cannot be manifested as objective factors that can be reach and put under relative controls at low cost passing over some minimal acoustical objective satisfaction level ...Speakers well embedded at any cost transform themselves completely ...This fact is not recognized by most ...

There is three embeddings controls set for any speakers at any price ...Each well designed speakers at any price will be able to give an acoustical minimal satisfaction and more if we learn how to put speakers in the right environment and under the three main controls dimensions : mechanical,electrical and acoustical ... Add to that some effective tweaks ...

For sure i could upgrade my speakers but i am so happy i dont need to do it to listening music without too much evident defects ...

The upgrade will cost too much for what it will give me ...How much, it depend of the acoustic factors manifested in the right balance with my system for my ears , it does not depend of price as much as from a new adequate embeddings for the new speakers ...

I will give an exemple :

My low cost speakers are designed with a rear porthole...

It is only that : a hole ...

Any speakers is an Helmholtz resonators . if the porthole is simply a hole of a certain diameter in my case or a tube inside, this does not means that the hole or the tube are adequately designed as refined as they would be optimally ...With my small speakers for example at this hole without a neck, i add a complex bundle of straws of different size and volume to fine tune the porthole for greater extension in the bass but way more than that a redefinition of the timbre and soundstage expression ...

No speakers designers will claim that their speakers must be mechanically electrically and acoustically embedded and modified to work optimally before or  after the consumers gives his money  ... Not one ...They will claim that their speakers are perfect plug and play ...

But all  speakers need that three embeddings and sometimes modifications ...

When well embedded in a room we reach this point of diminishing return, which vary for low fi, mid fi and high end , but which point exist so evidently that i will class good designed speakers in two categories : well embedded in a house or not well embedded more than with a price tag ...

@mahgister 

Good for you Mahgi. I agree, cables represent a very minor part of a system. They are either good cables or they are not. It is also easy to make your own cables of the highest performance and save thousands. 

There is a point of diminishing returns with loudspeakers and I put it in the 40-50 thousand dollar range. This does not include subwoofers. I know of no vintage loudspeaker (pre 1965) that can hold a candle to the best modern speakers. Upgrading loudspeakers will also generally not solve severe room problems although some types of speakers interact with the room to a lesser degree.

There is no rational at all for me to put a price tag as you did for speakers diminishing returns threshold ...

It is a subjective threshold linked to each person audio history and needs ...

It is an objective threshold also related to the way each speakers is mechanically, electronically and acoustically embedded in a room ...

I will not speak about the huge transformation of any speakers when it is put under acoustic control; i can for example speak only about the vibration/resonance problem put under control ...

Doing so with vibrations control with any speakers will change timbre and imaging and soundstage and well done will transform most speakers completely ...Add to this the electrical noise/signal ratio control and the room acoustic and any relatively good speakers at relatively low price will rival or trail not so afar any costlier speakers especially those not well embedded as it is generally the case ...

Give me a straw and if i put it at the right location i will change a room or a speakers performance ... I did it ...Mechanical equalization exist too ...I use it right now ...Electronic equalization dont replace mechanical equalization nor the reverse ...

The pitch discourse of speakers sellers dont include the mechanical electrical and acoustical NECESSARY embeddings for ANY speakers to do his optimum S.Q. Consumers dont like to be informed that they must WORK, EXPERIMENT AND STUDY after buying ... 😊

Some speakers do better than others without any embeddings controls, that does not means that they dont need it ... And speakers well embedded reach way more  easily the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ... It is why the diminishing returns point is way lower than most people think about ...

There is a point of diminishing returns with loudspeakers and I put it in the 40-50 thousand dollar range.

Yeah, unfortunately, price and quality do not always correlate, but real quality is always expensive, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be. Question is how expensive is it to you ? Class war is coming.. 

Quality of design does not mean ACTUAL quality of sound ... It means ONLY potential quality of sound ...

Actual experienced sound qualities need controls over the three working dimensions of any gear at any price to be OPTIMAL : mechanical,electrical and acoustical ...

Quality of design is not in any way LINEARLY correlated with price tags ... This does not means that there is no relation between price and sound quality ...

Put all this together and the question about "how expansive is it to anyone" to reach some satisfaction level had not so much meaning in term of price...

All vintage speakers at low cost are not trash ...As my Vintage Tannoy dual concentric Gold , a design marvel ...

All contemporary low cost speakers are not all trash either ... My actual low cost modified and well embed small speakers beat all headphones i ever listened to and their basic price 12 years ago was 100 bucks ...In spite of their good reviews i disliked them a decade BEFORE modifying them because i had no other speakers to work with ...

Their ratio sound quality/cost is insane AFTER modifications of the resonator box with a new refined and more complex porthole and after mechanical and electrical and acoustical embeddings ...

Now very costlier speakers will beat them for sure as my Tannoy would have too well embedded but not by a so far margin ...

it is why i am happy with them ...

You can laugh , it is me who laugh the last ... 100 bucks speakers with 4 inches woofer in the race ( 50 hertz now ) ...

There is a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold which is correlated with the diminishing returns  zone ...

Diminishing returns can suddenly materialize and bite you in the ass - just look at EV's now. Same with audio equipment which is always subject to unforeseen technological displacement. You hear lots of cheerleaders now touting the demise of class A and AB amps in the face of GaNFET's. They may suddenly gain enough momentum to cause a feeling of diminishing returns for everybody in possession of outmoded technology or what is perceived to be outmoded.

Since pricing seems to be so arbitrary, I don’t see how anything can be deduced from MSRP.

If you leave the 80k speaker as is, and just change the people invovled in it’s design, manufacturing and marketing, it could be a 40k speaker or even a 100k speaker.

Cheers

Everything in high end has diminishing returns, DACs, cables, speakers are just part of it. 

All engineers don’t have the same IQ/aptitude level...( In some cases, Daddy might have paid for the engineering degree and got him in the engineering frat).

You can dump all kinds of cash on a dumaZ engineer and he ain’t getting anywhere with it....got it boys? 😁 ...After he hits his cranial limits, he may make sht look prettier for you as you dump more cash on him and that’s about it....you can convince yourself psychologically (fake it all day long) thereafter.

"Ya get what ya paid for!" doesn’t apply with the dumaZ engineer. Returns will get diminished out the wazoo with such dudes. This seems to be an extremely hard concept to grasp for all the retired accountants around here (audiophilibeebeebooboo, eh?)..

Now, when you dump cash on a smarty art engineer, he may get somewhere with it...

Good Luck.

A bit rude but well said  though ... 😁😊😁😊

  I don't believe in the "diminishing returns", at least not as a universal truth. When you're in to the subjective the value of the return is up to the one who spent the money. That, and a $100k system does sound way better than a $20k system-assuming equal skill in gear selection. 

 No, I'm not saying that every economic step up gets positive results from every piece of gear. I'm saying you don't always get what you pay for, but you almost never get what you didn't pay for.

The problem is that this diminishing returns relative threshold exist because S.Q. is not related to price tag and better gear design in a linear way ...

Guess why ?

Because other parameters as the acoustical, the mechanical and electrical working dimensions play a great role...

Especially acoustic ...

For example a costlier speaker can sound way worse than one  less costly if the acoustic working dimension are not set right ...No speakers at any price beat their room ...

Most people who dont believe in diminishing returns are gear fetichist in a way or in another ...

my "fetish" or passion or hobby was acoustic and music  not high end gear collection...

I don’t believe in the "diminishing returns", at least not as a universal truth. When you’re in to the subjective the value of the return is up to the one who spent the money.

Don't forget that speakers are the end of the signal path and can only deliver what the amp gives it, which can only deliver what the preamp gives it, etc. 

Also a big part of the speaker cost is the material and construction cost of the cabinet, which may or may not contribute to the sound quality. But it may help you get approval from the boss, especially if the 3 feet from the wall rule encroaches on a more general purpose room/den like I have my system located.

Diminishing returns depends on how much you are willing to spend on the entire listening experience - room (see @mikelavigne's system) and then each component. Nothing exists in a vacuum. He based his entire house purchase on what he could convert into a dedicated listening room. First item - design of the room including minimizing noise from his HVAC system!

I think he is the most dedicated contributor I've heard about on the 'Gon. I don't look at any other audiophile discussion boards though - maybe there is someone else out there. Wish I was ever near Seattle so I could listen to his system, especially the reel to reel decks.

I’ve been around high end audio for a great number of years. I have had the opportunity to hear, at shows, at audiophile friends homes and at audio shops, a great number of high end speakers: old and new, from the low, to the ultra megabuck price ranges. I’ve heard very, very expensive speakers that didn’t sound so good to me, and then, I’ve heard vintage speakers or relatively affordable speakers that just knock my sock off. In all my personal experience in this great hobby of ours, IMHO, there is no other item in high end audio that fall under the "Rule of Diminishing Returns" like loudspeakers.

@kennymacc

i think how speakers go is that the more capable and expensive speakers tend to be more full range and move a lot of air. and they can be huge. sometimes the ability to spend the money is inverse to the system building and set-up effort expended. "sometimes". so we might commonly observe systems delivered by brick and mortar dealers to well off customers and viewed as plug and play. when they are far from it. and we form our opinions based on these anecdotal circumstances. or also audio show conditions; where the larger speakers are more exposed with messed up rooms or limited time for set up. even with competent exhibitors. we then point fingers at the speakers. yet in some cases those large expensive speakers are actually guilty as charged. some are actually a bit of a hot mess. the biggest issue are speakers where the coherence or level of tonal balance is lacking. then the amplification synergy is critical. and not always successful.

whereas we find that some modest sized, modest cost or vintage speakers might have sins of omission; where they tend to just by the odds not offend as much, and in balance be less in the way of the music. are they better? well, they are simpler and have less ability to offend, but also have lower ceilings. amplification choices for especially the vintage speakers tend to be more thoughtfully selected. so it’s not just a speaker thing. and the rooms are not quite as critical when the speaker is not doing as much. also; the musical choices tend to be less dramatic, asking less of the room, speaker, and amplifiers.

@sokogear

thank you for the kind words.

Diminishing returns depends on how much you are willing to spend on the entire listening experience - room (see @mikelavigne’s system) and then each component. Nothing exists in a vacuum. He based his entire house purchase on what he could convert into a dedicated listening room. First item - design of the room including minimizing noise from his HVAC system!

so buying and optimizing a large or very large speaker system is not trivial. when you are going for the ultimate everything matters. large speakers, in my case; twin 7 foot tall and 600 pounds each tower, requires a huge commitment to be musical and coherent. where they disappear and are capable of nailing any recording large or small. but when you actually pull that off, you are in a whole different experiential dimension. so the payoff is huge. my speakers do not limit me.

but if you never heard a large system do it, it would be easy to dismiss the concept as a waste. not worth it.

unfortunately; access to successful large speaker installations is rare. so we are left with the idea that there are diminishing returns. nothing could be more wrong. the right large expensive speakers are a great value in terms of ROI.

just my 2 cents. YMMV.

and anyone who wants to hear how this goes is welcome to visit and judge for yourself.

Wise post as usual from Mike Lavigne who made me think again ...

Especially this line ...

so buying and optimizing a large or very large speaker system is not trivial.

For me this means the embeddings workings controls matter as much as the speakers ...

my best to him ...

For sure if there is no ceiling limit for the sum of money invested , the diminishing return concept made no sense to begin with ...

In my use of this concept i distinguished for a relatively low money ceiling a minimal acoustical satisfaction experience and his maximal relative end point threshold defined by a notation associated for all acoustic factors implied in the perception ....And i distinguished it from the maximum acoustical satisfaction experience and his minimal starting point threshold ...

Then for sure as said Mike Lavigne :

access to successful large speaker installations is rare. so we are left with the idea that there are diminishing returns. nothing could be more wrong. the right large expensive speakers are a great value in terms of ROI.

if there is no limit of money invested these two threshold collapse for sure into a single continuous linear scale where a diminishing return cannot exist because there is always a return that can be evaluated as qualitatively justified ......

For me judging audio experience out of any limit money threshold make no sense ...

It is why in my posts i insisted on the mechanical,ele4ctrical and acoustical embeddings controls of the working dimensions of any system at any price ...

A dedicated acoustic room homemade or made by a pro with a difference in cost of 100,000 bucks ; for example mine at peanuts cost with a grid of tuned resonators homemade and the astounding Mike Lavigne acoustical room , reveal a level of excellence in each case , but these two room cannot be compared at all...

but for me many costlier device present a cese of diminishing return very evident ...

For Mike Lavigne himself if i read well his past posts many costly propositions are only diminishing returns as too much cherries on a cake well prepared already could be ...

All that to say that those who say that the diminishing return dont exist say it in the absolute case with no money ceiling limit which is true as any common place fact can be true , a triviality ...it is meaningless to repeat triviality as any improvement is worth it ... It is not true in any of the two cases, the minimal and the acoustical acoustical satisfaction thresholds ...

Diminishing return exist... For me or for Mike ; but we are not in the same category : i am passed the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ... He is passed over the maximum acoustical satisfaction threshold ...if we take into account a RATIO between all acoustic factors levels evaluation...

The computing of the ceiling limit is relatively easy : it is under 100,000 bucks for sure ... Take it around 25,000 bucks for the average obsessed audiophile ... My system cost is now 700 bucks with two vintage speakers and headphone ... iam satisfied and envy no one ...I am proud of my system modifications and embeddings at no cost...😊

But only an idiot will compare my system with the Mike Lavigne one ...

I’m a believer in start with speakers and move backwards when upgrading.  I currently own a pair of Joseph Audio Perspectives.  After buying the speakers I’ve been through 4 DACs, 3 Amps, 2 Pre Amps and with every upgrade I came away thing wow these speakers are great.  I’ve concluded I can’t afford the electronics to exceed the speakers.  I guess my point is if you do an electronics, cable upgrade and can’t hear a difference it is time to look at your speakers.  Just sharing my experience.  Start with good speakers and evolve from the there!!!