2. misc-audio
  3. 967138722

Price/performance curve

Hey you guys who've heard 'em all, could you help me understand the price/performance curve of audio equipment? I keep seeing people write about truly high-end gear and I'm wondering what the price points look like in terms of sonic improvement. So let's say that our scale is 0 to 100. 0 is basically white noise, 100 is you are sitting in the ideal spot at your favorite symphonic hall/jazz club/blues or rock forum and nobody in the audience is even breathing too loudly within audible range. For the sake of some reference point, let's say a decent boombox is about a 15, a decent set of components (say Sony/Pioneer/JVC electronics, Boston Acoustic speakers) chosen from your local mainstream audio outlet is a 30 and a decent set of entry-level components made by more musically inclined manufacturers (NAD, Paradigm, etc.) in the $1,500-2,000 range is a 50. What do the price points look like as you go to 60, 70, 80. 90 and 95+? I ask because I see people spending vastly different levels of money on this stuff and, while I don't expect to ever spend in the high five figures that some of us have doled out, I'd like to see where this road leads.Suggest alternatives on the scale if you like. I'll bet you all have some very interesting answers.
nichael7dd8

Showing 3 responses by michaelb

michaelb
39 posts
 
Kthomas, I think I followed, but I'm not sure. Where would you put the various dots of the curve?
michaelb
39 posts
 
Here's what I've learned so far 1) performance is as much room-dependent as it is system-dependent, once you reach a certain part of the performance curve 2) the "percentage improvement" scale is valid only up to a certain level, which may be somewhere between $5K and $10K 3) the scale itself does not reflect the qualitative differences between a very good system and an outstanding system, which shifts the overall effect into a whole different realm of experience. So adding it all up, I'm concluding my question probably is applicable only in systems below a price point of some debatable level. Is that a fair summary?
michaelb
39 posts
 
Thanks for the response, Kthomas.I've noticed that as my system has improved, I've appreciated classical more. For one thing, classical, particularly orchestral, is much more dynamic than rock, and a system that will reproduce those dynamics is really delightful sonically. Also, the unnaturalness of electronics and electronically hyped recording can be exaggerated with a good system. The fact that classical is almost exclusively created with acoustic instruments seems to mean you're less likely to get those awful glaring highs that you sometimes get with rock. Still, I'm not listening to anything near at $3K CD player.
More to discover