The law of diminshing returns?

It is not the Manufacturer or the Sales Support adopted by the Manufacturer that creates the concept of diminishing returns.

It is solely the Customer who is responsible for bringing such a condition of not much gain in a performance for a substantial increase in cost for a Product over another Product that offers a little less.

his is even more prominent as a condition when a Customer is remaining loyal to a Brand.

Investigating alternate Brands or alternate methods to acquire a Product , where there is an intention to acquire a product that offers a particular function within the audio system. Will expose the Purchaser to products more that are capable of being extremely impressive.

Even as impressive or surpassing the impression where the option to Purchase is to remain Brand Loyal and upgrade within the Brand.

The Vendor has zero control over a Purchasers Pocket Book, but does have their methods to persuade one to seriously consider purchasing a product.

In today's market place, and the lack of access to demo' products, it is only when the Purchaser has parted with an amount of monies, that they are able to learn whether they got ' great bang for their buck ' or have created a sale that is a ' pig in a poke '.

One thing remains a certainty, the Products being produced could easily be deselected as a Purchase Item, by a customer who expressed their interes.

IMHO the law of diminishing returns applies to those who have limited financial resources to spend on audio gear, while still trying to get the best sound that they can for their audio dollar.  

For those who have what is essentially endless financial resources, they can afford whatever audio gear they desire, while enjoying this hobby at a level that most  of us can only dream about. 

As always, this is just my subjective opinion and should thus be taken with a grain of sand. 😊

The principle (not a law) of diminishing returns apply to everyone at any price level why ?

Because this principle emerge from the distance separating subjective  and objective acoustical gear evaluation in a room by some specific ears and the objective/subjective qualitative evaluation of the material gear design level in some acoustical and  system context...

 Then it is preposterous to describe this principle as a fate pertaining to low budget perspective versus rich audiophiles...

The principle apply to all for any system/room...Ignorance of it come with a price to pay...

For sure this principle as a meter and as a measure  is relative then not absolute...But it exist for all ...

@mulveling 

DACs, turntables (not including carts & phono stages), and cables are perhaps the best subjects for diminishing returns. The "extravagance tier" models employ absurd over-engineering plus gimmicks to justify their cost.

In fact every audio maker is using off the shelf DACs and they use the manufacturer’s toolkit to design and load firmware to behave a particular way to control the behavior of the DAC.  Some manufacturers will use features of the DAC (e.g. external clocks to the DAC as well), but none of this makes high-end DACs intrinsically better or more expensive.

Most of the cost of higher-end equipment in general isn’t the quality of the parts or even the firmware of the DAC, it’s really more about limited sales means a manufacturer has to charge more for their product. 

They can’t take advantage of the economies of scale to reduce prices nor do they want to.

The "law" is just an equation, y = 1/x.  It doesn't just apply in some cases or to some people, it applies in all cases.  Though subjectivity & opinion can bend your world any way you want,  this doesn't change reality.  "Diminishing returns"  (1/x) applies in a wide variety of applications and natural systems. 

In the plot of -1*(1/x) below (-1 is just to flip the plot horizontally as people, in this case, are trying to maximize y), the x axis would be cash, the y axis would be "perfect sound quality".

Great post!

I will only add that the psycho-acoustics dimension add to the physical engineering dimension and  made it an inescapable dimension of audio ..

like the trade-off principle in engineering ..

Then those claiming that this principle dont apply to a "high class" of audiophiles whose status is over this principle with no budget limit spoke non sense ...

 I create the concept of "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" to descrive the state of satisfaction of low cost system/room  and "maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold" to describe the state of satisfaction of high cost system/room...

In these two cases according to "the principle of diminishing return" there exist an "optimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" ...

 Snobism has nothing to do with acoustics or design engineering and their  trade-off relation in Room constraint... 

The "law" is just an equation, y = 1/x.  It doesn’t just apply in some cases or to some people, it applies in all cases.  Though subjectivity & opinion can bend your world any way you want,  this doesn’t change reality.  "Diminishing returns"  (1/x) applies in a wide variety of applications and natural systems. 

In the plot of -1*(1/x) below (-1 is just to flip the plot horizontally as people, in this case, are trying to maximize y), the x axis would be cash, the y axis would be "perfect sound quality".