When does the law diminishing returns kick in?

I'll share a few observations from recent experience. There is a point of diminishing returns; it is subjective, and of course it does vary with pocketbook. For me, I hit that wall when I realized I'd spent too much buying equipment, amp and speakers, too big for my room. I had way more wattage, bass extension etc. than I really wanted for the way I actually enjoy music, as opposed to the way I might show off new gear.

To get that gear to open up all the music, it was uncomfortably loud; I felt beat-up by the pressure wave.

After downsizing, I had a system that cost far less and brought me more musical pleasure in the near-field at moderate volume. For me that came down to some of those 'why spend more?' components; mini-monitors around $1600 USd, and a tasty integrated at about $1200.

Just a note on NAD; I still have the NAD 3120 Integrated in my second system, driving venerable Totem Sttaf speakers. Lost track of how old the NAD is, over 10 years I think. I kept realizing how enjoyable the music sounded throught this modest system against far more expensive kit, one of the things that led me to downsize.

NAD isn't the only example of high-value gear to consider before spending more, but it's a good one.

p.s. I think FatParrot is onto something with his geometric quantum progression. New laws of economics being discovered here.

Jond's bold identification of $2K as the specific point of diminishing returns, give or take, also accords with my experience across a range of components and manufacturers. Beyond that, its not that you can't hear any difference, but you can pay a lot for modest gains, and wonder whether you are really enjoying music that much more.

There those who needn't balk at $10K or $20K, or $100K per component but they probably wouldn't look at this thread.

Well put Garyk! Does that ever hit home.

Sage counsel, Gregm.