• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Law of Diminishing Returns Applied to Audio Equipment

bshorey makes a good point with his reference system. Let's use 90% efficiency (rather than Zonker92's 95%, strictly because it gives us 10% to play with rather than 5%). Disregarding higher prices as the absolute indicator of quality of sound, let's go with price range instead, just to keep things simple.

100% efficiency is unachievable. If we double the price of bshorey's system ($2K amp, etc), we get to 93% (used for descriptive purposes only, not intended to be any actual gain). Double again ($4K amp, etc) we get to 95%. Double again ($8K amp) 96/97%. Etc, but realizing something like 98% is probably all that is attainable in today's world.

How many can actually distinguish the difference between 93% and 96%. Probably not many. This is the law of diminishing returns. You get $100k systems that are virtually indistinguishable (in sound quality) from $10k systems, at least to most.

And this doesn't even get into subjective preferences in sound quality, which is a can of worms I'll not open.
 
Diminishing returns sets in many ways.
Considerations outside of what's been discussed with each in order being a yes before moving to the next question.
1. New or used?
2. If new, do you have synergy in your system? If used, does the reputation stand the test of time sonically plus is there synergy?
3. Does it have enough bling for you?
 
I can't imagine who buys the uberexpensive systems. Frankly I doubt that my 54 yr old ears could tell the difference.

The main thing to remember is that audio quality is basically the performance of the weakest link. The best speakers can't make up for poor sources, or vice versa.

And now, back to the Jefferson Airplane...
 
Quite frankly, I hear too many huge differences between recordings to worry excessively about the last one percent of purity in my system.

this makes sense to me.
I have a saying regarding entertainment "you can have 90% of the fun for 10% of the money". Chasing the last few percent is a game for the very wealthy. Maybe the same could be said for audio.
 
Is spending $10k more on a stereo for 2% improvement any different than spending $10k more on a car that goes from 0-60 .3 seconds faster? If so, why?

I've never heard anybody say those who buy $40k sports cars are autophools (or the equivalent)...
 
Is spending $10k more on a stereo for 2% improvement any different than spending $10k more on a car that goes from 0-60 .3 seconds faster? If so, why?

I've never heard anybody say those who buy $40k sports cars are autophools (or the equivalent)...

Good point! I think the difference is that you can park a Ferrari in your driveway and watch people put fingerprints and slobber on the paint and windows. Your stereo is not so conspicuous.

In any case, that's why I posed the question of listening to an ultra expensive system and using that or them as a base mark to aim for. I know my 63 year old ears can hear the difference. I suspect that most AK members can also.

In the end it all comes down to satisfying one's own ears. For some 80% will do for others it's 90%. For the lunatic fringe 95% isn't enough.
 
Kirks57:
Funny you should mention the the fast car. My friend brought his new Corvette Grand Sport by the marina where we hang out sometimes. God...what a magnifcent car. While we can build a mustang GT to go that fast for less, The WOW factor is hard to deny. Perhaps thats part of the draw to very expensive (as in over $10,000 in Preamp & Power Amps alone) Audio Gear.

The only person other than myself that I have to justify my purchase with is watching me type this! MY WIFE!
 
Last edited:
Is spending $10k more on a stereo for 2% improvement any different than spending $10k more on a car that goes from 0-60 .3 seconds faster? If so, why?

I've never heard anybody say those who buy $40k sports cars are autophools (or the equivalent)...

I didn't think this thread was to discuss whether it was worth it or not, or to label those who do (or don't) go down that path. It was simply to discuss diminishing returns, and whether it varied in audio based on the type of component.

I think I said in my initial response that diminishing returns apply everywhere. Cars are a good example.

bs
 
For example- you think that a pair of Dynaco A-25s are all the speaker you need. Because nothing you tried that was supposed to be better, sounded better to you. Then you replace your Dual 1219 with a Linn Sondek. Suddenly, the speakers that are supposed to be better than the A-25s actually do sound better- because they had more to work with. Of course this goes both ways- the speakers could also mask improvements in source. But its pretty amazing how a very simple pair of speakers can continue to sound like better speakers as you improve the sources you feed 'em with.

I agree with John here. I don't believe in "speakers first" or "source first" as I believe the whole has to be taken as a system. You throw your money wherever the bottleneck is.

As far as the point of diminishing returns in speakers, that point is obviously my speakers. I've climbed up the ladder as far as I care to right now. If I upgrade, then the point moves up a little.
 
Price don't mean crap...

Exactly in 1993 you could get a fully loaded Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo for around 36-37K, while a fully loaded Porsche Targa turbo ran you around 63-65K. The 300ZX could do 60 in 5 seconds flat the Targa 5.2 seconds. They both topped out at around 155+ (the targa may have been fast by about 3-4 miles per hour). They both had the sports car look and the grunt to back it up but for being almost 30K more expensive the Targa was not 30K more of car.
 
Is spending $10k more on a stereo for 2% improvement any different than spending $10k more on a car that goes from 0-60 .3 seconds faster? If so, why?

I've never heard anybody say those who buy $40k sports cars are autophools (or the equivalent)...

And $40K won't buy much in the way of a sports car these days.

For that matter, why would most people who just drive to work and the grocery store need anything but the bare-bones basic boxmobile?

Are they showing off by buying a car with bells and whistles? To me, a fancy car is much more ostentatious than a nice stereo. Yet, strangely enough, there's no real stigma attached to people who buy new (even fancy) cars as opposed to used cars, even though a used car can do 100% of the job of a new car.

But if you get your stereo gear anyplace but Goodwill, you risk being labeled an ostentatious audiophool.

Very strange.
 
And $40K won't buy much in the way of a sports car these days.

For that matter, why would most people who just drive to work and the grocery store need anything but the bare-bones basic boxmobile?

Are they showing off by buying a car with bells and whistles? To me, a fancy car is much more ostentatious than a nice stereo. Yet, strangely enough, there's no real stigma attached to people who buy new (even fancy) cars as opposed to used cars, even though a used car can do 100% of the job of a new car.

I've bought new cars twice, and will likely only do it again if I'm able to get the deal I got on the second one I bought (BMW 325 with diplomatic discount and tax exemption).

I think a major difference in the automotive world is that there are many people who will buy vehicles designed for a certain function, but who will use them for something else (i.e. the 4wd bush basher used to schlep the kids to school and pick up the shopping). There's probably some cases of audio gear being used for something other than intended, but I suspect it's rare (not like you can use a CDP to play LPs). As well, the car world is filled with "boyz" who will do horrendous mods to their cars/vehicles for appearances' sake, mods which greatly detract from performance.

Picture a Linn LP12 with a 22" chrome platter and a tonarm carved from an aluminum baseball bat.
 
vintagchris - that was pretty much the same experience I had. I was always looking for new speakers thinking that would solve what i was looking for. Then I hooked up my CJ preamp and the speakers I thought were ok turned out to be much better then I had thought. For me, the sound stage, depth etc all came about when I got a better for me preamp.
And I had been thru quite a few preamps including a Pioneer Spec 1, but while they seemed "different", nothing wowed me, making me think it was a speaker issue.
 
Exactly in 1993 you could get a fully loaded Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo for around 36-37K, while a fully loaded Porsche Targa turbo ran you around 63-65K. The 300ZX could do 60 in 5 seconds flat the Targa 5.2 seconds. They both topped out at around 155+ (the targa may have been fast by about 3-4 miles per hour). They both had the sports car look and the grunt to back it up but for being almost 30K more expensive the Targa was not 30K more of car.

What?
 
Exactly in 1993 you could get a fully loaded Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo for around 36-37K, while a fully loaded Porsche Targa turbo ran you around 63-65K. The 300ZX could do 60 in 5 seconds flat the Targa 5.2 seconds. They both topped out at around 155+ (the targa may have been fast by about 3-4 miles per hour). They both had the sports car look and the grunt to back it up but for being almost 30K more expensive the Targa was not 30K more of car.

Good analogy.......and the Nissan didn't have an intermediate shaft failure problem which would randomly blow the Porsche engine in unlucky cars!
 
vintagchris - that was pretty much the same experience I had. I was always looking for new speakers thinking that would solve what i was looking for. Then I hooked up my CJ preamp and the speakers I thought were ok turned out to be much better then I had thought. For me, the sound stage, depth etc all came about when I got a better for me preamp.
And I had been thru quite a few preamps including a Pioneer Spec 1, but while they seemed "different", nothing wowed me, making me think it was a speaker issue.

yep speakers seem to be allot of folks pick as being more important than anything else, personally i have found everything matters when you want to take it to the next level, its funny you mentioned thinking it was your speakers that were the problem that's what i thought my problem was for the longest time, and same here tried pre amps ranging from Nad,kenwood basic c1, pioneer sa9900, sony1000 es, to name a few and all sounded different and none sounded as good as what i finally found works for me, surprisingly the kenwood basic c1 was the next best sounding pre.
 
I thought it may be fun to discuss our thoughts on what equipments will have the lowest marginal improvement vs. the dollar spent. And at what price point does the margin of improvement sharply drop off in various equipment?

Just to give an example, I believe there is a very low (if any) audio improvement between a $1,000 turntable and a $2,000 turntable (table only, not talking about cartridges). BUT...there is a significant amount of improvement between speakers that cost $1,000 vs. $2,000!

In my experience, the lowest improvement for the dollar spent is in the phono cartridge and speakers. Even the cheapest of cartridges, such as the Audio Technica CN5625AL, make great music when mounted on a quality turntable and arm, such as an LP12/Ittok rig, and cheap, simple speakers (e.g., EPI 100, AR-18, Cambridge Soundworks Model Six, Bose 301, etc.) can be fully satisfying when driven by a quality amplifier (at minimum, a good integrated from Naim, Linn, Rega, Exposure, Roksan, Audio by Van Alstine, etc.).

Of course, everyone's needs are different, not only in overall quality of sound, but in the parameters of playback that are important to them. I don't need loud volume, extreme frequency extension, expansive soundstaging, and am not overly concerned with issues like transparency, air, harmonics, and timbre. What I've found I do need is pace, rhythm, dynamics, and pitch integrity (tunefulness).

Price breakdown:

'table/arm: margin of improvement starts to drop off at about the $3000-4000 range for me because models like the Rega P7, Linn Majik LP12, and WTRP offer a standard of performance significantly above units only slightly less expensive, a standard I could live with long-term.

cartridge: Unless a person has gone whole hog on a "supertable" (maybe an LP12 with Keel, Radikal, Ekos SE), I just don't see a reason to spend more than $150 or so on a cartridge. As Linn used to demonstrate, their Basik cartridge (a conically-equipped AT variant that came free with the Basik arm) mounted on Linn's best arm outperforms a high-priced moving coil mounted to a lesser arm. If you want more performance, it's more cost-effective to spend money upgrading the 'table or arm, which you can reasonably expect to last 20 years or more, than dump money into high-priced cartridges that need to be re-built or replaced every 1000 hours or so and still won't perform as well as a cheap cartridge in a better 'table.

amplifier: Good amplification that I've had a chance to hear starts around $2000. The little Naim Nait 5i sounds good, though it needs an outboard phono stage (such as the Rega Fono MM). I'm using Audio by Van Alstine's lowest-cost solid state preamp and power amp (currently $2100 for both, including a very good built-in phono stage). This is the price level at which I think you get clearly better performance than products just a little cheaper, yet gives up very little to much more expensive gear.

speakers: Just as cartridges need a good platform to extract their true potential, if you drive even modest speakers with quality amplification, you can get fully satisfying sound. The other thing you need with speakers is quality stands (i.e., rigid, with spikes to go through carpeting and spikes or possibly Blu-Tack to interface the speaker cabinets, not bits of rubber) so that the power you feed them goes into driving the room, not rocking the speakers. It's amazing what you can gain in resolution and dynamics by just making sure the speakers are held still. I've always liked simple, 2-way systems such as those I mentioned above. Larger, more complex designs not only cost more money, they seem to get in the way of the music, having poorer timing and sounding rhythmically confused. I'm currently using Bose 301 series V speakers. I've auditioned speakers in my home costing over 6 times the price of the Bose, but they didn't increase my musical satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
You've just about described how I've allocated funds for my set up. I use Dynaco A 25 speakers for some of the reasons you mentioned. The next cheapest component is my cartridge lol.

This approach is the least popular but it works for me. I can't imagine converting people to the premise that good performance starts at the source.
 
For me the source is the recording itself. In the case of classical, which is my priority, the most important thing is the interpretation, followed by the performance, followed by the sound quality.

Rock, pop and jazz all have equivalent listeners. People who would love to have good sound all the time, but who love mediocre recordings for the performance.

After that I want an absence of gross distortion, a full range, including bass down to 30 Hz, and an absence of distracting clicks and pops.

After that we can discuss subtle things like soundstage and detail.
 
Back
Top Bottom