Is $2500 the point of diminishing returns?

Listening to a Los Lobos album as I post this - just as I saw the GIF of the dancing chihuahua, Ya Se Va came on.... it was magical.

D.D.

 

What is "better" if it's not a matter of personal taste? Unless I missed it, we're not talking absolutes or objective metrics for what makes something "better" so it's all personal preference. I've noticed a dynamic at play when discussing the cost of things. Sometimes something is so expensive that no one has heard it, or they've only heard it under less than optimal conditions. Most people are not going to have an option to hear $100-200k components in their own room. I would never knock those components as a "ripoff" or "overpriced," but at the same time, I don't take it as a given that something is better because it costs more.

I'm really not into this whole "diminishing returns" idea, much less pegging it at a particular number, but it's really not debatable that there are expensive products that a lot of people don't want to own. The barrier to entry is such that anyone can start a company and try and sell things for whatever price they think people are willing to pay. It's not just a matter of affordability. This is why companies go out of business. No one thinks their products are worth what they're asking.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Magico's speakers are worse than any other company's speakers, but there are no universally loved components in high end audio. No matter the product, there's someone who will have a bad word for it.

 

Interesting thought.

 

Diminishing returns are completely arbitrary. Simply put, it begins at $1 dollar more than what the individual is willing to spend. Or, any point past the individual's sonic nirvana.

 

I'm full of them.

 

As a headphone audiophile I don't consider $2,500 to be a point of diminishing returns for just a headphone amp. Especially tube amps. The very good tube amps that do things like holographic sound and big soundstage are $2,000+. Most that do that are in the $3,000+ category. And that's ignoring the additional costs for a headphone(s) and source. So for me, the point of diminishing returns for just a headphone system is going to be over $2,500. About $2,500+ for an amp plus the cost of a headphone(s) and source to go with it.

But it's all relative. Depends on the sound qualities you're used to and what you've come to expect. And your sonic preferences. If your sonic preferences are for the solid state sound you'll likely find the point of diminishing returns to kick in for less.

 

I am not making a blanket statement about " something being better because it costs more". I think that we can all ( likely ? hopefully ? ) agree that there are certain attributes that we would consider desirable in an audio system before we start splitting hairs. My experience is that it has been a lot more likely that the 50k and 150k systems you referred to are going to tick off all or most of those boxes in a more satisfactory way for me than a $2500.00 system. Can the 2.5k system still be enjoyable ? Quite likely although there are no hard & fast rules about that, either. Sometimes less is just that.

If you can steer me towards a 2.5k system that will smoke the big-dollar rigs you refered to, I'd love to hear them. Perhaps own them. But I've been doing this for a while now and, for all the talk of "giant-killers" that gets tossed around on audio forums, there's still a surprising number of giants roaming around...

D.D.

 

Can't do that. I have no interest in defending the $2.5k system ideal being floated in the thread. Sorry. I think it's a silly idea.

 

For me some components are better than others. That is for me. Surely someone else cannot know this or have a say in such matter.

Or do You mean we should look objectively at what components are better? This would be an interesting thought.

People in general buy depending on looks, not so much else, I think.

 

I don't think, in fairness, that they are. It's at which point diminishing returns kick in, though that's not necessarily the same for everyone.

For me, having heard a variety of systems over the years from cheap and cheerful to eye wateringly expensive, the diminishing returns kick in well before some of the numbers mentioned in this thread, and likewise with the number of components in a system too. Simplicity, and reduced distortion are two of my preferred priorities in good audio these days. The woo and fluff I can despatch comfortably.

 

Again, I think the idea is being missed here. I don't think very many people are suggesting that a $2500 system can't be improved on. The point is that if you put together a well thought out system at a relatively low price point, it will cost a lot more money to jump to the next level of sound. In other words, a good $5000 dollar system will probably not slay a good $2500 system, but it should sound a little better and so on. Everyone has to find the sweet spot for themselves in terms of sound-vs-dollars. I would agree it is wrong to suggest that a modestly priced system can't be improved on with enough thought and money.

 

That's a blanket statement and seems a bit cynical, frankly. I, for example, am generally a "people" ( it's true, I swear ! ). I don't buy that way. I think an awful lot of us either own or have owned equipment which is either utilitarian ( black or silver boxes ) or stylistically challenged ( if not to us then to others ) because we actually enjoy how it sounds and looks didn't over-ride that. And many of us agonize over the details and the sonic characteristics before we buy a unit. Your statement sells us short.

D.D.

 

I was a bit too general, I admit.

 

You believe that audiophiles buy components based on looks and not much else? Ok. Narrow that down. Do you believe that forum members here generally buy based on looks?

How are you concluding this?

 

Wishful thinking to an extent.

However, I have a pair of Eminent Technology LFT 8b speakers that cost only $2500. They sound fantastic with McIntosh components. I'm not going to say they are "better" than the other speakers I auditioned when I bought them, just more enjoyable. I often switch out speakers and come back to these very often.

In general, more money buys more quality but there are exceptions. IMO.

 

Thanks. I've talked to Al a couple of times. He's an interesting guy. If I do go the Cornsscala route I'll definitely be using his crossovers and the Fastrac horn .

Lately I've been eyeing those new Tannoy Cheviots. Thinking about driving them with my Fisher 500c till I can grab something by Leben or Line Magnetic or maybe a nice vintage Mac tube setup. Which is why I haven't carved the Cornwalls up.

 

I don't know if you have looked at the Equipment FS forum. But another member has listed a perfectly restored pair of MC-30 monoblocks.

It doesn't get much better than those, if you have speakers that are efficient to drive them, which, of course, you do.

I would buy them, but still effecting repairs from the hurricane Irma, and a major pluming leak, where we have to rebuild a bathroom and the hot water heater room adjacent to it.

Still, far less expensive than than Leben and I would bet that they will forever hold their value.

It's almost impossible to find these monoblocks in this pristine condition.

 

Ah, no.

 

Have to admit something. I skimmed the first post and focused more on Ron's part. Rereading the bit from Herb that prompted Ron's post:

"The $2500 room was a mind-expanding experience. My reviewing practice has taught me that $2-3K is where the remarkably good sound kicks in, and the fine demonstrations in the $2500 room only validated my experiences with products at this level. Of course, the super quality all-around do-everything Elac Debut B6 loudspeakers($269/pair!) allowed the designer of this room to employ the rich, fast, musical sound of Peachtree's decco125 SKY integrated amp ($1199) and the VPI Cliffwood turntable with included VPI cartridge ($895).

This system was audiophile-deluxe in every way: it was lush, yet clean and enjoyably detailed. It played every type of music the presenters and the audience threw at it. I could easily live happily ever after with this $2500 analog and digital scheme.

This is the system price level I try to review for. It is, in my experience, a level where, to do obviously better, you would have to jump up $20,000. I participated in the RMAF 2017 panel "Affordability: How Low Can You Go," and as a group we declared $5K as the beginning of true high-end."

I could not disagree more strongly. I really like Herb, but this seems like hyperbole to me. In fact, even sticking to the same brands and just upgrading like this:

VPI Cliffood -> VPI Prime Scout with $300 cartridge ($2.5k)
Peachree decco125-> Peachtree Nova300 ($2.5k)
Elac B6 - > Elac Adante AF61 ($5k)

Would crush the $2.5k system at closer to $10k.

I'm all for playing devil's advocate about costs, but it's pretty easy to "do obviously better" than $300 speakers and $900 turntables for less than $20k. Herb's starting premise may be well meaning and egalitarian, but it seems pretty hyperbolic to me, and flat out wrong.

 

I posted this because there was a lot to think about. $2500, no way, that's too low. There are all sorts of way to stretch a buck, but it can only stretch so far. These guys are journalists, not world leaders, thankfully.

 

Just another thought on this topic... Diminishing returns happen because it takes ever increasing amounts of money spent to achieve an audible improvement. I am in the boat with those who say the "point of diminishing returns" is subjective. It is, as some have said, the point at which one is no longer willing to spend additional money on gear because the expected improvement is not worth it to that person. Things do change over time. Today excellent digital playback is possible with a computer and a modestly priced DAC. 25 years ago that level of performance was expensive. Speaker performance, especially for small speakers, has improved a lot over the last 25 years. Many say this is the golden age of turntables. Still, there is this trend of small manufacturers producing unbelievably expensive gear for those with quickly made fortunes.

I wonder if some changes are improvements or just a different sound. Are we hearing what the recording engineers and musicians intended for us to hear, or some romanticized version of the music?

 

I have a friend who bought a new car a couple of years ago. Same make and model as mine. I think my car is great. My buddy noticed this tiny rattle in his car that would happen once in a while. I could barely hear it and frankly I didn't think it was worth worrying about. Heck the roads around here aren't exactly the best anyway and my car isn't totally silent all the time. My buddy had his car back to the dealer several times and they couldn't find the source. Frustrated, he sold the car, loosing many thousands of dollars and then upgraded to a high priced German car, which is totally silent and has impeccable build quality. When I joked with him about this crazy expenditure of funds to eliminate an almost imperceptible rattle, he looked at me and said he thought I would understand given the all the money that I have been prepared to spend on improvements to my sound system that he finds barely perceptible and not worth worrying about! The moral to this story. Incremental costs and benefits are in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

 

Up front, I will admit I hate the expression "diminishing returns" as it is often used by the green-eyed monster crowd in this hobby. Second, I also hate using a pre-defined price point for higher end gear because it proves to be an exercise in audio snobbery. I've seen and heard of a lot of money being spent on awful equipment just for the sake of acquiring a bragging right.

Having said all that and in some way contradicting what I just wrote, $2,500 is usually around the price of admission into the audiophile world. There is now however, a lot of very good audio gear being made that is affordable and can be satisfying for the majority of people. Let's face it, $2,500 is a lot of money for most. Even that amount is met with snorts of derision in some circles.

It's probably been said a thousand times on this site, one should approach this hobby slowly upgrading only as money allows. Personally, I've spend a small fortune over the past 40 years building my system (my wife has no idea how much) and I know how far down the rabbit hole one can fall. Doing it this way, you can appreciate the improvements without paying too much attention to the money spent in getting there. Each upgrade has brought it's own reward. Still worth it.

 

While diminishing returns is a real concept it always seems to be quite a subjective matter.

 

I agree on the diminishing returns point being subjective. My opinion is that there is no point of diminishing returns. Every increasingly better sounding system suggests there is always more ground to explore.

My feeling honestly is that this idea grew out of a class envy view of high end audio. It's a sort of cop out to justify not spending any money past a certain return. It's like saying there is a "consensus" you don't have to spend more than $10K to get 99% of the sound. But there is no empirical evidence supporting this notion. We may not like it if we don't have $20K to spend but in my experience, many $20K systems slaughter all $10K systems. In my experience many $50K systems slaughter all $20K systems. It goes on and on.

Audio is very similar to any product where an ultra-luxury market exists such as sports cars, Swiss watches, handmade shoes and suits, fine appliances. You generally get what you pay for, even if there are examples of great deals.