Is $2500 the point of diminishing returns?

I had a neighbor who always wanted a Mercedes-Benz. He finally got an E-Class Benz which I helped detail. It was a beautiful car buy he spent close to $80K on it. It was exciting to see the joy he had driving his friends around in it the first few weeks. We got to talking one day about audio and he admonished me about spending so much on my stereo. I politely said, "well yeah but you just bought an $80K car." We agreed that his "utility" from having a fine car was not unlike my utility from having fine music playback. Everyone has different levels of satisfaction from different things.

 

you can't throw price figures around without defining what you want your system to accomplish, its goals, the boxes you need checked. the more you are around this stuff the more your ears develop an understanding of true high quality sound. the $2.5 K figure being tossed around is vague and off the mark. you cannot assemble even a vinyl playback system (table, cartridge, phono preamp) at that figure that is near a diminishing return dropoff point.

 

Vinyl might be more expensive than digital given the performance of computer playback. An LS50w with that last notebook hanging around the house makes for a formidable system.

It's usually possible to spend more and if done wisely things will improve. Of course, rooms are limiting, but just build a new one. There's just a point where lots of us say enough, unless something new comes along which is really special.

 

An expensive mechanical watch keeps time less accurately than a merely good electronic one. I could get across Houston during rush hour much faster on a $6000 motorcycle than in a $$$ supercar. No fair, I could do it faster in a Jeep Wrangler too. I like my Camaro SS more than my last BMW coupe. A $10k gas range cooks the same as one for $2k. It may have more burners, but how often are they needed? I could go for some handmade boots, though...

 

We probably all have some arena of consumption/collection where we raise our financial commitment beyond the average.

 

I'm amazed at how audiophiles these days rarely try to relate their preferences to the degree to which a piece of gear makes real, unamplified instruments or voices sound more lifelike. Years ago there seemed to be more conversation about which speaker or cartridge made a violin sound more like a real violin. Now the conversation seems to be filled with virtually meaningless audio terms: air, transparency, timing, pace, depth, dimensionality, micro detail, etc.

Maybe it's because so few of us with an interest in audio equipment these days actually spend much time with the sounds of real musical instruments and thus find ourselves contouring our preferences in other ways. I fear that the vast majority of the music our community now plays on our stereos has no analog (pardon the pun) in any real world sounds it could be compared to. You can compare the sound of a string quartet or flute played back on your stereo in your living room with the sound of the same string quartet or flute performing in a small concert hall. You can't compare the sound of most pop music we play in our living rooms with the sound of the same pop music as it was played or performed live because the "original" never really existed as a reference point.

I miss the days when more audiophiles really knew what a violin or French horn sounds like and calibrated their preferences for equipment based on which yielded the most lifelike results.

 

I kind of like some of the new terms (those you noted, plus) : macro-dynamics, micro-dynamics, tonal saturation

 

I like them in some ways too, but they often don't help me with the more fundamental question: does it sound more or less like a real violin? Take total saturation as an example. Just as in doctoring a photo, you can saturate sound beyond what an actual instrument creates, or wash it out, and these days, it seems to me that many audioheads are kind of like photo buffs arguing about which of two heavily Photoshopped pictures is preferred while ignoring whether either resembles the real thing photographed.

By the way this relates to the question of diminishing returns because it gives a reference point in the real world.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll bet there are plenty of people here who play guitar, for example, and know what an acoustic guitar sounds like. It may not be classical-- sadly, I think that ship sailed a while ago-- but you never know. I used to play piano, and had some big-assed concert pianos in my houses over the years. It's kind of in my DNA at this point.
For what (little) it may be worth, the morning after we came back from hearing King Crimson at Bass Hall here in Austin the other night, i fired up the Toronto 2016 LP set -- i couldn't get the sheer size of the hall into my comparatively small(er) room, nor could I deliver the kind of deep bass tones that the band delivered in a big room, and the dynamics of three drum kits going at full throttle were diminished (though all of the polyrhythms and intricacies of detail-little cymbal clashes, bells and tinkling came through quite clearly).
It probably comes back to how miserably even a good system compares to the real deal. I can listen to Starker on the Quads and marvel at how lifelike the cello sounds (I never played cello but it is a favorite); then I want to put on Leaf Hound: Growers of Mushroom, or Lucifer's Friend s/t and rock out on my horn-based system.

 

Mr. Hart,

I think the value of using live, unamplified instruments as a point of reference transcends one's musical preferences. Dial in your stereo using acoustic guitar, cello, oboe, timpani, and pipe organ and it will be good to go with whatever else you want to rock to. Dial it in using a compressed, synthesized, gussied up pop track, and you have no idea whether things are dialed in or not.

 

I don't disagree. PS: You can call me Bill.

 

Just don't call me late for dinner.

 

Likewise

 

Other people expressed their personal views of diminishing returns. Calling their motivations "class envy" disparages people who disagree with you.

In the real world, most people have to make choices about how to spend money. Understanding what they are getting for their money is sensible. That's not "a sort of cop out to justify not spending any money past a certain return."

 

Maybe the more positive way to look at this stuff is maximizing return on investment? Or best bang for buck?

 

From my limited experience an acoustical musical instrument sounds very different to one who is playing it from one who is listening but not playing.

 

What are you going to play your records and cd’s on then?

 

You are absolutely correct. In my line of work I constantly encounter acoustic instruments at anywhere from less than a foot to fifty feet or more, and they do indeed sound different at different distances.

 

Well, they same would go for what I play my DVD's, Blu-rays, Edison cylinders, Reel to Reel stereo and quadraphonic tapes on, namely on what I've already got.
Occasionally, if some tweak comes along, I might give it a try. The best advice I could give is,
1). to spend only as much as you can afford
2). don't get it all at one time
3). take your time
4). check around and see what's out there
5). get only what meets your needs now and look to the future
6). get something that sounds good to you
7). get a component once, do it right the first time
8). look for quality, features and value
9). if it looks cheap in quality, it probably is

 

Yes, precisely.

 

I'll also add, don't overlook used gear if dipping one's toes into the pond for the first time. There's a lot of high-end components out there a half the going rate.

 

The human voice is an emphasis for me and I presume it is for many others. The problem is that I can't describe the ways that vocals have become more real as I've upgraded in such a way that those who've hit that perfect $2,500 diminishing return mark could possibly accept or appreciate. The more likely feedback will be defensive in nature.

 

This is a gear forum presumably for those who have a passion for reproduced sound at ever higher fidelity. It's certainly ok to not care about audio gear or sound quality. Only a tiny percent of the population will go beyond ear buds and mp3. Can you imagine hanging out at car enthusiast forum only to remind members that you put in the least effort possible to a 2011 Camry!? Runs great. Dealer service schedule followed. Never broken down. Got the title. Isn't that all there is to cars and driving!?

 

There's nothing wrong with used gear. I've not always bought new. Especially good when you can get something you want to try, cheap.

 

This is a gear forum for someone asking if $2500. is the max to spend whereas spending more might result in minuscule improvement and not worth the increased expenditure proportionally.
Sound quality is in the ears of those hearing it. Sound quality is a matter of perception and preference. What sounds great to one person may not sound good enough to another. True, most could care less about sound quality and may be why Crosley and U-Turn exist. The average-joe doesn't care about quality as long as it meets their needs and desires.
Car enthusiasts are part of another diverse group. Some are only interested in the latest and the greatest, some speed, some originality, some restorod , some restored to new. No car guy wants to spend any more than they have to. I'm around them all the time. Oh, 2011 Camry? I've seen plenty of Hybrid and electric car meets with lots of Camrys.