Is $2500 the point of diminishing returns?

literally no one said such thing in this thread. you know, its hard to not take this comment personal as I just said that I feel the point of diminushing return comes in around 5k. rather then discuss, you call me indirectly foolish or "im fooling myself"

under 15k, you can have a speaker that is as good as anything, something like harbeth 40.1, geithain rl901, kii three, atc scm50asl is as good as anything.
under 5k, id say its still a bit limiting but I feel theres a big step up when you go from 2 to 5k speakers.
personally i feel the best 5k speakers gives about 90% of the 15k speakers hence why i think a speaker 3 times more expensive is what I call a point of diminishing return.

 

I would also say that with bad room and bad placement, diminishing returns show up fast. With a good room and good placement, it will take much higher than $2500 before diminishing returns showing up.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that a well spent $2,500 can deliver a two channel system worthy of delivering quite a fine listening experience. Is it a "sweet spot"? Not for me. Why can't my system represent a sweet spot? Or yours? Or a member who's spend decades working up to a $75,000 system?

I will guarantee that there's no system at that price point which will touch mine. Not even close. Is the vast improvement in sound worth the time and money? Not for most.

 

Well unfortunately that was a bad case of coincidence as I did not read your post. The problem with notions of X is 90% of Y is that Y is still better than X and I never see any peer reviewed absolute proof that anyone can establish one speaker is 90% of another speaker.

something like harbeth 40.1, geithain rl901, kii three, atc scm50asl is as good as anything.

To make that statement implies you've heard everything since this list is as good as "anything". I've heard three of those speakers and I can afford to pay cash for them. I can't agree with you that these are as good as "anything."

 

I'd go with that approximate figure. Of course, one's own prerequisites help determine the number, as well as size of the room for the system desired.

One thing is for sure, in my situation ... I wouldn't have the $8-10k I currently have in my own system today. I was "there" in 2003, when I bought my first "audiophile" setup (an entry-level Rega system, CD deck/amp/speakers) for about ... $2500. I've had fun playing at audiophilia but, all the reading reviews, spending, trading about, etc.? I don't know how much of that actually added to my enjoyment of music. This feeling is reinforced when I visit a friend who has a relatively inexpensive rig (Sony CD/SACD deck and amp of the sort you'd find at Best Buy, and a pair of used Celestion speakers from the '80s he got cheap.) I listen to tons of music on that system he's maybe got $6-700 in, and enjoy heartily.

Your mileage may vary.

 

This hobby is supposed to be fun. I have revamped some of my system over the last few months and have enjoyed the experience (mostly). I got a new (to me) former TOTL AVR and new (to me) front speakers. I paid about $2500 total to upgrade (new price of gear about $7800). I can hear the difference and to me (and my wife) it sounds better. I just had to get that $2500 number in there, HA! I think it is about the enjoyment of the music. I enjoyed the music on my old set up and I enjoy the music somewhat more on the new set up. If I spent a lot more on my system, would I enjoy the music even more?...probably (given good choices and system synergy). Just like not being house poor or car poor, I wouldn't want to be system poor. Have to have $$ for the music.

 

My speakers are amazing and, while no speaker is going to appeal to everyone, I'd guess that the Focal Utopia line is well established as one of the best engineered. If I could afford to spend two or three times as much (as the stand-mounted) then my expectations would rise to a level that I can't imagine hearing in my own room. And I don't doubt that I'd be disappointed. Of course, I'd expect speakers in that territory to demand better electronics and more time and effort into positioning and acoustic treatment. Frankly, it hasn't been easy dealing with speakers which have gobs of unrealized upside. I don't even think about "sweet spot" as it pertains to system cost or "as good as anything".

 

+1 While great speakers will provide great sound and will allow you to hear things that you hadn't heard before, some of those sounds may not be pleasant. Then you start the long process of figuring out what is making the unpleasant sounds so that you can apply mitigating measures. Sometimes the first mitigating measures improve the sound further, but don't remove the unpleasantness. And the cycle continues and money streams out of your bank account. We call this "fun" around here.

 

Diminishing returns start at the cost of the system owned by the person to whom you ask the question

 

I would largely concur that is where the value curve starts flattening out for greatly diminishing sonic returns.

 

All I've done to them is recap them myself with Jentzen and a Dayton cap. Periodically I think of Cornscalaing them but have resisted so far. I think they'd be easier to sell in the stock, mint condition they are in. I put a yearly cap on gear expenses and have been pretty good the last two years so I'm thinking of going with a new pair of speakers like the new Tannoy Cheviots or seeing what the new Fortes sound like or maybe even seeing if can get a deal on a pair of Audio Note AN/e.

 

I know EXACTLY where the point of diminishing return occurs. It is at every price point. And each of us can choose our own personal point.

A clock/radio, purchased at Goodwill for under $10, will play anything from a singer/songwriter ballad (e.g. Johnny Cash) to full choral symphony (e.g. Beethoven's 9th). The tunes are there, melodies and words recognizable, and this is all anyone needs to appreciate the beauty and variety of music. Any more expensive than that, and we can only get a little bit better for a lot more money. The benefit of better-and-better sound gets less-and-less, but the price we pay for it goes up-and-up, disproportionately to the improvement.

So it is really just a matter of how enthusiastic each of us is about better sound, and how much we are willing to pay for it. Personally, a $50,000 system is good enough for me, including the capability to playback CD, LP, FM, and reel-to-reel tape. But that is just me. Anything less than that just doesn't keep me mesmerized in my seat, with astonishment of how wonderful the sound is. Anything more than that, yeah I can hear the difference, but I don't really need to own it.

So, I think whatever YOUR price point is, for a system that satisfies YOU, is close to YOUR point of diminishing returns.

As an audio retailer, who can sell a whole system for under $5000 (I know, even that is high for some of our friends here), or just an amplifier for over $100,000, one of my goals is to help people figure out where "their" point is. In fact, that is one of the fun parts of my job.

 

I'm proudly vintage/Mid-Fi and $2.5K is not nearly enough for a complete CD & LP source quality 2-channel system. Be it solid state or valve.

 

As an Audio Note dealer, I would love to sell you a pair of AN/E speakers. But Cornwalls can sound SO GOOD, I wouldn't change them. I would advise merely experimenting with amplifiers, speaker position, maybe even cables and source equipment. But NOT the speakers.

May I plug an Audio Note low-power SET amplifier as an incredible match for Cornwalls? You should really hear them together. It is pure magic.

 

Aren't these laws of economics really intended for measurable results? How do they apply to consumer satisfaction, particularly when you are evaluating something that is, in results, itself very subjective?

Is it possible for someone to hear a significant difference in quality at a higher price point than they can afford and recognize that the additional cost of that hypothetical system is probably worth the money, but simply beyond their budget? That is not really the "law of diminishing returns" or "marginal utility" but simply a question of budget.

When I started this hobby, I was still in high school. I didn't really have any money. But, I had the passion, and was crazy enough to spend my money on gear over time that held value, and could be traded up without too much pain.

I think you can save a lot of money by avoiding the cable quagmire, not because I believe all wire is the same, but because it is, in my estimation, less important than other things. Some of those DIY cables aren't so bad, and in fact, some claim they far outperform the high priced stuff.
Ditto on tweaks and accessories- those eat up money fast even though they are smaller, incremental expenditures.

I prefer a well set up cheaper system to a badly set up collection of expensive components that don't really work together well.

Room- size, placement, relationship with listening position- lot's of bang there at little to no cost outlay.

Turntables and associated components add considerably to the cost of a system if you are on a budget.

There are any number of ways to get a system that is satisfying to its owner; gradually building it, with upgrades, trade-ins and budgeted expenditures over time.

While I'm sure technology has brought better quality at a lower price in the mass/mid market area (something I have experienced in the home theatre area over more than two decades), ironically, many advantages come from using vintage equipment appropriately (not the super-collectible stuff which is often very expensive).

My long held view is that you should hear what is possible from the best quality systems in an environment (not a hi-fi show) where such a system can really shine. And listen to it with material other than "demo" records that are meant to sound spectacular. Then you have some measure of what is possible, putting price to the side for a moment.

There are so many variables in all of this that we are left making choices in a vacuum, based on reviews, demonstrations from dealers capable of providing them without "selling you" and listening to other peoples' systems.

I don't know that I have reached a point of diminishing returns-- yes, at a certain point, once a system is very good, making it a little better costs more. And making it significantly better costs exponentially more. Sometimes, I say, well, it would cost me [] to make that jump and I don't want to/can't afford to do that, at least right now. But, that doesn't mean I've reached the point of diminishing returns. It just means I can't afford it (at the moment). And that's what makes this hobby/pursuit so maddening sometimes.
Does that mean I'm unhappy listening to what I have? Hardly. I now have two systems running- my vinyl/tube/horn "big" system and my vintage Quad ESL/tube system (that has record player waiting for an arm).
I could probably live happily with the Quad system if I needed to, despite its limitations. But that's also a matter of taste- it doesn't have big "thwacking" bass, it has a very narrow sweet spot, and it isn't necessarily cheap by the time you put all the pieces together.
I may never be able to assemble my "ultimate" system at this point in my life, but that doesn't mean there isn't better stuff out there.

It is a very personal choice, as @Warren Jarrett said, but perhaps for different reasons.

 

Does a objective point of diminishing returns actually exist?
Or is it a subjective target depending on each individual?
Maybe $100 for one person and $100,000 for another?

 

Add another "0" to your number.

And shop used/demo/closeout gear.

Breath-taking resolution and speed with air and liquidity.

 

Diminishing returns happens when you can check off all of the boxes that you have come to need from a sound system. Some examples-
*High volume capability and dynamic, lively sound.
*Sound with natural realism for voices and instruments, natural timbre.
*Full range bass.
*Large 3-dimensional sound stage and precise imaging.
*Multiple quality sources for playback.
*Smooth, clean, strain and grain free sound quality.
*No distracting issues like bloated bass, comb filtering, bass peaks, distortion of any kind, etc.

Unfortunately the more quality systems you listen to you may develop a champagne taste but only have a craft beer budget. Checking off all of those boxes becomes quite expensive IMHO.

 

IMO- it's basically a traditional inverse exponential function and the point of diminishing returns is at the lowest levels possible. Example-A $25 boombox is going to sound significantly better than a $5 clock radio.

To line up with what others have said- it's all about what you can afford really. My personal practical level of "good enough" is something like $1000 (CD+Vinyl). That happens to be the cost of my secondary system including stands and rack which I'm pleased with and could, begrudgingly, live with for the rest of my life if need be. That's also about the level of gear I recommend to non-audiophiles when they are looking to build a "nice" system for music and want to include vinyl.

My main system is probably only about a $2,500 system including stands and rack, but based on the high end systems I've demoed- I think you could be about 95% to the limits of better versus different for $10,000. At around $20,000 is where I hit different, not really better.

So-

$5 is the real answer.
$1,000 is what I consider a practical and enjoyable setup for myself and people who care at least somewhat about sound quality.
$10,000 is what I'd consider the point of diminishing returns.
$20,000 is what I'd consider the point of preference.

 

$20K spent on gear is smart money.

 

I have a custom finished pair of commercial La Scala's. The insides have never been customized, for the same reasons that you have chosen to leave your Cornwall's in their original form.

I have been aware of the Corn-Scala thing for a few years now and I'm not convinced whether it is a good idea or not.

I do have a couple of comments about minor improvements that are neither disfiguring or expensive.

There is a company by the name of ALK Engineering, run by Al Klappenberger, a retired microwave engineer.

Al designs passive crossover upgrades to vintage Klipsch speakers.

I use his passive crossovers in my main pair of modded Altec Lansing A7's, because they were designed for the 500-cycle crossover point of the La Scala's.

A key design element of Mr. Klappenberger's crossover designs, are that they are engineered to provide a constant level of impedance to the amplifier. VERY IMPORTANT!

Next, there is a autoformer, where you can adjust the attenuation of the squaker horn to match the sound level against the far less efficient woofer. Most crossover designs are either not adjustable or use a "L-Pad" resistor in the circuit, which does not represent the better engineering approaches to having the attenuation correctly balanced.

I spent about two weeks getting this adjustment perfect. Al provides a reference sheet with the amount of atenuation and referencing which of two jumpers to connect to on the autoformer. When you first hear your speakers after replacing you crossovers, with the ALK's, they really sound like CRAP. The reason for this is that they are shipped with the jumpers set at their maximum level of attenuation.

You then lower the amount of attenuation, until you have perfectly matched sound levels from the woofer and the squalker horn. The main A7's have been adapted to a three way system. I was having trouble with the adjustments until I spoke to Al and he correctly advised me to disconnect the JBL 2404H "baby cheeks" super tweeters.

After I did that, I could concentrate on how the A7's should sound. Al makes a three way crossover also. I already have a crossover for my super tweeter, so I did not have to go with Al's three way system. After the attenuation adjustments were completed, I reconnected the baby cheeks.

Here is a photo of the gentle slope AP12-500. They run $350/pr.



Here is the ALK Universal Economy crossover, The CornScala-Wall.



These are priced at $320/pr. and are built to order, which takes 4-8 weeks. They are compatible with factory Cornwall's.

You can also opt for the Extreme Slope crossovers, but these baby's will set you back between $900-$1,000.

ALK has his very own take on the Corn-Scala, which differs greatly from commonly accepted Corn-Scala reasoning.

They also have different squaker and tweeter options available.

But, for now, I am going to stay with the original horns and drivers. Al recommends to NEVER replace the Klipsch woofer.

Changing out your crossovers, will be the largest improvement that you will be able to make and still retain the original integrity of the Cornwall's.

Your original Cornwall's have a far superior design and build quality, than you might expect. I found this out with the A7's, by ditching the SS amplification and adding the ALK crossovers.

I guarantee you that neither James B. Lansing, nor any of the original Altec engineer's, had any idea just how good they built their products, both from a quality perspective or sound quality perspective.

Please, keep these thoughts in mind. If implemented in your Cornwall's, they might just elevate your listening experience to a whole new (higher) level.

S&G

 

CornScalas are on the Bucket List when i retire and have full shop space to do it properly. Until then.....my Crites hot-rodded Cornie IIs and Chorus IIs are making me more than happy.

You can also take my Klipsch RSW-15 powered sub-woofer from my cold, dead hands.

 

CornScalas, that's a new one. Two have said the point of diminishing returns is subjective. They are so right.

I continue to wonder why so little of the allocation was to speakers in the $2500 system. I would have put at least $500 in speakers and less in an integrated amp, perhaps one from NAD. Good solid bass is wonderful, too bad I can't have it in my apartment.

 

Last year, I upgraded my speakers from a pair with a US retail price of $22,000 to a pair with a US retail price of $85,000. So what does my experience tell me about the law of diminishing returns? That it kicks in below $22,000, as the $4,000 pair of speakers I had before the $22,000 pair sounded perfectly satisfactory, though the $22,000 pair sounds better and the $85,000 pair better still.

So what exactly (without getting into PRAT-type audiophile jargon) do the $85,000 speakers do better than the $22,000 pair?

1) Basslines are tauter and more melodic – I've really come to appreciate the bass player's art.
2) Hand and tuned percussion is startlingly lifelike, and bell-like instruments can really make my ears ring.
3) I can now hear the studio as well as the instruments. As a case in point, a bonus track on the recent Pentangle boxed set was clearly recorded in a room with echoey acoustics (as opposed to a typical anechoic studio). On my current speakers, this creates the unusual illusion that the musicians are level with me, rather than playing in line with the speakers, as I'm hearing the reflection off the studio's back wall. As soon as lead vocals and other instruments (clearly recorded in a different setting and overdubbed) enter halfway through, the illusion collapses and the soundstage returns to being in front of me.

 

^When i finally sell my current house, i'll have the money for that. Pics would be rad.

(Will build the CornScalas for the experience and likely sell them off at 15% above materials and labor...)