Is $2500 the point of diminishing returns?

Thanks. While I appreciate gear, particularly some vintage stuff, I'm actually enjoying myself far more hunting for "new to me" older music and not spending all my time tweaking or analyzing what's "wrong." The Quad system, if you can live with the limitations, is absolutely stunning, and right now, I'm using an old CD player b/c I haven't bought the tonearm for the table on that system.
The other thing that made a difference for me was getting out of the "audiophile approved" records- it started with my realization that I really wanted to listen to some older psych and hard rock, and that led me to early prog and proto metal; now, rather than the jazz standards, i'm listening to spiritual jazz and all kinds of stuff I never heard before or never really paid attention to. So, it's like an adventure. And as a vinyl only guy forever, I'm now preparing to do a decent digital front end, simply because some of the recordings I want are stupid money on vinyl.

 

Gotta disagree with this article. With those marginal $269 speakers you've barely scratched the surface. I've listened to the Elacs they use and they are ok, but I had no trouble upsetting them with a combination of complex music and volume. This system might work ok for girl/guy and guitar music but won't cut it with much else.
At $2500 you need to spend most of your budget on speakers. My bedroom system cost well under $2500 with source and would blow away that sorry system.

 

Bingo. Some audiophiles will never be happy and keep spending! Your lucky you got out alive

 

I'd say it's a lot higher than $2500, at least if you want vinyl and do it well. I've owned systems into the $25k range (retail) and am actually happier with my $10k (retail) system now. But I really doubt I'd really be happy with a $2500 system long term.

That said, and especially if I were attempting vinyl for $2500, I definitely wouldn't sink most of the budget on speakers- I'd go heavily on the source. You can't "fix" what the source didn't get in the first place with an amp or speakers.

 

Well I guess we have a different definition of diminishing returns, which is as it should be. It's true vinyl is tougher to do on the cheap. My point was that with those speakers you certainly can't state you're anywhere close to a point of diminishing returns.

 

The other day i was at thrift and saw this huge "sound design" stereo that had 8 track, cassette, AM FM, tons of bells and whistles, etc. A little worse for the wear but I wondered - at some point someone probably paid a mint for that thing and now it sits in thrift for $20.
So when people today go out and spend a fortune on their systems, what kind of a hit are they going to take real soon when something "better" comes out and they cannot even give away their old equipment? I suppose if you have that kind of money to just throw around it is not a big deal.

Try this if you want to be humbled by your "high end" system - Find out how much it would go for if you tried to sell it used. The $10,000 system you bought new would maybe command $2,500, that "diminishing return" point. Even if it still looks and works like new.

My entire system would likely cost around $2,500 brand new during each component's respective "new" time and adjusted for inflation. But for me, buying used, everything came to about $150. Most of it took some minor servicing but still looks and sounds great.

Sometimes i wonder though - when people do have these high-end systems that they spend a fortune for, yeah at first it would be awesome but once the newness wears off, are they REALLY going to hear this huge difference between their $10,000+ system and some lowly and cheap $2,500 one?

Rather interesting way to look at it but yes, "something" is infinitely more than "nothing". Even a $1 used thrift radio is a quantum leap from silence.

Only if you forego that high end $43.22 bluetooth speaker. THEN it starts at $2500.

That is the problem with reading too far into things or trying to make things perfect. It never quite ends. Sometimes things done to try to improve just end up causing their own problems. Eventually one has to leave well enough alone.

Kind of ties into -

I will admit that even $2500 on a system is way out of my budget. But yes, spending 10's of $1,000's on a system - if that is the kind of cash they dumped into a damn stereo, their house, cars, and retirement accounts must REALLY be on the expensive end.

 

I don't really have an operating philosophy at this point. I have a system whose replacement cost would be somewhere well north of $5k, and I'm desperately trying to get my financial ducks in a row for retirement. Thankfully I love how my system communicates*. But after some reflection on the o.p. question, I'd have to suggest there are two answers; for the audiophile hobbyist, the sky is the limit; literally millions can now be spent on that elusive goal.

Thankfully, for someone whose goal is to find 100% emotional engagement with music, that can be achieved for relatively modest cash**. That, to me, is the more interesting question, not least for its real-world relevance.


*I can sense your objection now -- "Ahh, you're rationalising!"

**In my opinion, $2,500 may even be overkill -- if you limit your focus to the music.

 

A lot of the people i know with big, expensive systems did not buy them in one fell swoop- they have been at this for decades- buying good equipment, often times used and taking advantage of the very depreciation you described; trading up, making incremental steps as they learn, and their understanding of what they want and can afford increases. I'm now past my peak earning years, so the money I spent on this stuff is, to me, well spent. I still have my original ARC Dual 75a amp that I bought new in the early-mid '70s. I suspect that even though it needs a recap (I have an extra set of the big tubes from ARC before they got bought out), I could sell it for what I paid for it. Ditto some of the other components I own. I did not buy this stuff as an investment, but researched, listened, and took advantage of opportunities when they presented themselves. I got a pair of Crosby- modded Quad 63s for very little money a few years after they were built. They are worth roughly what I paid for them. But, even if I take a loss on some of this stuff, I've had decades of enjoyment from some of this gear-- those early Quad 57s I bought in 1973 I kept in packing after I quit using them. For a few thousand bucks, I had them professionally restored. They are still pretty much the best midrange speaker in the business.
I'm sure that there are people who simply go into a salon and say 'what's the best' and buy it. A shop owner's dream. But, those folks aren't going to be impacted by a $100,000 expenditure. One of the best systems in the U.S. is comprised of stuff that is antique--enormous horns taken out of a movie theatre (Siemens-Klangfilm), turntables from the '50s and '60s that are quite rare and extremely valuable today, old phono cartridges, vintage tone arms, etc. The only concession to modernity is his amplification- he was Vlad Lamm's first dealer. I want to visit him, not because of the heritage or value of the equipment or its rarity (although there's that, too), but because everyone who has ever heard his system-- the folks with the big dollar systems-- has said it is the best reproduced music they've ever heard. I want to experience that.
I'm lucky to have acquired what I did when I did. I built on it over the years to the point I'm at now. I think you'll find that a lot of these big systems are owned by fairly normal people- independent business people, professionals who are well paid or folks who are just crazy enough to say, I don't really care about a fancy car, a boat, or taking expensive vacations. I'd rather put it into gear. That's cool- it's a personal choice. Once you get to a place where you can step back and say--this system sounds great, I don't really need to throw money at it other than to keep it running-- you can focus on an even more edifying pursuit. The acquisition of interesting recordings. That's where I've been devoting my energy for a while. And, while I didn't buy any of them as an investment, many of them are extremely valuable today, even though the market for them has dipped.
I do this because I love it-- sure, I've made mistakes along the way, but not too many and none that were too costly. (I've lost more on cars and real estate).
If you are young and starting out, the trick (and this is like predicting the future--something no one can really do) is buy gear that is enduring. The stuff that is recognized as such today, like original Saul Marantz tube equipment, old Western Electric theatre equipment, vintage EMT broadcast tables, are now quite expensive. But they weren't always very pricey. In fact, I remember when people were dumping Marantz 7 preamps in favor of ARC SP 3-a-1 preamps. At the time, you could have gotten the Marantz pretty cheaply. And today, it's easy to sell for a big multiple of what people were paying for it even 10 years ago, let alone in the early '70s, when it was considered dated.

 

Good question.Good post..I would suggest though that if you are using speakers such as Elac Debut B6..Then pairing them with good budget components such as NAD's 516 CD player and 316 Amp.. (£250 each) would result in sound quality not far away from the $2500 set-up for a fraction of the cost.So maybe about £800 is the diminishing point for a CD based system.

 

That's a good point.

It's hard to believe how much more capable higher end speakers are until they're staring at you in your own space. The upside seems nearly endless and if you're like me, then you want to get the most of any purchase. I have no chance in this case! Perhaps a misallocation on my part.

As for entry level speakers, there isn't any rationale for throwing dollars into hi-end electronics.

 

I'm responding to this:
"That is the problem with reading too far into things or trying to make things perfect. It never quite ends. Sometimes things done to try to improve just end up causing their own problems. Eventually one has to leave well enough alone."

While I am sympathetic to your angst, isn't this what we are striving for: the best reproduction we can get in our homes? It certainly isn't easy, but the payoff is huge if you love music and you also learn a lot along the way. I cannot afford to throw money at system problems, so careful investigation and targeted spending are required. No one else that I know is interested in this hobby to this extent (th0ugh many of my friends appreciate the sound that I get from my system), so I am pleasing myself. Since I am pleasing myself, I can turn off my critical side at any point and simply enjoy the music, which is what I do the vast majority of the time. I'm a music-lover first and an audiophile second (and quite a distant second at that), but I do want the best possible sound that I can afford. Like anything else, there is a cost/benefit analysis and possibly even more important, an effort/benefit analysis to anything that I do. This is supposed to be fun, right? YMMV.

 

You asked.....

Is $5K the start of true high end?

It depends. A well assembled headphone-based digital system at this price range IS high end in my opinion. You can get incredible sound direct injected into your ear canals at this price point.

As for a system using loudspeakers, it's possible. Particularly if one takes advantage of those deals that present themselves via used and demo gear. That $5K cost to you could actually represent a $7.5 to $10K retail list price.

Does more money by better sound?

Yes. Absolutely. Particularly with loudspeakers. Musical scale costs money. My main loudspeakers were not cheap by any means even though I paid a good deal less than full retail for them. Still, they don't have anywhere near the scale a full blown super speaker has. In that regard they can't compete with a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF or Lansche Audio 8.2 towers.

Does the expensive stuff just look better?

There have been instances where a manufacturer bought a less expensive/plain Jane audio component and then stripped off the outer box and placed the electronics in a fancy box and upped the retail price several fold from what the plain Jane unit sold. (I believe Lexicon was caught doing this.)

But by and large, the expensive stuff that looks good can back up the pretty face with beautiful sound.

How much is it worth to go below 40hz?

The answer to that question comes down to personal opinion. Also, one does not need to purchase a pair of huge loudspeaker towers capable of 20hz extension to get that bottom octave. There's lots of cost-effective options in the subwoofer category.

 

All boats rise with the best quality gear you can afford. Bass the dips into the teens is INCREDIBLE.

 

I have my ears. My hearing. Everyone else has theirs. I don't think my idea of "diminishing returns" as it relates to audio, is valid for anyone other than me. Truthfully. It's far too subjective a thing, and I wouldn't think it appropriate to apply it to anyone else. That is just me

 

I've been thinking about this thread the last few days for a number of reasons, not the least of which is I just upgraded my speakers and it was definitely an act of diminishing returns.

I get the sense that a great many people come to some determination of what constitutes a diminishing return based more on where they're at rather than where they've been. In other words, they are trying to justify why they won't (shouldn't, can't, whatever) pursue any further gear upgrades without having actually had the experience of moving past that point.

Before I go any further let me just repeat what several wise folks have already said--the whole idea of this "point of diminishing returns" is completely subjective (hence my earlier reference to having a degree in English! lol) Having said that, I, like many people around here, have spent a lifetime with audio gear and have made untold numbers of changes in my setup on which I've spent increasing sums of money. Just as the latest example, this new set of speakers (Magico S3s) is the tenth pair I've owned (and I'm always amazed it's been that few!) In terms of speakers only, I'd say that the point of diminishing returns for me occurred two pairs ago when I went from B&W CDM7SEs ($1800 list) to B&W 803Ds ($10K list). Previous to those speakers I'd had (for over 12 years) Polk Monitor 10s for which I'd paid around $700 new if I recall).

Can anything be had in that math? Certainly not anything definitive. But I think it's worth taking note of the fact that I had purchased six pairs of speakers before I got to the seventh purchase and it was only at that seventh purchase that I am able to look back and say that a point of diminishing returns (PoDR) had been crossed.

I could do a similar mental exercise with the ten different amplifiers (integrated, preamp, and power) and try to get some sense of where I had crossed the PoDR. But the point is the same: without having actually gone down the road and crossed over that PoDR I don't think I could make some assertion (to myself or anyone else) that I really had come to grips with where that point was.

There's absolutely no question that there IS a PoDR, but it is such an abstract concept, and so brutally subjective, that it is the sort of thing that we can each of us define only once we have moved past it. Once we have done so we can continue to throw money into the mouth of the demon knowing full well that we are possessed by that demon...and hope the wife lets us be simply because we're not spending it on other women, or putting it up our noses, or whatever.

 

That makes sense. I guess I was kind of under the impression that they just went out one day and spent close to 5 figures on a system.

If we are talking $2,500 here in 2017, just going out one day and buying a system like what the OP described with 2 speakers, turntable, and amplifier - It is hard to imagine it necessary to spend MORE just to get high quality sound. If you need or want a bunch of other fancy components with it brand new (or at least professionally refurbished) then $2,500 would be nothing.

There is though, the reality of the "$2,500 room" at some store. The way they would be able to set it up would make things sound better than what most of us are capable of at home. Of course that goes for any price point. But in most cases that same system is just not going to sound as good once you get it home.

Of course also the more you spend all at once, the more you expect. If you get your stuff at thrift like I do, I am just glad when it works at all or at least repairable. I am sure the "audiophiles" on here would scoff at my system but for the less than $200 I have wrapped up in it (along with the servicing i did) it sounds great to me. Had I spent over $2,000 I would probably be heart broken. My system has some very minor annoyances throughout but for what I spent, I cannot complain.

So maybe, just maybe, part of the "point of diminishing returns" depends on what you spent VS what results you expect.

 

Right. Expectations. We all have them. And audio can be just as frustrating as everything else. I guess that's why they call it a "hobby." My wife would hear me cursing a blue streak while I was doing something with some system in the house, and say, "oh, he's just enjoying his hobby."
I'm not up on current new components including digital. When I got into this thing, the earnest starter would buy a Dynaco 70 as a kit or as a used component that checked out, and if they had DIY chops or bought appropriate update kits and good tubes, have a decent tube amp. (That's what William Johnson basically did when he started ARC- he was selling heavily modified Dynacos). The accompanying preamp (tube) the PAS 3 [x- i can't remember what the letter designation was] was also decent and tweekable, and there were other options. These were real components that still endure to this day (unlike that all in one system you mentioned that you saw- I remember those, and i'm not being dismissive b/c I'm a snob, but it wasn't "serious" stuff). People pulled tube amps out of consoles that worked pretty good- the transformers were often the key, the rest could be redone. I'm not terribly good with a soldering iron, so i'm not a real DIY'er, but that's a great thing if you can.
There's a store here in Austin that sells '70s receivers- called The Sound Gallery. It is like a time warp. I remember all that stuff. I'm sure some of it can make for a good modestly priced system today, though I really prefer separate components. Even though i'm now in my sixties, I'm still learning.

 

A 42x18 room is unusually large for a residence, but I would love to have one. Until recently I was in a large one story house, but it flooded and now I am in a relatively tiny apartment until I decide what to do. Getting rid of the wires is really nice. Had I been starting from scratch, I would have bought LS50w's instead of the passive LS50's. DSP and room correcting technology will eventually filter down to products at prices larger audiences can afford. I remember when a 50" flat screen TV cost $7500. Today they are $500. The enormous amounts of power in B&O speakers makes lots of sense to me. Nothing is worse than clipping. Class D amplification made this possible.

 

DSP and room correction technology are already part of many modern AVR at price points accessible to mass consumers.

 

Right, even so, I think room correction remains one of those areas which too many people have not yet discovered and for whom there would be a lot of upside.

 

Really good question that cuts to the heart of this hobby. How much does one have to spend to get 85-90% of the very best ?

I suspect the answer is north of $2500. I purchased nearly all of my equipment used, over a period of years. The basic portion of my system cost more than 2x your cutoff figure, and I know there are limitations in my system.

Lets look at another way:

All purchased used.

KEF LS50 speakers about $900
Conrad Johnson MV50 amplifier about $900-$1000
VanAlstine PAS preamp about $500-$600
Rega RP3 / AT 440ml about $1000
+$500 for cables and other accessories

About $3800-$4000. One can simplify using a Luxman 550 integrated amp (about $2000) and a $500 digital media streamer/DAC....bringing the total down to about $3400.

If one wants to accept more system limitations then the price of entry continues to go down. Mid level Marantz or NAD integrated for $1000 + $500 streamer + $900 KEF LS50 speakers +$250 cables etc = $2650. BUT you will hear limitations compared to the Luxman or Conrad Johnson based systems.

Just my thoughts.

 

Audiophilia really isn't a good hobby for those on a budget. A real recipe for envy and frustration.

 

my point of diminishing returns starts and ends with my wallet.my stereo system A-Z is around S3500.sounds very good to me.i think i put it together with enough care and thought that it works well. tweaked pro-ject debut 111 from 2004-cambridge audio AZUR integrated amp and CD player.PSB image B25 bookshelf speakers-all components isolated-audioquest cables-iStreamer DAC for iPhone.sounds good to ears and to those who hear it.

 

I think it's misleading to think about diminishing returns. For one, everyone has a different budget and even super affordable systems can sound great now. Two, as one gets a higher resolution system, you start to hear things you didn't before and that mythical point of diminishing returns gets pushed further out. People who have heard the Wilson Chronosonic say it rearranges what you thought were possible from a stereo. So arguably that means the point is around $1 million. Maybe someone will come out with a $2million speaker and that will be the new point of diminishing returns.

 

I've just had a look at the Wilson Chronosonic page. My first career was as an advertising copywriter, and they could definitely do with one. According to their text, "[The WAMM Master Chronosonic] plumbs new depth in terms of technology and execution. From drivers to cutting-edge composites, from crossover technology to perfecting geometries." So it's the worst speaker ever made in any regard? Not what they wanted to say, I suspect.