The point of diminishing returns for speakers is...?

[AudioGod]

From what price point of speakers the improvements are small and not really worth It?
What's the minimum you can spend to get SOTA performance ?

 

[Another Johnson]

You know that there is no answer to this, outside of the one you answer for yourself.

Many people wince at $500 and can’t see how spending more would be better.

Stereophile’s range of msrps in their class A recommended components list often spans more than one order of magnitude.

A Wilson fan might stop at the Alexia or Alexx levels.

Many Magnepan fans will tell you there’s no need to go beyond the 20.7.

A cheap Revel fan might stop at the F208.

You have to answer this for yourself.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think diminishing returns is a concept that is difficult to apply to loudspeakers. Perhaps the concept makes a bit of sense as applied to a single brand of loudspeakers, where one can evaluate sound value for money as one goes up the line of products -- as the more expensive models grow larger, or more elaborate or use higher quality parts.

Think, for example, of the Magnepan line. For people who like the presentation and sound of a Magnepan loudspeaker, even the less expensive models can be a sonic revelation. I think the larger models do an even more convincing job than the smaller models. So, to me, with this brand, the taller models are better, if more expensive. So thinking about diminishing returns in a fairly linear line of products such as Magnepan this might make some sense.

On the other hand, I can totally understand somebody thinking that the 20.7 is a wholly more convincing experience than a smaller model and is worth every penny (that diminishing returns has not set in).

I think it is easier (but not easy) to apply the concept of diminishing returns to cables and to electronics than it is to loudspeakers.

 

[bonzo75]

Didn’t we have a thread on this topic just recently?

repeats cause diminishing returns of discussing the same thing

 

[Lee]

In my opinion, there are no diminishing returns on speakers. I did a video on it in fact.

 

[microstrip]

No one can apply or evaluate the law of diminishing returns to a subjective hobby that does not accept blind testing. It is a loss of time.

Besides the law of diminishing returns, as formulated, asks for a steady condition of the environment, something that does not happen in our hobby - the audiophile and la donna è mobile.

 

[knotscott]

Since the whole system is a chain that should be relatively closely matched in overall performance level, that question depends on a lot of things. It also depends on whether you're talking MSRP, used, or DIY. I suppose a gross rule of thumb is when you've reached your budget limits, and/or can no longer hear a significant improvement.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the big problem is looking at speakers with price as the measurement. it's hard to do that realistically, since many/most of don't think price is that significant an indicator of actual performance. but how else to determine rank? we each would have to first establish our own rank, then look at performance and investment for ourselves individually. and determine where much bigger dollars would not bring much more value. maybe that could be doable for the individual, or maybe a small group with similar views. but impossible for a much larger relevance.

and agree with micro that it's also too subjective a question for any sort of solid result.

ultimately this occurs for many of us in reality. it's how we make decisions. where is that sweet spot? a few of us ignore that sweet spot and continue to push into the very narrow part of the curve.

 

[Lee]

the big problem is looking at speakers with price as the measurement. it's hard to do that realistically, since many/most of don't think price is that significant an indicator of actual performance. but how else to determine rank? we each would have to first establish our own rank, then look at performance and investment for ourselves individually. and determine where much bigger dollars would not bring much more value. maybe that could be doable for the individual, or maybe a small group with similar views. but impossible for a much larger relevance.

and agree with micro that it's also too subjective a question for any sort of solid result.

ultimately this occurs for many of us in reality. it's how we make decisions. where is that sweet spot? a few of us ignore that sweet spot and continue to push into the very narrow part of the curve.

No question it is subjective…but I think there is a simple test.

If there are diminishing returns then the most expensive speaker out there will not sound better than one half it’s price.

But (and admittedly this is my opinion), the Magico M9 sounds significantly better than the speakers in the $200K to $300K range.

I think that the popularity of the Law of Diminishing Returns has more to do with class envy. It is also a mechanism allowing people to tell themselves they don’t need to buy the more expensive item.

It always seem the point of diminishing returns is always just above how much they are willing to spend.

In racing, we can measure the extra performance in lower lap times and that covers speed and handling at least on circuits.

In audio, there are more factors but even small increments in improvements at the edge equate to a large improvement in the perception of a natural creation of a musical event.

 

[Audiohertz2]

From what price point of speakers the improvements are small and not really worth It?
What's the minimum you can spend to get SOTA performance ?

Not price but size and topology dictates SOTA performance ..


Regards

 

[Another Johnson]

We come back to the idea of satisficing … “Enough is as good as a feast.” Each person defines what is “enough.”

 

[Djcxxx]

Diminishing disposable income is frequently encountered prior to the conclusion that returns are diminishing.

 

[Chops]

I think diminishing returns is a concept that is difficult to apply to loudspeakers. Perhaps the concept makes a bit of sense as applied to a single brand of loudspeakers, where one can evaluate sound value for money as one goes up the line of products -- as the more expensive models grow larger, or more elaborate or use higher quality parts.

Think, for example, of the Magnepan line. For people who like the presentation and sound of a Magnepan loudspeaker, even the less expensive models can be a sonic revelation. I think the larger models do an even more convincing job than the smaller models. So, to me, with this brand, the taller models are better, if more expensive. So thinking about diminishing returns in a fairly linear line of products such as Magnepan this might make some sense.

On the other hand, I can totally understand somebody thinking that the 20.7 is a wholly more convincing experience than a smaller model and is worth every penny (that diminishing returns has not set in).

I think it is easier (but not easy) to apply the concept of diminishing returns to cables and to electronics than it is to loudspeakers.

Being a Magnepan owner myself, I totally agree with this.

I don't think "diminishing returns" can apply to loudspeakers as just about all loudspeakers sound vastly different from one another, some better, some worse, some that suits one's taste vs another that does not, or one that works in a room and one that does not.

Back to Magnepan loudspeakers, I've owned the MGLR-1's and now the 1.7i's. I've heard the MMG's, the LRS, the LRS+, the .7's, and the 3.7i's. Yes, the smaller Maggies are quite impressive for what they cost, and they easily out-perform other loudspeakers within the same price range. But I can say right now, from what I have heard, the 3.7i's are definitely a step up from my 1.7i's, and my 1.7i's are no slouch, especially with the gear I have ahead of them these days.

One day I'll probably upgrade to the 3.7i's, or 3.8i's or whatever they'll be called by then. With Magnepan, if you like what you get with the smaller models, you'll definitely like what you get with the bigger models. Diminishing returns has nothing to do with it.

Then again, what I just said above most likely applies to all loudspeaker manufacturers and their models, no matter the brand. When it comes to sound, loudspeakers are in a totally different category than electronics.

 

[L3RD]

In my opinion, there are no diminishing returns on speakers. I did a video on it in fact.

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your input. I would counter argue that there is a point of diminishing returns. You, IMO, failed to prove your point because while the Magico 9 speakers may not be representations of this, I find it highly unlikely that there isn't a point of diminishing returns in speakers. That the Magics are not representative of this merely means that we have yet to reach that point. So, were you to say that we have yet to reach the point of diminishing returns as yet in audio, I would be in complete agreement. Speaking in terms of absolutes is always fraught with danger because logic frequently disallows your conclusion. Precision speech is as critical, and is frequently more so, than precision in audio, IMO/E. Picky, perhaps, but audio on the higher ends is generally about picky, IMO. That said, thanks for explaining why better matters, and why measurements are not always an end all due to use still learning how critical certain distortions and such are. Beyond being a nitpicking reader on one point, I found your video to be excellent. Thanks again.

 

[Lee]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your input. I would counter argue that there is a point of diminishing returns. You, IMO, failed to prove your point because while the Magico 9 speakers may not be representations of this, I find it highly unlikely that there isn't a point of diminishing returns in speakers. That the Magics are not representative of this merely means that we have yet to reach that point. So, were you to say that we have yet to reach the point of diminishing returns as yet in audio, I would be in complete agreement. Speaking in terms of absolutes is always fraught with danger because logic frequently disallows your conclusion. Precision speech is as critical, and is frequently more so, than precision in audio, IMO/E. Picky, perhaps, but audio on the higher ends is generally about picky, IMO. That said, thanks for explaining why better matters, and why measurements are not always an end all due to use still learning how critical certain distortions and such are. Beyond being a nitpicking reader on one point, I found your video to be excellent. Thanks again.

Thank you. I believe I did say or hint that the Law doesn’t appear to work as we are now. But yes, there could be a point where it kicks in. Won’t it be fun finding out?!

 

[Bruce B]

I own Maggies and have owned many Wilson speakers.... You want a dollar sign? Here it is:

$12-15k

 

[AudioGod]

I own Maggies and have owned many Wilson speakers.... You want a dollar sign? Here it is:

$12-15k

What can a $350K Chronosonic XVX give me that a $15K speaker will never be able to ?

 

[SuperDave]

What can a $350K Chronosonic XVX give me that a $15K speaker will never be able to ?

At least one or two pulled muscles.

 

[AudioHR]

Since the whole system is a chain that should be relatively closely matched in overall performance level, that question depends on a lot of things. It also depends on whether you're talking MSRP, used, or DIY. I suppose a gross rule of thumb is when you've reached your budget limits, and/or can no longer hear a significant improvement.

You make an important point here. The sound of a speaker depends on the earlier components so where does the law of diminishing returns for the speakers themselves set in, if at all. The sky could be the limit.

Having said that I agree with your rule of thumb. I try not to make price a factor but it invariably is as most of us have a budget. Also I would have to say that there are quite a few mediocre yet high priced speakers out there, so money doesn't buy everything. There are great speakers out there that won't break the bank.

At the end of the day if you think that latest edition really expensive speakers sounds better than anything you have ever heard in a system like yours, then go for it.

 

[Djcxxx]

We use the concept of diminishing returns in its most prosaic sense, rapidly decreasing benefit from rapidly increasing cost. However on a less easily quantified measure there is the drive to extend limits regardless of cost. Robert Browning‘s ”that a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” can be viewed as analogous to the audiophile’s quest for “the absolute sound”. A thing may never be attained but it should be pursued. Imagine DaVinci in front of the newly completed La Gioconda thinking to himself “It’s very good, but it needs some little touch……”