Diminishing returns / return on investment

[thedudeabides]

Hi all,

Some recent threads have highlighted this proverbial question.

Personally, I'll be receiving some new (used) speakers this Thursday with some pretty high expectations regarding a clear performance "bump".

Let me clearly state that I am not criticizing anyone for investments made in their audio systems. Read conspicuous consumption. This is a personal question that can only be answered by each individual.

The often used matrix resembles the classic X - Y graph with dollars being the "X" / horizontal axis and "Y" / vertical axis being system performance. At some point, the plot is no longer linear (greater than or equal to dollars invested versus added performance) and tends to "flatten out".

I know that I have struggled with this in the past within the context of real versus perceived value and the "expectation bias" phenomena.

Any guidelines that forum members use to address this issue, within the context of overall system cost or other appropriate parameters, when contemplating a buying decision?

GG

 

[Steve williams]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

 

[Barry2013]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

I don't disagree with Steve's comment and his experience is undoubtedly greater than mine.
I have found, however, that it depends on another key factor which is system synergy. If you have already got that right I am sure that Steve is correct but not all of us have got that right now or in the past.Getting the right speakers for a room, amps and sources that work best with each other, and the most synergistic cables have played a big part in the development of my system, Some of the changes I have made involved no additional cost, notably changing from Naim 500/552DR, to Vitus SIA 025 and similarly the Entreq cables and Silver Tellus have made a big improvement for a not excessive outlay.
In short, and suject to Steve's comments, a lot depends on where you are with the development of your system.

 

[puroagave]

based on my spending habits/limits I'd be a bottom feeder by WBF standards. most if not all my purchase are other peoples cast offs. my music collection is probably worth 5-times what the gear costs, maybe that's my metric for determining the 'right' ratio for me.

 

[Al M.]

I guess I have been lucky lately, in the last two years, with getting great bang for the buck.

First was the acoustic treatment of my room which almost solved all my problems with harshness, soundstage and separation of instruments at a relatively modest expense. In fact, I have discovered (by trial, not by personal wisdom) that investing into better components is folly when your room is not right. The Berkeley DAC that I now have would have made little difference prior to room treatment (as tested at home), but after its implementation the differences to my old Wadia 12 DAC were huge. As Art Noxon from Acoustic Sciences (ASC), the company that provided my room treatment, once said in one of his white papers, audiophiles who do not improve their room will hit a ceiling of improvement. At that stage any component change does not make the system sound better, it will make it just sound different. Hence the rush to always 'upgrade' the system with ever new components to yield ever *changing* sound without ever *improving* it, along the way spending tons of money in a futile exercise. Based on my experience I believe Art Noxon's observation is correct.

Second was the Berkeley DAC which is widely known to be enormous value for the money (5 grand). It was a quantum leap forward in CD reproduction for me, allowing for resolution that I had not thought possible from the CD medium. On the other hand, two other current DACs that are highly regarded (in the 2-2.5 K price range) were upon auditioning at home not even as good as my 20 year old Wadia DAC, and I would have wasted my money purchasing either of them based just on favorable reviews or recommendations on online fora (having a high-end store in your area that allows you to test equipment at home, in my case Goodwin's High End, can be a distinct advantage).

Third were my BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps which, due to their elimination of electronic noise in comparison to the internal power supplies of my amps, allowed for yet another quantum leap forward in resolution heard from CD (see my review linked to in my signature; in a sense that purchase was dumb luck, since originally I only had acquired them for giving my amps more headroom, which they did as well). They also greatly enhanced bass reproduction. The upgrade for four grand feels more like an upgrade of 15 K.

 

[thedudeabides]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

Seems so counter intuitive and illogical on one level and totally understandable on another.

GG

 

[esldude]

My subjective evaluation is on speakers it is something like a 4th power function. To get what seems truly like twice as good a speaker requires 16 times the money. Of course even then at some high enough point of performance you simply have reached the limits of the possible and it would be possible to consume tremendous multiples for almost no gain.

In electronics I think they are better than many now realize. I think you get darned close to as good as it gets pretty quickly. Not saying there are no differences, just that they become in absolute terms very, very small much earlier on than speakers.

Now room treatment and the right room are a big requirement too. Especially as you go to larger speakers. There is a good quality just from the space being larger. One I am not sure you can duplicate in smaller spaces at any price.

If I had $100K for the entire shabang I might well go $80k for speakers, $15K for the room and $5k for the rest. Now you could get some better items spending more on the front end than $5k. But I believe what you take away from speakers doing that is more of a loss than what you gain adding to the front end quality. Of course all this is nebulous and general. Specifics of your room etc might alter my ratio of course. Plus you likely aren't spending that kind of money or more just completely for the leanest, most efficient, way to get the maximum sound quality with zero other considerations. User interface, looks, pride of ownership etc are all involved. Audiophiles also like to try new and different items just to see if they get an improvement. That is part of the hobby that keeps people interested.

Some talk about ratios of music to equipment. I really don't know what to make of that other than whatever suits you. I have known people with enough music that listening 4 hours per day every day would take more than 10 years to hear everything they own once. Others have maybe a 100 albums they love dearly with some rather expensive equipment. Who is to say which is more sensible.

 

[LL21]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

I have been fortunate to have acquired some nice pieces that also work well together...all demo or second hand. Taken about 6 years so far. But what has taught me the most has been when I added isolation and nice cables to the equipment...it taught me that these nice pieces can go sooo much further than I ever imagined! And in that regard it was worth looking several times a week, often for years for the piece on my Dream List.

As a result, I have not seen diminishing returns...but if anything, this latest generation of 2nd hand equipment has pushed so far beyond what I ever imagined I could listen to at home, it really is wonderful and I am grateful for it. And the total sum cost a food deal less than some people pay just for new speakers...but that is because I hunt for yesterday's SOTA.

 

[thedudeabides]

I have found that getting the "room" acoustics right is the first place to start.

Biggest bang for the buck beyond that is vibration / resonance control. Astounding ROI but something many folks (this forum excluded) don't pay any attention to.

Most recent example. I recommended that a good friend purchase a "sub dude" from Aurelex for his subwoofer. $60 later and his mid-fi 5.1 system went from marginal to very engaging.

I firmly believe that low end and mid bass distortions caused by vibrations of any sort have far more impact on the overall sound than any other performance parameter. This generally involves speakers but is applicable to all ancillary hardware.

Vibration attenuation / elimination for all components is critical to realizing the full potential performance of any system, regardless of total system cost.

GG

 

[LL21]

I have found that getting the "room" acoustics right is the first place to start.

Biggest bang for the buck beyond that is vibration / resonance control. Astounding ROI but something many folks (this forum excluded) don't pay any attention to.

Most recent example. I recommended that a good friend purchase a "sub dude" from Aurelex for his subwoofer. $60 later and his mid-fi 5.1 system went from marginal to very engaging.

I firmly believe that low end and mid bass distortions caused by vibrations of any sort have far more impact on the overall sound than any other performance parameter. This generally involves speakers but is applicable to all ancillary hardware.

Vibration attenuation / elimination for all components is critical to realizing the full potential performance of any system, regardless of total system cost.

GG

110% agree. Auralex and some HRS nimbus couplers first showed me TRUE isolation...not tennis balls and freeweights. I have finished a 3 month process of creating isolation sandwiches for each component (9)...each a little different. And it has been transformational....starting with auralex, then Ultra 5s and HRS M3s plus 70kg (156lbs) of 10kg and 20kg brass weights for damping some equipment (sub, amp, Tripoint)...

 

[JackD201]

I like to look at diminishing returns like I do negotiations.

There is always a point where you know you should be able to stand up and walk away with no regrets. In my case, that is the point where I can no longer easily tell a difference.

There are instances however that I really can but just can't bring myself to pay the asking price. In such instances I simply try to forget. LOL!

 

[treitz3]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

Agreed Steve but that last 5% is oh, so worth it.....at least to me. Even if it does come at a disproportionate cost.

To the OP, I personally do not ever use numbers or equations when it comes to my rig. This rings true whether or not it comes to stats, percentages spent or measurements of gear. My ears tell me whether or not I can improve towards the unobtainable goal. If I didn't use this form of approach, perhaps I should be less vested in a hobby in which all of the pleasure derives from listening.

Tom

 

[Bruce B]

Now try to balance Diminishing returns and ROI trying to run a business!

A "normal" mastering facility can get away with cutting costs here and there. Their clients could give a rat's ass which converter or speakers they're using. A mastering facility that caters to mostly Audiophile labels can't get away with that. The first thing our clients ask is what equipment are you using.

 

[PeterA]

I've always found that getting one the last 5% of the journey can cost 95% of the money

How can one know it is the "last 5%". That presupposes that your system is already at 95%. Does anyone really think that even the best systems in the best rooms are 95% close to sounding like real music? Regardless of what you spend, there will always be something better just around the corner. It is a never ending quest. The journey is what makes it fun.

By far the most cost effective expenditures I have made are these:

1. Jim Smith's RoomPlay service. Establishing the best speaker/listener/room relationship. This was more important than a major component upgrade and about as expensive as a decent power cord or phono cable.
2. 3 fully ballasted Vibraplane isolation platforms. Proper isolation provides a very high sonic return on the investment.
3. Learning how to adjust VTA/SRA for each LP to optimize sound. Big improvement for zero cost.

 

[analog brother]

I have been fortunate to have acquired some nice pieces that also work well together...all demo or second hand. Taken about 6 years so far. But what has taught me the most has been when I added isolation and nice cables to the equipment...it taught me that these nice pieces can go sooo much further than I ever imagined! And in that regard it was worth looking several times a week, often for years for the piece on my Dream List.

As a result, I have not seen diminishing returns...but if anything, this latest generation of 2nd hand equipment has pushed so far beyond what I ever imagined I could listen to at home, it really is wonderful and I am grateful for it. And the total sum cost a food deal less than some people pay just for new speakers...but that is because I hunt for yesterday's SOTA.

good work!
i agree and do the same.

 

[Al M.]

If I had $100K for the entire shabang I might well go $80k for speakers, $15K for the room and $5k for the rest. Now you could get some better items spending more on the front end than $5k. But I believe what you take away from speakers doing that is more of a loss than what you gain adding to the front end quality. Of course all this is nebulous and general.

I would say that, subsequent to the room treatment, the DAC upgrade and the power supply upgrade to my amps have increased the resolution to a point that my speakers/subwoofer sound about double as good as before. So I would say that the front end contributes much more relative to the speakers than you suggest.

 

[Al M.]

How can one know it is the "last 5%". That presupposes that your system is already at 95%. Does anyone really think that even the best systems in the best rooms are 95% close to sounding like real music?

Excellent point.

 

[Alrainbow]

I agree room and power upgrades makes a very big difference . The room treatments is complex and expensive.
But well worth it in the end. For me the treatments came in two stages mine , and then a pro design . Guess with one
Did the heavy lifting .
Al

 

[Al M.]

The room treatments is complex and expensive.
Al

Depends. My entire custom room treatment by ASC, which made a huge difference for the better, cost 6 K, a fraction of my system cost. And it was easy to implement, just follow the drawings from ASC. No complexities or rounds of trial and error attached.

In fact, I would say the room treatment was perhaps not just the most fundamental but also the most cost-effective upgrade my system has ever seen.

But then, I don't have a particularly large room (24 x 12 x 9 feet). I didn't need entire 'armies' of tube traps as I have seen them in photos of some rooms.

 

[Alrainbow]

My rooms is bigger but the results and money is in your neiborhood. And yes I spent 35 k on a dac but did not want to spend the last 8 on treatments that make the whole system.

Al