The M9's aluminum/carbon fiber sandwich cabinet and driver construction would seem to be subject to galvanic corrosion, presumably that issue was addressed by Magico but I have not seen it discussed. I'm not an engineer so somebody tell me I'm wrong. I worked in the bike industry when very expensive, cutting edge bonded aluminum lugged/carbon tubed frames failed because of this. The manufacturers then started putting fiberglass sleeves between the aluminum and carbon.
The Law of Diminishing Returns is BS! A Video on the Magico M9 (TAS)
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
I wonder how well the law of diminishing returns holds up after you drive that M9 off the lot. And then when it shows up on the used lot. Is there a law of diminishing perception of value?
It seems the law of diminishing returns works when talking about increments, but not when you're talking about leaps. The problem comes in when one man's leap is another man's increment.
I have a hard time trying to understand a claim that says the $200k thing is more than twice as 'good' as the $100k thing. How do we come to that assessment? I suspect there is a strong tendency for the person who buys the $200k thing to say it is twice as good because he wants to: a) preserve the value of his purchase, and b) not look silly for paying that much. If we take out of the buyer's hands, how do we gauge value in a way that allows us to say that?
I also have a hard time believing that the newest latest most expensive thing necessarily is better than things from the past. I suspect if you are selling the idea that 'progress' is always in front of us (which is where TAS is), you will endorse that approach. I have not heard the M9 but I'm willing to bet there are speakers out of production that can compete with it.
I do get the idea of the luxury brand or the uber-luxury brand, where the product is really exclusivity.
It seems the law of diminishing returns works when talking about increments, but not when you're talking about leaps. The problem comes in when one man's leap is another man's increment.
I have a hard time trying to understand a claim that says the $200k thing is more than twice as 'good' as the $100k thing. How do we come to that assessment? I suspect there is a strong tendency for the person who buys the $200k thing to say it is twice as good because he wants to: a) preserve the value of his purchase, and b) not look silly for paying that much. If we take out of the buyer's hands, how do we gauge value in a way that allows us to say that?
I also have a hard time believing that the newest latest most expensive thing necessarily is better than things from the past. I suspect if you are selling the idea that 'progress' is always in front of us (which is where TAS is), you will endorse that approach. I have not heard the M9 but I'm willing to bet there are speakers out of production that can compete with it.
I do get the idea of the luxury brand or the uber-luxury brand, where the product is really exclusivity.
Despite all the technology it would be hard to spend $20k on a bicycle. i saw a video where the carbon wheel folded in half during the sprint.
What sounds the best sounds the best. For that money you might at least want to see an exotic tweeter. When you get down to it, it is just cones in a box. Maybe the best cones. Maybe the best box. I don't know.
Dear Lee, I really do believe this is an important topic, at the very core of how high-end functions and is perceived by people. As someone with a (ridiculously small and innocent) stake in it, I'm whiling to have these awkward discussions because I think you are in a place of great responsibility within the industry.
- No one can possibly believe, once we reach these levels of cost, that something is twice as better if it costs double. Your 300k to 750k example is just as absurd as my 5M to 10M example. Either the cheaper comparison point is broken, or that simply doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because the goal is finite (absolute reproduction quality in this case) and if you keep doubling performance (a geometric progression of ratio 2) you are bound to find the goal really, really fast. Furthermore, you yourself in the video argue that it is difficult or impossible to quantify better, yet you seem very confident in quantifying it immediately after in order to advance your idea. It is the kind of contradiction that just raises all types of red flags in the minds of people that grew up with the internet: we all have Sherlock levels of marketing bs detectors in our heads. From the moment you say something like this, half your sub 40 audience is gone, the other half is just waiting to see how far this goes.
- Most of the details you mention after, to justify your argument, about specific models, brands and so on, do nothing more than cement the idea of half of the remaining audience that your reference points are simply too close to home. Neither is the M9 the most expensive loudspeaker system you can buy (by far), neither are the other brands you mention exclusive in the top of the segment. I would argue they sit squarely in the middle of the ultra high end, for a couple of reasons. You are left with a quarter of your audience by now.
- Then you come with a formulaic notion on how to get young people aboard the hifi and eventually high-end train, that invokes bundles and dealers. I know that is not a validated idea, and from all of the people around me that I help getting into hifi at different levels, you missed the mark by a lot.
You just lost your remaining audience and are left with the usual crowd, plus one or two guys that just wanted all the references for their asr and whatnot publication dismantling your stance (not hard to do) and imprinting their bad faith arguments on top, painting all of the industry in the same color (as is now the MO of the internet for everything).
Again, I'm all for high end. I'm good with ultra expensive and exclusive products, I don't think there is a ceiling to that and they indicate a mature and healthy added-value market in a post scarcity world. Furthermore I understand these are tools for companies to capitalize themselves and push/test the boundaries for their next generation of products. But there are ground rules in luxury that I believe you are not covering. You can't compare a Patek Philippe with an Omega and say it is X times better and X times more expensive. Neither Patek of Omega would want you to say that. Patek would be pissed because you just opened the door to every one simply observing that indeed their value proposal is weird compared to an Omega, and Omega would be pissed because you are comparing apples to oranges at the same time you are dissolving their carefully crafted and fragile market segmentation strategy. Furthermore, you just opened the floodgates to compare an Omega with a Swatch in the same terms, and continue all the way to the bottom of the barrel. Luxury insulates it self from these discussions, it's value sustains it self, requires no justification or comparison. If you want it this is what it costs, and you buy into the bracket you can afford or are willing to spend. If you want a cost/benefit analysis you're probably on the wrong neighborhood.
I'll leave at this, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss these things further and with a less onerous iteration time.
- No one can possibly believe, once we reach these levels of cost, that something is twice as better if it costs double. Your 300k to 750k example is just as absurd as my 5M to 10M example. Either the cheaper comparison point is broken, or that simply doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because the goal is finite (absolute reproduction quality in this case) and if you keep doubling performance (a geometric progression of ratio 2) you are bound to find the goal really, really fast. Furthermore, you yourself in the video argue that it is difficult or impossible to quantify better, yet you seem very confident in quantifying it immediately after in order to advance your idea. It is the kind of contradiction that just raises all types of red flags in the minds of people that grew up with the internet: we all have Sherlock levels of marketing bs detectors in our heads. From the moment you say something like this, half your sub 40 audience is gone, the other half is just waiting to see how far this goes.
- Most of the details you mention after, to justify your argument, about specific models, brands and so on, do nothing more than cement the idea of half of the remaining audience that your reference points are simply too close to home. Neither is the M9 the most expensive loudspeaker system you can buy (by far), neither are the other brands you mention exclusive in the top of the segment. I would argue they sit squarely in the middle of the ultra high end, for a couple of reasons. You are left with a quarter of your audience by now.
- Then you come with a formulaic notion on how to get young people aboard the hifi and eventually high-end train, that invokes bundles and dealers. I know that is not a validated idea, and from all of the people around me that I help getting into hifi at different levels, you missed the mark by a lot.
You just lost your remaining audience and are left with the usual crowd, plus one or two guys that just wanted all the references for their asr and whatnot publication dismantling your stance (not hard to do) and imprinting their bad faith arguments on top, painting all of the industry in the same color (as is now the MO of the internet for everything).
Again, I'm all for high end. I'm good with ultra expensive and exclusive products, I don't think there is a ceiling to that and they indicate a mature and healthy added-value market in a post scarcity world. Furthermore I understand these are tools for companies to capitalize themselves and push/test the boundaries for their next generation of products. But there are ground rules in luxury that I believe you are not covering. You can't compare a Patek Philippe with an Omega and say it is X times better and X times more expensive. Neither Patek of Omega would want you to say that. Patek would be pissed because you just opened the door to every one simply observing that indeed their value proposal is weird compared to an Omega, and Omega would be pissed because you are comparing apples to oranges at the same time you are dissolving their carefully crafted and fragile market segmentation strategy. Furthermore, you just opened the floodgates to compare an Omega with a Swatch in the same terms, and continue all the way to the bottom of the barrel. Luxury insulates it self from these discussions, it's value sustains it self, requires no justification or comparison. If you want it this is what it costs, and you buy into the bracket you can afford or are willing to spend. If you want a cost/benefit analysis you're probably on the wrong neighborhood.
I'll leave at this, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss these things further and with a less onerous iteration time.
I don't even think increments happen with price increases. The increase in value comes to a certain point after which it is just not there. Sometimes coloration and artificiality has to be added to justify change in sound and price increase. So one man's increment can be another man's excrement.
Agreed, good to see you passively take on the uber-brand owners, you-know-who will be here to debate this soon.
Just as an aside. Often technology decreases prices. When you create something new out of whole cloth, the simplest path is taken. Once the product is up and running. The designers began to take a look at it. The find short cuts, eliminate redundancies find cheaper materials that are just as effective.
Remember the huge battery and charger that was associated with cell phones. Now it essentially a throw away item you can pick up at the local convenience store.
I guess we call that "trickle down/"
I am suggesting in a couple of year Magico could make the M(9 for fa less. inflation notwithstanding.
Remember the huge battery and charger that was associated with cell phones. Now it essentially a throw away item you can pick up at the local convenience store.
I guess we call that "trickle down/"
I am suggesting in a couple of year Magico could make the M(9 for fa less. inflation notwithstanding.
I think the design is conventional in overall structure, ie. a box with drivers…but it does represent a true breakthrough in terms of design technology (Klippel), driver technology (honeycomb aluminum sandwich), cabinet (carbon fiber), etc.
As someone who recently got into tape, I may be more inclined these days to favor old technology done well.
Greg,
That certainly happens. I believe it may be far more likely that M-series driver technology trickles down into A-series loudspeakers which are far more affordable.
Tim,
Happy New Year!
These comments from me are based on my experiences listening to some really well setup reference systems. It almost has to be a subjective thing but most of writers would agree with me, even while still acknowledging that great values exist up and down the line. I do believe that the new technology in the M9 do propel it to the upper echelon of lifelike playback.
Ownership bias is a thing but the comments I have are based on listening to many reference systems and seeing that performance does not become incremental at any point on the price range available today.
Hi Chuck…interesting discussion point. I don’t know the answer to this. Probably a question for Alon.
This is what is happening in every loadcenter/panel powering your home and audio system. The aluminum and copper as well as steel can are reacting with each other. When you get rid of the aluminium, you become aware the noise you did not notice is gone. Its very audible as a veil/sheen /frosted glaze over the top of everything. Subtle, but definitely there and apparent when its gone.
Nice piece Lee. I agree on a few levels. Last summer I was at a Focal dealer. They had the entry level, mid level and top of the line speakers on display. I found the gap between entry and mid notable, but not extreme. I found the top of the line easily stood head and shoulders above the mid level. It surprised me. If I had the money, I would not hesitate at all. I would get the premium speaker. It's just better all around.
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I will reach out via PM. A few observations.
1. Subjective evaluation of this is, I would argue, the only way to go. Measurements only tell part of the story.
2. We at TAS have a much more detailed strategy for bringing on board a younger generation and we have discussed it on the forum before. It came out of a two year strategy review that Tom Martin and I did. It involves partly a new customer segmentation with a focus on personal audio and what we call “Metropolitan Systems” which is simply a more lifestyle friend system that is targeted at fans living in smaller apartments and other living space. It also involved a focus on the three major gateways into the hobby: personal audio, vinyl, and computer audio.
3. I shy away from the high end watch analogy simply because the Patek won’t tell better time than the Grand Seiko. In audio, we hear vast differences in sound quality performance as we move up the line. We see that in sources, electronics, speakers, noise reduction devices, and cables.
What would be considered an "exotic tweeter", and as such why would they work better in a speaker like the M9?
And a Ferrari is just four wheels and an engine.
Already happened, it's called the A5. It looks like the new S3 is also benefiting for the R&D done on the M9. Will see...
Exotic tweeter
Maybe he should invent something. That is what it means to push SOTA
Ferrari
I think Enzo Ferrari just turned over in his grave. Saying a Ferrari is just four wheels, and an engine is similar to saying Marilyn Monroe was just a woman.
Trice down
Trickle down is a continuing process. I hope to see more like the A5.
OP doesn't need to argue the 'law of diminishing returns', because the 'law of audio desire superstition and status veblens aquisitions' is much more powerful than the "law of diminishing returns". No amount of awakening can defeat it, and may as well roll with the exotic fun.
I just view it as extreme artistry in craft chasing lots of money sloshing around certain segments of world markets, and exotic craft isn't cheap.
Testimonials that somebody has heard an audio nirvana pinnacle associated with an expensive craft object are some of the most common and repetitive anthems in audio. If you are vested in marketing, that is what you do. The dream lives on.
Many audiophiles would be insulted and dismissive if your proposed something to them that was merely cheap and effective, but otherwise unimpressive in build, cost, or status.
"Take that insult out of my presence and stop saying it sound good!"
I just view it as extreme artistry in craft chasing lots of money sloshing around certain segments of world markets, and exotic craft isn't cheap.
Testimonials that somebody has heard an audio nirvana pinnacle associated with an expensive craft object are some of the most common and repetitive anthems in audio. If you are vested in marketing, that is what you do. The dream lives on.
Many audiophiles would be insulted and dismissive if your proposed something to them that was merely cheap and effective, but otherwise unimpressive in build, cost, or status.
"Take that insult out of my presence and stop saying it sound good!"
While almost everyone would agree that the enjoyment of something is predominantly a subjective rather than objective experience (fine dining and wines/liquor docet), pulling in some quantitative criteria can offer valuable integration.
someone used some motorsports examples, and I would re-visit them as the following:
If we removed the budget cap from F1 and, let’s say, we invested twice as much as what competitors do on car development, our car might be just 5% better performing. Yet that 5% could bring that car ahead of the competitors in most races and secure a world title. In that context, that increase in budget would massively pay off. The point, though, is that we introduced quantitative parameters (reliability, speed, acceleration, downforce and, most importantly, podiums) in our evaluation. But if it were only a matter of driving experience and exhilaration, well, only a limited number of drivers might be able to appreciate the difference and ponder whether the extra cost would b a worth expense.
in audio, certain nuances would have a different relevance among different users. So something that could be barely detectable to some might be the nirvana for others. Still, they could be nuances without which music might still be massively enjoyable. How much are those worth?
Let’s not forget another point that, legitimately, pops up in every uber hiend conversation: system and room optimization. The fact that a new component, way more expensive that the one that it replaces, needs the user to address several other points of the system and the room not to disappoint the buyer is a statement of how the LDR is real.
now, I have not listened to the M9 and most likely I could never listen to them. Hence, none of my comments are intended to denigrate your enthusiasm in describing your audio epiphany.
Similar threads
Members online
- nkjtbushwood
- Daverich4
- Bobvin
- F208Frank
- Petrat
- ADGold
- audiom3
- NigelB
- defride
- TooCool4
- drrsutliff
- kennyb123
- hesavary
- gds7368
- Alex G
- BCRich1960
- Walnut Horns
- Król_Artur
- Pietka08
- Dimfer
- bonzo75
- audiopip
- Argonaut
- WildPhydeaux
- WillBthr
- Tonari
- Anyoldears
- Emperyan
- Miki70
- trekpilot
- agencal
- debiol
- budburma
- five
- louiej
- tdx44
- fusion
- SlapEcho
- LarryK
- donsachs
- jadis
- itay123
- RSB
- jjhf1234
- Sarge
- Stbo
- No Regrets
- Azjya
- Pichler
- Channel1.0
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |