Apologies if this has been mentioned but room size is often the limiting factor on the type and size of speaker and thus speaker price. True, for some it’s not, but for the vast majority of audiophiles, there’s no point in pouring more and more money into speaker upgrades if the room isn’t good enough to reveal any potential sound improvements.
This thread is about "Diminishing Returns". That means the curve is not linear... it starts to plateau. Yes.... $50K or $100K or $400K speakers do sound better..... 2x or 4x better... Nope! The impovements are incremental... not monumental.. !!
Nice that you agree that $400K speakers sound better - it is what is relevant in this discussion.
Factors of scales in a subjective hobby are meaningless unless we agree on an weighting system, something that will never happen - we have very different preferences.
IMO if we want to discuss the "Diminishing Returns of speakers" we must accept that each speaker is used in its optimal room with the best matching system.
No i didnt .
The only commercial speakers i have owned were avalon / dynaudio back in 2003 / 04
I m sure i would find some quirks if i actually bought them and placed them in my appartement.
But my listeing experiences are mostly at dealershows which can be good , some dealers know how to set up systems .
Overall as a package i think my own XPE design has the edge over the kharma
But you can call me biased off course
I think this is where I politely differ with Bruce a bit. While the metrics may show smaller improvements in measurements, the recreation of the event is still making significant improvements. The Magico M9 is sounding significantly better than the M3, even if the measurements show slight improvements, for instance.
I think what's missing from this comment is the notion of limited resources. In other words with most goods manufactures must lower prices to entice the consumer to buy more of it or differentiate their product as a superior good. Generally our level of satisfaction will decrease with quantity consumed of a single good while we try to maximize our total utility over all other goods. Ultra high-end speakers, like the M9, do provide better SQ but at a price that goes beyond most consumers limited resources who are attempting to reach their highest level utility curve. Thus as I posted earlier whether a speaker has reached a "diminishing return" will be individually determine based on income and taste. To suggest that any given speaker at various increasing price points will not see diminished utility by SOME people would be incorrect.
I think what's missing from this comment is the notion of limited resources. In other words with most goods manufactures must lower prices to entice the consumer to buy more of it or differentiate their product as a superior good. Generally our level of satisfaction will decrease with quantity consumed of a single good while we try to maximize our total utility over all other goods. Ultra high-end speakers, like the M9, do provide better SQ but at a price that goes beyond most consumers limited resources who are attempting to reach their highest level utility curve. Thus as I posted earlier whether a speaker has reached a "diminishing return" will be individually determine based on income and taste. To suggest that any given speaker at various increasing price points will not see diminished utility by SOME people would be incorrect.
I certainly agree with you that budget is a genuine and important consideration. But I also feel we need to disregard that with respect to debating whether diminishing returns do or don't occur.
I have found that almost everyone has a different view on what value is. It is very personal to them.
Your comment gets into the personal utility of an item to a specific individual which is valid but should not be included on the debate merits of either side.
I certainly agree with you that budget is a genuine and important consideration. But I also feel we need to disregard that with respect to debating whether diminishing returns do or don't occur.
I have found that almost everyone has a different view on what value is. It is very personal to them.
Your comment gets into the personal utility of an item to a specific individual which is valid but should not be included on the debate merits of either side.
I think the size of the room plays greatly into the equation of considering diminishing returns. For large speakers like the Magico M9 to breathe you need a large room. On the other hand, a relatively smaller speaker, while perhaps sounding great in a not so large room, will have trouble filling a really large room with convincing sound. Finally, in a not large enough room a Magico M3 may even sound better than a Magico M9, which will only cause problems in such a room.
So if you are talking about much better sound with a large speaker, you also need to consider changing room size to make any of this happen properly. And yes, only in a large room you can achieve the best of what is possible in audio, at least on large-scale music. In not so large rooms, a large orchestra will always remain a miniature version of itself.
I think the size of the room plays greatly into the equation of considering diminishing returns. For large speakers like the Magico M9 to breathe you need a large room. On the other hand, a relatively smaller speaker, while perhaps sounding great in a not so large room, will have trouble filling a really large room with convincing sound. Finally, in a not large enough room a Magico M3 may even sound better than a Magico M9, which will only cause problems in such a room.
So if you are talking about much better sound with a large speaker, you also need to consider changing room size to make any of this happen properly. And yes, only in a large room you can achieve the best of what is possible in audio, at least on large-scale music. In not so large rooms, a large orchestra will always remain a miniature version of itself.
I think the problem here is using the term "law of diminishing returns" to describe what you felt about the M9. As someone mentioned in a prior post I think you are arguing for a linear price/performance curve. You are suggesting that it may be that speaker A at X dollars delivers Z SQ performance (if we could even measure this?) and that its possible Speaker B at 10(X) can deliver 10(Z). To make this assertion I think you have to precisely define how you measure Z- sound quality. Good luck
I think the problem here is using the term "law of diminishing returns" to describe what you felt about the M9. As someone mentioned in a prior post I think you are arguing for a linear price/performance curve. You are suggesting that it may be that speaker A at X dollars delivers Z SQ performance (if we could even measure this?) and that its possible Speaker B at 10(X) can deliver 10(Z). To make this assertion I think you have to precisely define how you measure Z- sound quality. Good luck
I certainly agree with you that budget is a genuine and important consideration. But I also feel we need to disregard that with respect to debating whether diminishing returns do or don't occur.
I have found that almost everyone has a different view on what value is. It is very personal to them.
Your comment gets into the personal utility of an item to a specific individual which is valid but should not be included on the debate merits of either side.
I can't say I follow you on excluding budget and personal utility from the discussion.
In your perfect world scenario (unlimited resources) who would be left to pronounce that yes there is or isn't a point of diminishing returns. And would we believe that person, perhaps they really don't know what music sounds like, lol.
Individual viewpoints are what makes the debate relevant and real.
I would concede that more resources ( finances, proper environment and appropriate system components ) would allow those individuals to sample speakers that many of us don't have access to which does further and enrich the discussion.
This reply tells me you have never heard world class systems. More expensive gear does sound better just as surely more expensive sports cars offer a better driving experience.
My Lamborghini Diablo was a nightmare to drive, limited visibility, narrow in the front wide in the back, changing lanes was a crapshoot ! And someone would always be in a position next to you to get a better look ! A better driving experience? Not so much !
I can't say I follow you on excluding budget and personal utility from the discussion.
In your perfect world scenario (unlimited resources) who would be left to pronounce that yes there is or isn't a point of diminishing returns. And would we believe that person, perhaps they really don't know what music sounds like, lol.
Individual viewpoints are what makes the debate relevant and real.
I would concede that more resources ( finances, proper environment and appropriate system components ) would allow those individuals to sample speakers that many of us don't have access to which does further and enrich the discussion.
My Lamborghini Diablo was a nightmare to drive, limited visibility, narrow in the front wide in the back, changing lanes was a crapshoot ! And someone would always be in a position next to you to get a better look ! A better driving experience? Not so much !
A business agreement sure why not , i have nothing against magazines , i just take it with a grain of salt .
I just dont read them anymore , to many hypes came and went by over the years
