What is the value of "X".

[audioguy]

If the vertical axis is performance and the horizontal axis is price, what does it cost to reach that point where the dollars spent versus performance gained starts to become significantly reduced --- the point of diminishing returns (pardon my lousy charting skills).

While i recognize that there will be diverse opinions, I thought it might be interesting to see where this takes us. Let us assume as well that used equipment is OK.

Assume for this example that the system is to consist of a CD player, preamp, amp, 2 speakers and assorted interconnect and speaker wire. Also assume that acoustic treatment must also be included in the price.

 

[thedudeabides]

I recently started a thread of the same nature.

See "Diminishing returns / return on investment" below in "General Audio Discussions".

GG

 

[jazdoc]

The value of "X" approaches infinity....

"X" varies by individual taste and financial werewithal and therefore is uniquely individual. There is no correct answer for "X".

 

[puroagave]

The value of "X" approaches infinity....

"X" varies by individual taste and financial werewithal and therefore is uniquely individual. There is no correct answer for "X".

+1

 

[audioarcher]

The value of "X" approaches infinity....

"X" varies by individual taste and financial werewithal and therefore is uniquely individual. There is no correct answer for "X".

I guess it depends on the value of y and z then.

 

[esldude]

Well lets say you need good speaker bandwidth and loudness ability. I'll say 40 hz to 20khz. Not much musically below 40 hz. I'd say you can do this with pretty good quality for $1500 (new price). The CD player $125 (actually a bluray player that will also stream music). Power amp $700. Preamp $500 (which will actually be a pre-amp DAC). So a total of about $2825 new. I would think you can cut it in half with careful used purchasing at a minimum.

I think you will have something the non-audiophile will consider impressive and kick-ass. The audiophile would consider it good, not terrible, but hardly top of the line.

And as others have said, there is really no answer to your question. Due to each situation I know people who though impressed and pleased with such a system would consider $1400 so ridiculously priced for a stereo as to be beyond consideration. Much like I would consider a $500k system for music given the other priorities and facts of my particular life.

 

[edorr]

In my experience, the number is between $25-$50K for the system. Up until that amount you get pretty dramatic improvements in sound per $$ spend. After that differences are marginal and diminishing. I'm currently way over the X in total outlay, but if economic circumstances changed for me, I could happily go back to say a very musically satisfying $30K system.

 

[rockitman]

The value of "X" approaches infinity....

"X" varies by individual taste and financial werewithal and therefore is uniquely individual. There is no correct answer for "X".

xactly...my X is rather high.

 

[HedgeHog]

Asymptotic?

 

[esldude]

Asymptotic?

I think that would only be true if you swapped the X and Y axis. Otherwise, an extra dollar spent on a $100k system provides much more improvement than an extra dollar spent on a $1k system. Is that what you intended?

 

[JackD201]

I'd say 50k to 60k and the greater majority of serious audiophiles will be quite satisfied and not have many niggling doubts left. Near SOTA end to end provided by a high quality medium format dynamic or large planar, provided one main source, including treatments and maybe even DRC.

Going really big is a whole other story.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think the turning point of diminishing returns would be rather high for speakers, room treatments, and analog sources, unbelievably low for digital sources, amplification and wire. Remove jack's niggling doubts and all sighted bias from evaluation, and the point if diminishing returns would drop like a plumb bob on a string.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Our mileage certainly varies

 

[rblnr]

I think the turning point of diminishing returns would be rather high for speakers, room treatments, and analog sources, unbelievably low for digital sources, amplification and wire. Remove jack's niggling doubts and all sighted bias from evaluation, and the point if diminishing returns would drop like a plumb bob on a string.

Tim

I agree with this though I'd put amps between the rather high and unbelievably low categories.

If you spend 50 - 60k as suggested earlier, I think half if not more should go toward speakers.

 

[JackD201]

Definitely Bob.

 

[audioguy]

Interesting responses. Based on my experiences, $25k (MSRP) is a fair guess. In my room, the largest expense was speakers but very close behind was acoustic treatment. Also in my experience, a well treated room with reasonable speakers is a better listening experience than a poorly (or worse) treated room with very expensive speakers.

The good news is that for a lot less and used equipment, you can get close to SOTA sound.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Our mileage certainly varies

I'm sure. I could go into detail and put together a <$10k system, above which the returns would diminish very rapidly, but I'd be repeating myself and it would only serve to re-start conversations we've already had too many times.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

In theend it would boil down to different targets anyway.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In theend it would boil down to different targets anyway.

yeah, maybe. It would certainly boil down to different points of view.

 

[microstrip]

I'm sure. I could go into detail and put together a <$10k system, above which the returns would diminish very rapidly, but I'd be repeating myself and it would only serve to re-start conversations we've already had too many times.

Tim

Tim,

You are an expert. I could suggest a good system costing $10k, but not to the point that a $50k system would not sound a lot better.