"The Law of Diminishing Returns"???

My experience has been somewhat different. I should mention that I believe there are exactly 6 ingredients that make for outstanding sonics:

1. A certain caliber of equipment including a full range pair of speakers. Certainly need not be expensive.

2. Properly addressing the electrical AC via dedicated circuits/lines, cryo-treating, grounding (or not), etc., and line-conditioning.

3. Properly addressing (at the components, rack, and speakers) the air-borne and floor-borne vibrations captured by the components as well as any internally generated resonance.

4. Speaker placement.

5. Finding the right amplifier.

6. Selection of ics and speaker cables.

And yes, I realize that room acoustics is not in this list as I believe speaker placement can cover a multitude of room deficiencies.

Now with that said, I believe that each of these categories when properly addressed (whatever that means), can make nearly every subsequent and appropriate tweak or upgrade potentially produce some fantastic improvements.

I know others talk about diminishing returns, but I think it's just the opposite. Each of the categories I list above represents potentially serious to very serious performance bottlenecks in any system.

Eliminating just one of those 6 bottlenecks often times can make a night and day difference. Eliminate most/all of those bottlenecks, and you've got a musical presentation that is perhaps unlike most any other system (regardless of MSRP) so long as that other system falls short in one or more of the above categories.

At the very least, without properly addressing each of these categories, it is perhaps impossible to realize a system's full potential no matter how much one spends on upgrades.

I guess what I'm trying to say, Rpatrick, is that if per chance your friend(s) had a well-heeled system that properly addressed all (or improperly addressed most/all) of these 6 categories, and one good component is subsequently swapped out for another, then what your friends have been telling you is probably fairly accurate.

-IMO

My take is a bit different. First, I think the most important thing si to get the best possible source - and an ic which allows it to transmit its sonic might to the amplifier. Second, is the right loudspeaker, whose sonic signature and size fits best to your music taste and the room you plan to put into. Than come the amplifier, which is able to drive that speaker and a right speaker cable. Finally you tune the system with right ac treatment gears, power cables, isolation devices, and acoustic treatments. If you reach a kind of synergy whic you like, when all is at place - comes the issue whether any change would really represent a diminishing return. But than, when you put everything in place, you thought you have found the sonic nirvana at home - comes an outstanding gear which you just take home for audition - and that shows the weaknesses of your system . and you begin again the system upgrade process until you dont reach the new synergy - at a higher level. And than ...

Some musing about this thread...

An interesting article (The Tyranny of Choice) in the latest Scientific American Mind brings a different twist to this question. The author, Barry Schwartz, suggests that there are two categories of people with respect to their perception of their options. "Maximizers" are those who those who always aim to make the best possible choice. "Satisficers" are those who aim for "good enough." Maximizers tend to make the most product comparisons - both before and after product purchase, and they take longer to purchase. When satisficers find an item that meets their standards, they stop looking. Maximizers exert enormous effort to checking out consumer information resources and trying new products. They also spend more time comparing their purchases with others. Schwartz indicated that his research indicated that maximizers tend to be less satisfied and less happy.

To make a guess, Elizabeth would likely fall within the category of "satisficers" - note her last comment - ‘I am satisfied." It would also be safe to guess that she is very happy with her system, but may occasionally change a piece if it breaks. Those of us who are "maximizers" are never truly happy (with our system). As Schwartz's article suggests, too much choice may lead to unhappiness, and there is plenty of choice in the hi fi world. This choice is expanded by the Internet and forums such as Audiogon.

The industry and our own beliefs lead to high expectations about stereo equipment. This, I believe, leads us to pay the high prices in our search for the holy grail. One ad on Audiogon states, "Go on, want the best, make me an offer before someone else beats you too it." Many manufactures make claims about being the "best", and I've had many salespersons extol the virtues of their product and chastise other products. On manufacture states on their web site: "The XXXX is one of the best five amplifiers in the world regardless of price." This ad is designed to kick maximizers in the teeth. Schwartz suggests, "High expectations almost always guarantee that experiences will fall short, especially for maximizers...", and there seems to be an expectation that spending more will meet our expectations. However, in a world of diminishing returns and stereo equipment that, by it's nature, falls less than perfect, will anything actually satisfy a "maximizer". As many on this thread have commented, increasing money spent for equipment brings diminishing return, and the quest for the best might also equate with diminishing happiness.

Boas said, "...spending more does not necessarily lead to being more gratified with the sound, despite the fact that as others have mentioned you will notice significant differences in higher priced components. Rather, it's about the synergy of the components, and even more important, about the components' synergy with you." I believe that Boas2 is right on with his statement. Synergy means... "the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects." This suggests that the listener must also be willing and able to be satisfied, which is a difficult thing to do for those obsessed with perfection, as Ajhau's contribution to this thread would attest. I believe that examining and quelling our own desires and expectations about stereo equipment is the only way to avoid the trap of diminishing returns and diminishing happiness. Perhaps, we need to consider tweeking ourselves as part of the changes to our system to develop better synergy.

JohnRob,

I think you have nailed it.

Now, how do we tweak ourselves?

I know wine helps, but I am trying to avoid becoming an audio alcoholic!

Anyway, I am very intrested in reading the entire article.
Can you let me know wich issue it is in?

Thanks!

Loudandclear, you ask, how do we tweak ourselves? you smoke some good "WEED"........Richard