Law of Diminishing Returns; where does it kick in?



I think that most of us who have been in this hobby for a while have experienced the "law of diminishing returns", the point at which spending a lot more money produces a little bit better sound or just tradeoffs.

I would like your opinions on where you believe this occurs in Speakers, Amps, CD players, and cabling.
ultrakaz
Mr. Bomarc is quite right in pointing out that this is based on a false premise. Mr. Classsicjazz proposes that up to approx. $78,000.00 MSRP, you are still getting value for each additional dollar spent: I don't think that the said law kicks in at that point, I think it has then reached the point were it has been kicked to death and trampled for good measure. I remember years ago going through the October issue of Audio magazine and fantasizing by building the greatest system on earth by adding to my dream list the most expensive component in every category. Harmless fun, I guess, but not the way to building a realistic hi fi system to live with. It seems to me that a good number of participants to this forum appear to think along such lines. Any attempt at drawing lines at which one should simply fold his hand and walk out will be met by the bouncy rhythm of audiophiles jumping up and down claiming that every last microgram of "improvement" justifies any increase in price. The strange thing here is that we are not dealing with percentage increases but with multiplying the price by factors of two, three or four times and yet there are still those who contend that the perceived added benefit is justified. With no objective guidelines on how each component should perform, there is no way to set a dollar amount at which the whole thing becomes abusive. If you do as cable manufacturers do and claim that the whole thing is a question of aesthetics or perception, then the sky is the limit. I have no wish of leaving the bang for the buck brigade, so my priorities and price points are pretty well established in my mind and they are a lot closer to Mr. Bomarc's. Happy holiday season, one and all.
I agree with Jonathan it really depends who you are and where you are in life, but here is how I 'limit' things:
Digital source-$10k
Preamp-15k
Amp-10k
speakers-25k
cables:
-speaker-3k
-Interconnects-2k/per pair
-Powercables-1.5k ea.
Room treatment-4k

Now all I have to do is find my rubber check to order all of this stuff! But that is the most I would like to spend on gear, I would rather concentrate on having loads more software with a system of the caliber, I am about half way to my limit, so in a few more years we'll be there! Just need more time, after all I have only been into this for 2.5 years. Cheers,
Tim
I think the "law of diminishing returns", the point at which spending a lot more money produces a little bit better sound and/or tradeoffs occurs for every stereo component. I have spoke to many audiophiles that have said,” I spent the extra money but the sound was not that much better. If I had it to do again I would have not spent the extra money”.
Just want to second those who said that there is no direct relationship between the quality of sound achieved and the cost to achieve it. In addition, those who think you have to spend 35K (used prices) or 80K (retail prices) to get a system which SOUNDS cost-no-object, all I can say is I'd like to borrow your checkbook. I think, with careful matching, you can build what would be called a Class A system for less than 20K. Cost of the components is not important at all in determining how they will sound. How each product complements the others sonically is the most important. Of course, you do have to find products of high quality, but these are rarely the most expensive. Now despite all that I have said, there is a law of diminishiing returns, but it doesn't have to do with money. It has to do with aggravation. When you get this "near perfect" system, there will still be something about it which is still bothering you. The question is will it be worth the aggravation to make a change to it in order to improve it only to find that the modification probably threw some other quality of the sound off.
When I'm broke, 2K for a system seems too much. When I've got a ton of cash, 150K seems only reasonable. I've been down the road on two middle level systems and I am struggling with my willingness to part with the better portion of a house in the country. So, here's my equation. For the new house in Pescara, send my ML335 & Dunlavy's over and just listen. I really like the way they sound.

For here at home, I'm thinking that if the Rockport hyperions are as outrageously good as they are touted and the Whamms aren't better, then I can live with 100K for speakers. Amps? 20K, Digital source? 6-10K. Wires??? 5K? 8K? Live without the pre... I only listen to cd's. It seems simple. I guess it's the 100K question. Right?

Bill E.