Law of Diminishing Returns; where does it kick in?

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.

In addition to personal preference, I believe that it depends on what music you are trying to reproduce. We hear live classical music once or twice a week. We have Opera, Symphony and chamber music series tickets in the center section all around row 12. The major thing that got me into high end audio was trying to reproduce an acceptable substitute for the live experience. We have friends that listen with us to our system and also sit with us at the live concerts. They know nothing about equipment. Over the last two years we have inflicted many “test” pieces of high end equipment on our friends. Based on the “acceptable substitute” for live Mahler, Wagner Stravinsky, and Bruckner, diminishing returns and the onset of personal preference sets in around the estimates of Tireguy and Classic Jazz