When does the law diminishing returns kick in?

I have recently developed a very different answer to this topic than I had previously. While it is generally true that one has to spend much more to get a smaller return in sound quality, there are 2 factors I believe that mitigate this phenomenon somewhat.

First is that computer design and materials science has created whole new categories of products or products parts that may in fact perform better than more expensive but more traditional products.

Second, and more relevant is that the much more expensive (and better performing) product has a setup and tweakability factor that the lesser product may not have. For example, you go out and buy a speaker that is twice as expensive as your current speaker. Perhaps it only performs 30% better than the previous speaker. We have the classic model of diminishing returns.

Now let's say on that more revealing, more accurate speaker, you put a better set of cables, or roll in some NOS tubes, tweak speaker position, etc. You are going to hear more of the benefit of those changes, than with the older less revealing speaker.

So yes, initially you only got a 30% improvement for a 100% increase in cost. However, over time, if other areas are improved upon (like any decent obsessed audiophile most likely will) those small improvements will pay larger dividends than with the older speaker.

That 3% increase in sound quality you got from that cable upgrade last year is now a 5% increase. And on down the line until all the small increases (now more audible) add up to significant benefits on top of the new component's qualities, making better use of the other components in the system for the one upgrade. I recently had this experience upgrading to the TAD CR1 speakers (disclaimer: which I use for audio work and sell) I wasn't getting the full potential of the great tube electronics I have, until having a transducer in the system that could faithfully reproduce the delicate signals being provided to them.

So, in this instance, a very expensive upgrade truly allowed me to first hear how significant some of the tweaks done previously were.

It may not be a linear relationship between money spent and sound quality, but with optimization and good choices of equipment and accessories every dollar spent wisely will be heard.

So the new interpretation of the law is as follows - there is no law of diminishing returns.

The further I go, the more I separate the cost equation from the more interesting subject of how we measure sound quality. A certain expenditure buys a high quality system. Above that price point, a relatively small and sometimes even inexpensive change can make for a large perceived improvement. How can this be? Well, the ear quickly assimilates all prior improvements into a roll of the base line. The road ahead is mapped out with increasing clarity. At some point the perception of progress shifts to Zeno's paradox-- each step forward is logged as a percentage of the distance uncovered, not behind. Approaching goal the distances are very small yet the preception of progress is heightened. Thus if your system is 90% there, getting to 95% sounds like a 50% improvement. Looking at it any other way fails to explain the audiophile's basic psychology.

I'd say it kicks in as soon as your girlfriend becomes your wife.

'Looking at it any other way fails to explain the audiophile's basic psychology.'

AMEN!