Law of Accelerated Returns

Harley’s example is ridiculous! Going from $1000 to $2000 speaker is a 100% increase. Going from $100,000 to $101,000 is only a 1 % increase. Of course the difference / improvement should be much greater with the former. 
 

Everything has diminishing returns, audio equipment, cars, bicycles etc. You can get a pretty well performing Mid size Sedan like the top tier V-6 Honda Accord or  Toyota Camry for about $3500 & they get you maybe 80-85% of what a nice Mercedes’ or BMW sedan which costs twice that. That said, the Japanese cars will likely be much more reliable long term. High performance anything costs a lot 

This is an interesting discussion, mainly because it so well illustrates the essence of Audiogon as a forum. We have:

• Someone stating an observation @ghdprentice 
• Many contributors adding valid points to the discussion @tablejockey @onhwy61 @mulveling 
• Others who mix fact and opinions in a way that does not add to the discussion @mijostyn ("An Apple watch is more accurate [...] You can see Rolex watch wearers a mile away. Their left arm is two inches longer."). To me, as a watch collector, that attitude is akin to saying "cables make no difference". Try wearing a Rolex or swapping cables before making a generalisation.  
• Then there are those that have found their personal equilibrium @mapman (and myself) and have realised that there will always be someone with a faster car, a bigger house, a more expensive (not necessarily "better") hifi system/watch/boat/airplane/etc. What is best for me will not be best for you. You may not like the way my system sounds but that's not what's important. What is important is that it sounds good to me, within my spatial, financial, and "sound taste" constraints. @emailists is on the right track: let's experiment and see whether we can actually get some significant improvements into our audio systems without breaking the bank. 
• @jerryg123 nails it: tolerance goes a long way. "Enjoy what you have and envy is not worn well. [...] it is about the music." Yes, we have posers everywhere - on the race track, at work, even on forums... so be it. They just haven't found their equilibrium yet. 

To bring this discussion full circle: let's not forget that the audiophile media and journalists make their living from advertising. Of course they will tout the latest and greatest "innovation". My ears tell me that the progress made with SOTA high end systems over the past 30 years is not insignificant. However, the cost associated with that progress takes me to a point on the curve of Accelerated/Diminishing Returns where I look at the $s and just ask, "Seriously?"

Your Mileage (and Bank Balance) May Vary.

@torquerulesok , that is an excuse for not being an audiophile. It is not all about who has the largest member. It is about audio performance and nothing else. People like you are music lovers but not audiophiles. This is not meant to be a derogatory comment. Being so certainly makes for a more peaceful existence.   

Rolex watches are all about demonstrating your superiority. As a watch collector you know there are much nicer watches than Rolex, Patek Philippe, Blancpain and Jaquet Droz come to mind. Watches can be extraordinarily beautiful devices, Rolex's are not. ( that, of coarse is an opinion.)

Trying to tune your system with cables is at best a multiplication of errors and at worst a frightful waste of money.

It is all relative. To us regular folks a $250K amplifier is nuts but, to a billionaire it is chump change. To them buying a Parasound would be equivalent to a 911 fan buying a Toyota Corolla. Both get you from A to B and the Toyota is much more reliable. Rich people who want to be really cool buy a Prius. It use to be Volovo drivers that were always getting in your way. That role has been taken over by the Prius and Honda CRV. Why is it that these people are never in a hurry? 

And when someone point to a better understanding of the law of diminishing return and this illusory " accelerating return perspective" , calling the acoustic method the only optimizing KEY road to enjoy the gear you have or toward which you want to upgrade what did you call him?

Acoustic optimization of speakers/room are more than an "obsevation" is experimental science in your room...

I dont "mix fact and opinion here" ask any acoustician: i correlate fact and measures to subjective perceptive experience in a systematic way...

and like mapman i have found my personal equilibrium but at the end of a time consuming process of listening experiments at NO COST though...

Yes "tolerance goes a long way " toward people themselves not toward consumers brand obsession, or upgrading consumerism coupled to acoustic ignorance...

Am i nut ?

Perhaps.... Anyway acoustic is not preposterous at all...

And remember that in a dedicated small room, acoustic treatment and control may cost NOTHING at all, but it will not be esthetical, at least not for a very poor craftsman like me.... 😁😊

Because i am the only one who say that INPORTANT FACT i repeat myself here to the benefit of newcomers who will read everywhere the illusive consumerism appeal to upgrade the gear EVEN BEFORE knowing his working potential in their room....Or to stoically stay with their frustration and unsatidfaction IF they dont had the money to upgrade...

With acoustic no one need to upgrade if his gear is already only good....We need to LEARN how to listen though to learn acoustic and create our own sonic heaven.... Peanuts cost is possible but not in a living room sorry...

This is an interesting discussion, mainly because it so well illustrates the essence of Audiogon as a forum. We have:

• Someone stating an observation @ghdprentice
• Many contributors adding valid points to the discussion @tablejockey @onhwy61 @mulveling
• Others who mix fact and opinions in a way that does not add to the discussion @mijostyn ("An Apple watch is more accurate [...] You can see Rolex watch wearers a mile away. Their left arm is two inches longer."). To me, as a watch collector, that attitude is akin to saying "cables make no difference". Try wearing a Rolex or swapping cables before making a generalisation.
• Then there are those that have found their personal equilibrium @mapman (and myself) and have realised that there will always be someone with a faster car, a bigger house, a more expensive (not necessarily "better") hifi system/watch/boat/airplane/etc. What is best for me will not be best for you. You may not like the way my system sounds but that’s not what’s important. What is important is that it sounds good to me, within my spatial, financial, and "sound taste" constraints. @emailists is on the right track: let’s experiment and see whether we can actually get some significant improvements into our audio systems without breaking the bank.
• @jerryg123 nails it: tolerance goes a long way. "Enjoy what you have and envy is not worn well. [...] it is about the music." Yes, we have posers everywhere - on the race track, at work, even on forums... so be it. They just haven’t found their equilibrium yet.

To bring this discussion full circle: let’s not forget that the audiophile media and journalists make their living from advertising. Of course they will tout the latest and greatest "innovation". My ears tell me that the progress made with SOTA high end systems over the past 30 years is not insignificant. However, the cost associated with that progress takes me to a point on the curve of Accelerated/Diminishing Returns where I look at the $s and just ask, "Seriously?"

@asctim And what I said about changing just one thing at a time in audio being tricky is indeed illustrated by your experience.

The two amps are quite different in many of their characteristics. I know Topping are very committed to being "transparent" - adding nothing to the source material. Like it sounded in the studio. This is actually something that most people probably haven’t experienced first hand.

Other amps (especially tube amps) add 2nd and 3rd harmonics, and I would say that the Hafler amp probably does too from your description. There is much more involved, but that is sufficient for now. There has been research into why the brain interprets these aspects as pleasing.

So, a bit like comparing a photo of something (perhaps one by Ansel Adams?) with a painting of the same subject.

What is important about all this in the context of the thread is that this comparison cannot be captured at all well by the concept of marginal return, because the technologies are rather different.

What must be compared are at least two recent releases by the same manufacturer, just at different price points. One may cost twice as much as the other one, and the sonic difference rather slight. If any. One that only a reviewer may be able to discern.  

But I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think that anything like that (demonstrating declining marginal return) is just giving some warped credibility to whatever it is that Mr Harley was on about, and I no longer want to do that - he made a claim so its his responsibility to prove it.

This is a dismissal of the nature that is known as Hitchen’s Razor.