Law of Accelerated Returns

I just posted in the ONTI Cat8 cable thread about what 2 ethernet cables for a total of 95$ did for my system.

Looking at the nice chart @lanx0003 created, my observation is that inexpensive (or not so inexpensive) upgrades take that Diminishing flatter part of the curve and lift it up again.  

I can’t say for sure, but I imagine these cat 8 cables wouldn’t have made such an audible improvement in the lesser priced system.

That being said, I do believe I’d have to spend a hell of a lot more money to better my BHK300 amps (with NOS tubes) but that’s because they’re sold by a more mass market company with simple casework shared among other components. 

I have a pretty reasonable system and I have in-depth familiarity with a variety of systems that are more expensive than mine. The two biggest differences I've encountered relate to system setup and the room. On the basis of my listening, a very expensive system, properly set up in a very good room, can better my own system by quite a substantial margin. The particular differences are resolution, scale, soundstaging and dynamics. If I had carte blanche (which unfortunately I don't as it would mean moving house, I would change my room before I'd change any other component in my system.

Great post thanks...

I will only add a correction: it is easy to control soundstage with acoustic and also imaging with a VERY LOW COST SYSTEM, like mine 500 bucks...

The only thing added by a costlier one will be dynamic and resolution mainly...

I listened to some high price system and they were like a tempesting dynamic under a microscope...

I prefer to relax with music than to see through a microscope...

My bass and dynamic are good anyway and i feel it with my chest sometimes and i dont need nor want more resolution...

Acoustic is the key of audio....Timbre naturalness of voices and instruments perception and control  is the key of acoustic not  resolution by itself nor dynamic save if they are seriously lacking for sure...

I have a pretty reasonable system and I have in-depth familiarity with a variety of systems that are more expensive than mine. The two biggest differences I’ve encountered relate to system setup and the room. On the basis of my listening, a very expensive system, properly set up in a very good room, can better my own system by quite a substantial margin. The particular differences are resolution, scale, soundstaging and dynamics. If I had carte blanche (which unfortunately I don’t as it would mean moving house, I would change my room before I’d change any other component in my system.

This is the most ridiculous discussion/theory I've seen in a long time. The law of diminishing returns is a proven theory of economics time and time again. Anyone who thinks an upgrade from a $5K amp to a $10K amp improves SQ LESS than an upgrade from a $50K amp to a $55K amp is nuts. Maybe it works from a % spent upgrade standpoint, but I even would question that. And if it is breakeven, it still is not accelerating. The graph submitted above is on the money, but of course there are different inflection points.

I think it is great to experience all stereo possibilities, especially within the specially designed rooms, and if you want to spend the $$ to enjoy them, but please do not try to cost justify them as being of incremental SQ improvements. Value on the other hand, is in the eye of the consumer. If someone is willing to pay double for a very small improvement, then he/she sees the value, and more power to them. Some see the value in how it looks.

Some see it as a luxury item like a Rolex, but I would think most Rolex owners think of them as investments that go up in value whereas stereo equipment rarely does, and I would hope nobody goes into the hobby trying to make money (unless they are a dealer) when buying equipment.

The graph above is linear and is superficial...

Because it does not account for the many important factors at play...

I dont know why i cannot put my own graph here...

Anyway...