The law of diminshing returns?

Diminishing returns is not about the absolute level of money you spend on your system, but whether the last dollar you spent gives you the same increase in sound quality/listening satisfaction as the first dollar you spend.  Typically going from a $1k system to a $10k system is a greater increase in fidelity than going from a $90k system to a $99k system.  I think this observation applies regardless of your audio goals and income level.

If you want the best you have to tackle that last .000001% of performance.  Plus it has to look the part. 

if you want the best, it is not enough to buy costlier  gear pieces, you must understand for example  what this % of improvement is about, acoustically speaking, what may be the trade-off cost, etc...

Timbre naturalness is not  immersiveness, which are not  sound source width etc ...

if you dont understand how to work with acoustics conceptual parameters, paying for more costlier gear is throwing off money in a blind obsession..

The diminishing returns principle is not merely about the gear investment but also about your lack of acoustical understanding investment...

The gear design engineering may improve but your own understanding must improve also  because you must learn how to use the gear if you want a positive return  from investment ...

The principle  of "diminishing returns" from gear design  limitations  and potentials is the reciprocal of your "increasing acoustical return" learning abilities...

If you want the best you have to tackle that last .000001% of performance.  Plus it has to look the part.

@mapman +1

@onhwy61 

"Typically going from a $1k system to a $10k system is a greater increase in fidelity than going from a $90k system to a $99k system."

I am unconvinced by this statement. What's your evidence in support of it? Has anyone ever attempted this comparison in practice? How could they objectively determine the increase in fidelity for each case? Surely, it would just be a matter of subjective opinion.