Have I Hit The Point Of Diminishing Returns?

I drive a Toyota Camry, and I'm happy with it. Thus, there is nothing more to gain by buying a fancier, more sporty car.

This is infallible logic, as applied in this thread to audio systems.

Of course, this vehicular and audiophilic logic is driven (pun!) by one thing, a desire to save money. When the OP's question is viewed in this fashion it becomes immediately obvious that one's current satisfaction with the sound has no relation to potential for improvement of a rig, nor to the cost of the system as an absolute predictor of sound quality.

Yet, we have mass delusion in this hobby in that everyone thinks their rig is right at SOTA sound. No one wants to admit they are a long way from the upper echelon.

I'll go on record with this one, given how many CD Players and DACs I've used, old and new; the OP was told in a nutshell that what he's got is good enough. Ok, that's a 2001 era 108kHz 24 bit player - not bad! However, If he takes that advice, he'll neglect the fact that he could go out now, and for about $1-2K, and some at $300-$500, get a 32 bit/384kHz or better DAC that would blow the doors off of the MF player. Have heard it? No, and I don't need to, as my opinion is that having heard it against several 24/192 players/DACs holistically the technology is so far superior to the old that one can nearly universally be assured that the new DAC will vastly outperform, with of course consideration needing to be given to the tonality of the particular DAC as it's integrated into the rig.

Oh, my, that's a real budget buster, an example of what would likely be less than what he spent on the MF player, and a boatload of improvement!

And that is but one example of the types of improvements - enormous improvements - he could have had. :(

Now, if the OP's left the building, taking along the smug assurance that he needs never look again for something better, he'll miss out on it all. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Yeah, he's got his "Camry" and there's really nothing better in terms of performance out there. :(

Douglas_schroeder,

You stated "Yet, we have mass delusion in this hobby in that everyone thinks their rig is right at SOTA sound. No one wants to admit they are a long way from the upper echelon." Your statement is a slight exaggeration. Yet there is a lot of truth in it. At each level it is difficult to imagine things sounding any better. This is normal. Yet there are always improvements that are possible within budget constraints -- if we dare to push the envelope a bit.

Last year I replaced Eggleston Andra II, bought new retail for $21,000 with TAD Evolution One also bought new retail for $30,000. After a year of ownership, I concluded there's NO diminishing returns. My subjective algorithm is, ZERO buyer remorse, BEST the Andra in every way ... NO contest!, SQ still surprises me every time I play music and one of the best and most satisfying audio purchases ever.

TAD is not 1.5X superior than Andra but much much much ... higher IMO. Microjack, ... what's your algorithm to computing diminishing returns? I want a definitive number.

Knghifi, I know another Audiogon member who sold his Andra II's for speakers that were less than half the price of the Andra II's, but much better sounding in his opinion. Spending more money can get you better sound quality, spending less money can get you better sound quality. So what does it all mean?

So what does it all mean?

Hobbies such as Audio, Automobiles ... where results cannot be measured or quanified, law of diminshing returns or increasing returns don't apply. Results are all SUBJECTIVE ... SQ NOT a function of price.

Now if you have a farm growing crop where results can be MEASURED. You hit law of dimishing return when it doesn't increase the crop size by adding more fertilizer.

My .02