Law of diminishing returns

corkdood

New member
Dec 15, 2007
6
0
0
Visit site
Is there a price point beyond which the average listener cannot detect much improvement in audio quality. i.e can he or she notice much diffeence between say a £500 amplifier and a £5000 model?

What is that point and what amplifier, cd player and speakers do you think represent that point? In other words which offer the best bang for the buck without venturing into purist territory for marginal degrees of improvement.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
I think this is quite a personal thing. In truth I would suggest that the law of diminishing returns sets in quite early these days and that the quality of components such as the NAD equipment I have and some of the Marantz gear around, is quite difficult to improve on without spending substantially more. The quality difference between this level and the entry level Arcam/Naim/MF prices is, IMO, much smaller than the difference between the best integrated systems from the likes of Onkyo and Denon, and well matched budget seperates. However, that difference IS there and IS perceivable and its worth is entirely dependent on the priorities of the listener/buyer.

The same applies with TVs. Some customers come into our store and can't justify the price difference between a KDL-32S3000 and a KDL32D3000. Their priorities are a good all-round TV and whilst they can see a big in improvement in the S over the (considerably weaker) entry level U and P models, they find a comfortable level in the mid-range and don't see the need for paying to move up to the D. Others see a much bigger difference between them and, with different priorities such as gaming or watching sports and action films, they see the price difference as being small compared with the increase in performance offered by the D series sets. A similar situation occurs between the W3000 and X3000/3500 ranges at the top end.
 

Thaiman

New member
Jul 28, 2007
360
2
0
Visit site
[quote user="corkdood"]can he or she notice much diffeence between say a £500 amplifier and a £5000
model?[/quote]

Like a day and night! I just did it to show my brother's friend ealier today and he was speachless:)

his Cyrus 8vs amp against my amps (see below) and let say it didn't need to get pass first few notes!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Talk about opening a can of worms, haha. Basically this is asking the question "Is hifi worth it"? Which is an easy question to ask but not the easiest question to answer, because there are a lot of reasons. Well, I mean you can answer it very briefly indeed: "Yes, it is worth it". But that isn't the most illuminating response. I think you can tell the impact of the higher-end gear, but to sweeten the pill, perhaps the most useful information is that it is possible to secure a higher-end performance for a mid-price expenditure, IF you are careful and canny about it.

One reason higher performance has a tendency to cost more, is because the process of getting sound from the source to our ears is a complex one, with several steps, each wih several factors affecting the outcome. Whenever you have a situation where many factors affect the outcome, it's pretty inevitable that some can be dealt with cheaply, and some will require expense. Cumulatively the effect of the factors that require expense will up the price considerably, and as the price rises, the proportion of people willing to pay it falls, so economies of scale can't be leveraged and the price winds up still higher as a result. To add to the misery, some improvements not only necessitate greater expense in themselves, but force knock-on expenses upon you. Want the benefits of electrostatic speakers? You're going to need to fork out for the more poweful amp needed to drive them.

The laws of physics necessitate greater expense in some areas to get a better sound. Want more responsive speaker drivers? Fundamentally, you will therefore want drivers of less mass. Making something lighter while retaining sufficient strength is an engineering challenge requiring new, more exotic materials liable to result in more expense. Want the bass to be reproduced better? You are liable to need a bigger and more expensive cabinet. External vibrations can affect the sound? Splash out on more isolation.

This expense is ramped up still more by the problem that we are condemned to use sources that are some way from perfection. You wouldn't hold up the CD as an example of a source optimised to make the process of achieving fidelity a cheap and easy one. The source we are given is vulnerable to jitter? Now we need to spend more to ameliorate the effects. 16-bit resolution a bit course, especially at low volumes, and lacking in dynamic range? Maybe we'll add some dithering or interpolate to 24-bit and pay more for the pleasure.

Issues like jitter and dithering were first taken most seriously in the world of music production, which often natually pioneers many of the improvements we find in modern hifi, though the process has worked the other way too. Recording engineers and producers know the value of making those cumulative improvements in the sound, the little things which add up to a lot, and will go to considerable effort and expense to secure them. And you can hear the effect for yourself, by simply comparing early recordings with later ones and noting the breathtaking advances made along the way as a result. Anyone can hear them.

Actually, people are affected more by sound quality than they realise, but much of the time the impact is attributed to the music itself rather than the reproducing equipment. If something sounds better, many are liable to think the MUSIC is better, rather than the gear. Only extended listening to different material will show them the truth. And psychoacoustic effects can complicate things: something a bit louder can sound subjectively "better" if you don't do a proper comparison. Recording professionals know this and exploit the effects in their productions, and so indeed can some hifi demonstrators. Also, many musical sources don't exploit the full capabilities of high-end gear. Got a system with greater dynamic range? You're not going to hear the benefits so much if you only listen to heavily compressed pop.

And to cap it all, although the term "hifi" implies a request for fidelity, a faithful reproduction of the original, often that isn't really what people want. If they did, they'd all buy studio monitoring equipment: flat, neutral, and ruthlessly revealing. What they REALLY want, a lot of the time, is something which ENHANCES the sound in a way they find engaging, whether it's enhanced warmth, or exaggerated detail. If the game is now to enhance the original, where does that process - and the associated expense - end?

Many people don't invest in high-end gear purely to "improve" the sound anyway, but because they also find the exploration of different design philosophies interesting (especially if they are involved in making gear themselves), and to get different systems suited to different purposes. But if you want a way out of the madness, set yourself the goal of trying to achieve higher-end performance on a mid-priced budget. It can be done...
 

Anton90125

New member
Sep 1, 2007
18
0
0
Visit site
Its more complicated then simply a law of diminishing returns imo. Not only do you get more resolution but there is also a difference to the character of the sound.

If you compare the best valve amp money can buy with its transistor equivalent you will get a different character. If you compare a single ended valve set up to a push/pull you get a different sound. Who is to say which is the best? How do you judge your return for a given investment when everyone sees a different return?
 

corkdood

New member
Dec 15, 2007
6
0
0
Visit site
I don't think I meant to ask 'is hifi worth it?'although it may have been interpreted that way. I know many of you have invested a lot of money into your systems and you clearly can tell the difference. I suppose I'm looking for a recommended system without remortgaging the house. Thanks for your comments so far. Everyone has their favourites I suppose which is influenced by their own taste as much as the range of equipment that they have listened to.

Keep the thoughts coming!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, you gave us TWO questions, one of which asked whether it was worth splashing out on high-end gear, and one which asked what things to get that WOULD be worth it. I addressed the first question, and left the second, partly because the first was so involved - I didn't even list all the reasons - and partly because there seemed to be little point going further unless you were convinced.

But I did leave it with the idea that while higher-end gear did give notable benefits, one might secure these benefits without splashing out all THAT much cash. Some tips on doing that now follow...

1) Get to know the high-end gear. Then you can work out which things are good value examples... where you can get great performance for a couple of grand, rather than ten grand. An example often-cited are the Gallo Reference 3 speakers, though there are numerous other examples of things that have performance rivalling much more expensive systems.

2) Then you can leverage the fact that high-end gear are very much luxury items and luxuries tend to be more frequently or heavily discounted. So, you can identify your targets and just wait a bit. Or, you can often get good discounts if you establish a good relationship with a shop.

3) Alternatively, you can secure this performance more cheaply another way: compromise. For example, instead of buying the Gallo Reference Threes, you could buy a pair of the Dues with the same ceramic tweeter and add their sub.

4) Note that often, big advances in hifi tend to come with new technologies. The ceramic tweeter is a bit special, and another example was electrostatics. Some technologies, like electrostatics, tend to have fundamental advantages over others (in this case, low driver mass, for example), so these are worth going for, IF you can get them cheap enough. But you can perform the same trick with electrostatics, buying cheaper and smaller panels, augmented by a sub.

5) Another way to go about it is integration. Quite often, this can result in compromise, but done right it can actually enhance performance at the same time as reducing cost. One example is active speakers: you generally both save money AND secure enhanced quality if the amps are matched perfectly to the speakers. The problem with active speakers is that you would normally need a pre-amp, but there are some solutions which get around this problem.

One example is the AVI ADM9s. Good speakers with a studio-monitor heritage, well-matched amps with lots of headroom, AND a DAC thrown in: just plug in your computer via USB. The icing on the cake is that there is also a line-in with a volume control, so you can also plug in something like a turntable with a phono stage. And all that for under a grand.

Another way of doing it is the Quad 99CDP-2 CD player coupled with their 11L2 active speakers. The cool thing about the Quad is that it has an upsampling DAC which can be used with other digital inputs, AND it has a volume control available for these inputs, so in effect it's a digital pre-amp. The combination is 1500 quid or so... in effect you're paying 500 each for CD/amp/speakers but the system punches well above its weight.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="corkdood"]Is there a price point beyond which the average listener cannot detect much improvement in audio quality. i.e can he or she notice much diffeence between say a £500 amplifier and a £5000 model?[/quote]

Depends on the pair of ears. Some people can hear differences between a 5000 pound and a 10000 pound system others cannot tell difference between a 1000 and 2000 pound system, whereas the difference in the later case is more. For most people I guess that boundary would be GBP 1000.

[quote user="corkdood"]What is that point and what amplifier, cd player and speakers do you think represent that point? In other words which offer the best bang for the buck without venturing into purist territory for marginal degrees of improvement.[/quote]

Now this is one question not to ask. Under a grand you may have 10 combinations and each will have many admirers.
I suppose you are attempting to start a new setup or stabilize your existing one while trying to achieve the best quality without "wasting money" on something without sufficient returns. In that case, I'd suggest fill your pockets with cash (1000-1500 would do) and head to a reputed dealer. Tell them your budget and ask them what they can suggest. Then come back here with your list. We would be in a much better position to answer.
 

corkdood

New member
Dec 15, 2007
6
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Helisphon for your detailed reply and interesting recommendations. The integration idea sounds like an interesting concept. The AVI ADM9s seem like a good indication of the way things will head in the future of hifi.

I think all in all I will take my time and do some research - read the various magazines to a feel for whats good and then when I'm more informed demo some gear.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think that was exactly the answer we were all trying to say Helispon. A remarkable answer that proves your intense passion regarding hi-fi. You should ask for it to be published in the next what hifi! :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thank you kind sirs. That was the heavily-abridged version: there are many more things which can be done...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
great answerÿHelispon. You could have an understanding of hi-fi that could lead to more people experimenting with hi-fi, on a budget.

ÿ(He seems to know what he's talking about!)ÿ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Above a certain point I don't think it becomes harder to tell differences, it just becomes harder to tell as much of a difference. But it's these small differences that make it worthwhile for the enthusiast.
 

SHAXOS

New member
Feb 11, 2008
90
0
0
Visit site
I personally agree that there is a certain point that sound difference between systems becomes less and less distinguishable. I also agree that the "worth" of said differences is entirely up to the buyer/listener. However for me a big part of the money goes to pride of ownership. Like owning an expensive watch or buying designer clothes im happy to a premium for something that makes me happy to own it beyond just its functianality/ability. For example, If faced with two speakers which sound the same i will pay more for the pair i think "look better". I know its fickle but thats the way it is for me...
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts