 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.241.0.88
Audio magazines often justify the high prices for equipment reviewed because, a) readers are interested in the exotic stuff (as in enthusiast auto mags), and b) an implicit assumption that if it costs more, it must be better. My own feeling is that generally quality increases with higher pricing but this is not an absolute rule. To further complicate this question, one might break down the component into performance and construction/packaging issues. I find many expensive components to have high construction/packaging value but a lesser score for performance. But let's keep this simple and just consider overall value.This question came to mind while looking through John Crabbe's book, "hi-fi in the home" wherein he includes a graph (Fig. 57) presenting the law of diminishing returns for hi-fi and cars. In the graph, he identifies performance quality on the vertical axis and cost on the horizontal axis. Across the top he assigns a range for cost of a budget car, business car, prestige car, and millionaires' car, with the typical family sedan placed right between budget and business. Across the bottom he assigns hi-fi systems a cost range for budget, good, very good, and millionaires' (with an adjusted scale for pounds; my edition was published in 1973 so, unlike today, there was a vast difference between costs for cars and hi-fis). Mr. Crabbe then plots a value curve where the performance goes up rapidly as the cost increases, then begins to taper off until performance no longer improves with higher cost. He concludes value is received for increased costs, but only up to a point.
So, without going to pricing extremes, do you believe a $5K speaker system, amp, turntable, etc. should always outperform a $3K product? If so, following Mr. Crabbe's premise, at what price point for any given product do you feel the consumer no longer receives full value for added cost?
This is intended for serious discussion and not ask as a Troll.
Follow Ups:
nt
The concept of diminishing returns is very valid and IMO it absolutley applies to audio.IME, I you reach a platue at a certain price point and diministhing returns kicks in after that.
It is a very accurate and practical assesment and the concept absolutley applies.
First rule of audio is that the law of diminishing returns definately applies.Second rule is that something twice as much can sound half as good and vice versa.
Third rule is that you don't need to spend large dollars to be considered a good audiophile - you just need to fuss, obsess and worry about minutia to the point where MOST people think you are nuts. If you've never been too nervous to sit and enjoy music as a result of your over-analytical mental algorithms, then you're just not trying hard enough.
Last rule is that since audiophiles have started to compare $2000 CDP's to cheap Toshiba DVD players and report startling findings, there are no longer any rules.
Value, like beauty, is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I get quite a kick out of combining a clump of components that (individually) most audiophiles would consider to be somewhat crappy and tweak and experiment and play until I come up with something strangely wonderful sounding. I do have a nice higher-end setup that I use a reference, but more often than not I am doing something strange and unusual with computers, active crossovers - you name it.
Selling high-end gear for a significant loss on Agon on a regular basis is just not what I consider good audio fun!
Cheers,
Presto
> > First rule of audio is that the law of diminishing returns
> > definately applies.I don't agree with this if one is carefully building their systems. I think the difference in harmonic coherency between a good $5000 system and a good $15,000 system more than justifies the price increase alone. Other things like ultimate loudness, large scale dynamicism, and frequency extension might be "improved" little or not at all between these systems.
As far as I can tell there's a big difference in objective performance between a $40,000 system and a $15,000 system. The difference between objective quality is clear and obvious. Of course this isn't so obvious if one's comparing systems with different sets of subjectively synergistic qualities.
At this point even dismissing ultimate loudness as a non-issue and relegating bass extension to secondary importance how much can one expect to spend beyond the $15K while maintaining the systems current strengths and achieving a greater sense of dynamcism? I'm thinking double or triple. If one just want's increased loudness or dynamicism without regard to preserving the systems strengths they can make horizontal moves - but to get worthwhile improvements in it all my experiences so far have been that spending 4 or 5 times as much is what is required.
How worthwhile any real objective performance improvement is to any individual is a personal thing. But surely if one wants to get worthwhile improvements considerable spending is required and if one deems such improvement worthwhile then it is worthwhile. The law of diminishing returns has nothing to do with it. If someone already has a dynamically expressive $15,000 system it might not be worth another $15K to improve that quality - but it might be worth another $15 - $30 K to improve the systems musical coherence, ultimate loudness or frequency extension.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Don,I personally disagree with the notion that you have to spend exponentially more $$ to get improvements. Fundimental differences in our approach - that's OK each to our own. It's a matter of opinion - but I think I understand what you are saying conceptually.
However, diminishing returns is an almost indisputable fact. It is actually one of the only 3 defined LAWS of economics. It is not a subjective concept. At is core appliction to audio it states that the incremental levels of improvements you recieve upgrading to a $40k system from a $28k system is less then the incremental improvements you recieve from upgrading to a $28k system from a $5k system. Essentially the level of improvement realized from upgrading from a $5k system to a $28k system is greater then the improvement realized from upgrading from a $28k system to a $40k system.
This is a very simplistic example but does demonstrate the concept. I personally feel that diminshing returns kicks in at lower price point then outlined above and that is where trully meaningful discourse could take place.
Diminishing returns is indistiputable, however the price points in which it kicks in could be discused ad nasuem.
Just for future reference -> > I personally disagree with the notion that you have to spend
> > exponentially more $$ to get improvements.That's not what I said. Given a good system to make significant improvements in all areas one needs to spend exponentially.
Surely one can improve the subjective performance characteristics of a system by making horizontal (or even downward) moves. But if we are talking about good value equipment in the first place this is important in establishing a baseline system but it is in fact mostly simple trading off the trade offs.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Don,Sounds we actually agree - mark the calendar!!
MH
I could probably put together a decent sounding stereo for $3000. Probably much better than something comparable in 1973 inflation adjusted dollars. It will not be perfect, though. Each increment of perfection or more pleasurable sound is going to cost. Will it be worth it? That's really a personal question.
Pay too little and you'll regret it. Pay too much and you'll sweat it. Buy right. My guess is that spending between $5000 to $50,000 on gear (plus $500 to $50,000 more on acoustical treatments, AC power conditioning, vibration control, dedicated listening space, etc...) will get you up to 98% of what hifi has to offer at any price.
"""spending between $5000 to $50,000 on gear """ """will get you up to 98% of what hifi has to offer at any price. """
I would say it's more like $250 to $250,000
But IMO, beyond entry level, the cost of the components are less important than the mix of components.Surely one can always get some improvement in some aspect of performance by spending more money - but what's important is how this improvement effects one listening experience.
It's a system thing - there's no reason one should conclude that any system that costs $20,000 is going to sound better than a $2000 system comprised of carefully chosen components. Of course IMO a $20,000 system comprised of well chosen components is going to sound much better than the great $2000 system. There's no way to know if a $20,000 system made up of a random conglomeration of components is going to sound better than a $2,000 assembled in a similar fashion. Additionally anything other than first hand experimentation and listening is most likely going to lead to random conglomerations.
Audiophiles always talk about that law of diminishing returns. I think believing that's about as bs as believing that spending more is all it takes to get better. I've heard wonderfully musically coherent systems in the ~$15K/$20K new retail price range - but I've never heard a system with this kind of price being capable of natural large scale dynamicism and extended natural sounding bass response. Would musical coherency with extended bass response and added dynamicsim be worth buying a ~$40k/$60k system to achieve? If my room could support it - heck yes and I wouldn't feel for one minute that I was getting any less for the second/third $15k than I got for the first. Maybe this law kicks in at the high price points?
But then again I don't know for sure that I can't get it all in a ~$20K/$30K system. Add to the mix that I don't even know if I can get what I want by spending more in the first place.
From experience, unless I know for sure, more than likely spending more money is more like paying for "dung" than audio nirvana. Without local dealers with wide selections of components worthy of being in $20K+ systems, the thought of spending more is mostly a fantasy that experience tells me will end in tragedy.
Sure you get what you pay for with audio - but whether you pay for great sound or audio dung is up to you. And this hobby has a plethora of excuses and justifications all ready and waiting for those of us looking for excuses to justify why our expensive supposedly great audio systems sound so bad.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Lancelot, the gullibility of many posters spurs negativity. I can`t picture Jonathon Swift as an audiophile in today`s world.
For the most part yes, with the one crucial assumption that the purchaser is intelligent and knows how to make good decisions
"You get what you pay for" assumes that buyer and seller have asymetric access to information. If you don't, then the buyer has to work harder and will have higher than average search costs (compared to the symetric case), but these wil be offset by the expexted value of the regret the buyer has avoided from being stuck with an over-priced lemon.
I find that approach works quite well. As a result, I have quite a few components that are 25 or more years old. You can maintain quality gear virtually forever.In the past year, I just sold the speakers in my main system. They were updated models of the ones I originally purchased in 1977. I can easily imagine keeping the replacements every bit as long.
rw
An unremarkable (but highly touted) three tube preamplifier for $10,000. Redux of 1950s tube power amps which sold for a few hundred dollars now selling for thousands. Two way six or eight inch speakers selling for a thousand or more. Expensive wires nobody has ever shown are any better than the Home Depot/Radio Shack wires we used in the past. And it just gets worse. The consumer gets screwed every which way there is. Manufacturing this category of equipment is probably most often done in the least efficient way possible. And the cost is passed along to the customer. No economy of scale, no mass production techniques, no advantage from buying parts in large quantities, custom made parts (so when it needs repair you have to go back to the manufacturer) high labor costs in the US and Europe, and high priced tinkering passed off as research and engineering. And if the prices still seem too low, then they jack them up just to make you think you are getting something special. And then there are the fancy furniture like speaker cabinets (mdf with vaneer) which inevitably get dinged, scratched, chipped, water stained, scuffed, marred or whatever. I don't see how you can even begin to put together a so called audiophile grade sound system today for under $10,000 if you are going to buy new equipment with no discount. How happy I am with my "vintage" equipment.
There has been a fair bit of talk in the Asylum about Behringer products such as the DEQ2496 RTA/equalizer.Various Inmates have dissed Behringer products as "cheap". When I mentioned my consideration of one of those products, one Inmate told me he hoped that rest of my system was equally cheap lest it be "ruined" by such a cheap product. Image! Solving 90% of audio problems with a $350 EQ/microphone combo. Sheer effrontery to make such as suggestion!
Behringer's business model, however, is to capture a large share of a mass market with efficiently designed and built, high-performance per $ products.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
Consciously or not, the majority of audiophile/high-end manufacturers, dealers, and critics are playing the role of the industrious little tailors with the invisible cloth.And we consumers the role the emperor and his hangers-on.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
NT
You can buy a 27" CRT color television set at Costco today which will far outperform a 25" CRT color television set made by RCA in 1955 or 1960. It is far clearer, brighter, better contrast, more reliable, more efficient, far far better in every conceivable way. It costs about $300 while its 1955 counterpart cost about $500. That's in absolute dollars. In real adjusted for inflation dollars, the 2006 set costs probably less than a tenth of what the 1955 set did, maybe less than a 20th. Not so knockoff near clones of say 1960 Dynaco preamps and power amps for example. They perform about the same using similar parts except possibly better capacitors and maybe solid state power supplies (although the tubes themselves may not be as good.) They often cost as much or more than their ancient counterparts even when adjusted for inflation. Now why do you suppose that is?
NT
I've listened to and examined many components that, to my mind, were much better than components costing significantly more to purchase.That said, I think that *generally* the purchaser receives a higher value product as they climb up the price scale but the incremental value:additional cost ratio starts getting really whacky; the cost of the quest for the last X percentage of increase in perceived performance becomes *very* expensive.
Especially when a 10 year old electronics hobbyist could have built the same audio circuit out of a tube manual for well under $100 45 years ago? Of course there is the fancy case it comes in...but alas, no ventillation.
I suspect Mr. Crabbe's chart is nothing more than his personal beliefs put in chart form to look "accurate".It makes more sense to collect data and then come to conclusions ... than it does to chart an audiophile's beliefs.
For audiophiles willing to accept the ridicule of reporting blind listening experiments, the results over three decades consistently support the hypothesis that differences "heard" in sighted auditions are often imagined, or small SPL differences thought to be meaningful sound quality differences.
The results of these experiments don't necessarily apply to the ears of people who did not participate. But for those who did experiment, there was usually a large gap between what was expected (all components sound different) and what was experienced (component differences were usually subtle, or not audible at all while listening to music).
There's no reason to speculate about your own hearing ability when it's so easy to do a single-blind cable-swap audio component comparison at home and find out for yourself!
Audio magazines are in business to make money.
Most of the money they make comes from advertisers.
Advertisers make money by selling equipment.
Advertisers prefer magazines where good things are said about almost every component "tested".
They want customers to believe spending more money gets audible improvements.
That may be generally true for speakers where differences are easily heard, but makes no sense for electronics (and especially wires) where differences are often in the imaginations of the listeners.
You may dispute at what price point diminishing returns kicks in or at what "slope" the return diminishes.However, the fact that diminishing returns exist is certainly not an opinion - it one of only 3 defined LAWS of economics. A diminishing return calculation is not something where tons of data needs to be collected - it's a pretty straight forward and well accepted approach. You learn in it Intro to Economics 101.
You can certianly disagree with the slope of his curve, however you can't say the curve does not exist. That would be incorrect.
You can look up "opportunity cost" in your Economics 101 textbook to see how that would apply to buying a "better" stereo component whose difference may not be audible (perhaps a new solid state amplifier) ... versus using the same amount of money to buy a better stereo component whose difference was easily audible (perhaps new speakers).This is just a metter of being objective before buying "better" equipment, rather than assuming spending money will always result in an audible sound quality improvement ... as manufacturers want us to believe.
RBN,You’re close, however seemed to have confused the relationship between the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is a result of the misallocation of resources as you move along the decreasing slope of the marginal revenue curve or diminishing returns.
Definitions of Opp Cost:
1. Opp cost is the next best alternative which is foregone whenever an economic decision is made
2. The cost of doing an activity instead of doing something else - applied to the time involved in unproductive activities.
3. The value of the best alternative use of a resource. This consists of the maximum value of other outputs we could and would have produced had we not used the resource to produce the item in question.
An appropriate example of opportunity cost in Audio would be "do I spend $5k on a new amplifier, or should I take my family on vacation to Jamiaca" (This example assumes doing both is not an option and remember from Econ 101 that all resources are limited) Or to your example, if in fact the Law of DR applies to audio then you would have an opportunity cost associated with upgrading from a $15k amp to a $20k amp since the marginal gain will be small, you could have used that $5k for something else.
I am not one who believes more expensive is better - in fact quite the opposite. However, what you describe above is diminishing returns - not opportunity cost. The two are interrelated since as you continue forward on the diminishing marginal revenue curve you begin to realize opportunity cost on applied resources due the misallocation of those resources. Remember, opportunity cost as it relates to this discussion is a result on diminishing returns. See – if DR did not exist, then you would not experience any opportunity cost because the return on using $5k to upgrade from a $15k amp to a $20k amp would yield the same return as spending your $5k anywhere else in the chain. If you do not agree with that last statement, then DR must exist.
The idea of diminishing returns as it relates to Audio is sound! (No pun intended)
If an audiophile can't hear differences among wires, which seems to happen in every blind audition, then how would "diminishing returns" apply to wires? The return (sound quality improvement) from purchasing ANY new wires would be zero. There would be absolutely no correlation between cost and sound quality.Your belief there would be a 'marginal gain from upgrading from a $15K to a $20K amp' is completely assumed. Can you prove a difference is even audible? Don't assume anything.
Did you know that a consensus of top US economists has never predicted a US recession ... yet we've had many recesssions!
R. BassNut Greene
MBA Finance 1977
Stern School of Business
New York University
NT
...
Why bother with reality when it's such a drag, join in on the hubris, acceptence is fun. Showing next month at your favorite audio dealer - audiophile celebrities learn to do circus acts. As an added bonus you can watch real live audiophiles discuss the merits of HPs and Mikeys most recent equipment acquisitions after the show.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
...
It's those who defend the advertiser/magazine sponsered hubris by attacking pragmatic thinkers like Richard BassNut Greene that are being negative and hateful.For sure I was agreeing with what I thought was your point - which I didn't think was a poke at me at all.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
...
What's wrong with people around here? Geez as if understanding the hubris created by the magazines/marketing is somehow negative. Somethings really backasswards around here and it's not Richard BassNut Greenes comments.I almost feel guilty posting around here - it's like telling children there really isn't a Santa Claus.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
People with strong beliefs typically attack all evidence the beliefs are wrong (blind auditions over three decades) and they often attack the characters of people who question their beliefs.That would apply to many subjects beyond audio.
I wonder how the "experts" responded to the first person who said the world was not flat!
The art is still that primitive. If it sounds like a live performance to you, you either haven't attended enough live performances, you have a very poor memory for sound, or you'd better get your hearing checked. Any way you look at it, you've bought more equipment performance than you can use.
You say, " If it sounds like a live performance to you, you either haven't attended enough live performances, you have a very poor memory for sound, or you'd better get your hearing checked. "For a start, there is no such thing as a typical "live" sound because of huge variations in performance auditoriums, so whose to say whether or not one's system/listening room sound "like" a live performance or not. And I have often enjoyed good recordings at home on my fairly modest system then live performances in inferior venues.
Also, fine multi-channel recordings played on good m/c systems go further than stereo ever has in creating a naturalistic concert hall ambience.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
First of all, the current state of the art cannot reproduce the acoustics of ANY concert hall no matter how good or bad. At least not the types of recordings and equipment audiophiles have access to commercially. If there are any that can, they are experimental one of a kind types.Secondly, what you like or don't like has nothing to do with accuracy. I like photographs taken with Fuji Velvia film which ultrasaturate colors but they are not accurate. They look more like cartoons or paintings than photographs. They are not an accurate record of the image in the viewfinder and the manufacturer clearly tells you that, they have other films more suitable for that purpose. Audio manufacturers OTOH all seem to claim "accuracy" but have little evidence except a few contrived measurements or specifications to back it up. They do not even so much as conduct live recorded demos showing they can accurately reproduce the timbre of musical instruments.
As far as reproducing the overwhelming majority of sound heard at a live performance which is due to the acoustics, after decades of quadraphonic systems, multi-channel surround systems, processers, decoders, and the like, the best results have been poor and unconvincing possibly explaining why most serious audiophiles don't embrace them for serious music reproduction. It's well beyond the state of the art. Therefore if you think you have "concert hall realism" you have as much or more performance capability as you need. You do not need a color television set if you are color blind, a good black and white set is adequate because it gives you all you are capable of seeing already.
NT
That is is impossible to exactly reproduce the sound of any given performance venue in any other space. This is the case today and might be the case forever.Personally what I aspire to is the system that delivers the best recordings in a manner that is a convincing simulation of a live concert hall experience. Current multi-channel systems do that quite well and they are getting better. I simply don't agree good multi-channel does not exceed stereo's realism capability. If this is your conclusion, fine, but first have a listen to some fine recording played on a well-set up multi-channel system.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
...you either haven't attended enough live performances, you have a very poor memory for sound, or you'd better get your hearing checked....they were proof that AR speakers could under the right circumstances produce sound remarkably close to live music, at least the way it sounds in the place the musicians are playing.
And we're talking about AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps. Righty-O !
rw
In highly contrived demonstrations where specially made recordings having no reverberation because they were made outdoors were compared side by side to a live performer, the capabilities of the AR3 to reproduce accurately were impressive. However, under real world conditions with commercially made recordings played in the home, the results were entirely different. The problem is the state of the art is still far too primitive to make that possible and the larger the venue where music is normally heard, the greater the disparity between what is experienced live and the sound of the recording. Furthermore, even under comparably contrived conditions, most loudspeakers made today would fail the AR test miserably.
what do you consider the SOTA for audio now days?Which amp, source, speaker, etc.?
From the tenor of your opinions, I would guess you go over and hang with Big Andy every Saturday to listen to your discs....and validate your opinions.
Later
D
"I have a sound system which I'll put up against anyone's."BTW, the K-P is a Frankensteined Dynaco amp using MOSFETs. Peterson is the guy who bought the remaining Dyna inventory back in the 80s when the company tanked.
rw
he thinks/says what he does.Amazing.
Later
D
...just has to appreciate someone like Soundmind that makes himself such a HUGE target! A person that spouts off like he does and is so unfailingly wrong is just too hard to resist! :)
...most loudspeakers made today would fail the AR test miserably.You need to get out of the house more often if you really believe that about AR-3s. :)
rw
Are you still a moderator there? Are you still keeping discussions over which Costco multichannel HT system under $400 is the best one from turning into a flame war?
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I have posted here far longer than over at AR. (Hint: click my moniker in both places and compare the dates.) Actually, it was that same morbid human fascination as with staring at a car wreck that originally drew me to trying to understand the original characters over there. I marveled how guys like you (as skeptic) would spill countless pages discussing that which you believe does not exist and wondered why.Eventually, most of that crowd led by mtrycrafts fled. Actually, he might have been banned there as he was here long ago. He now resides as "Audio Samurai" over at AH. Now, that's priceless!
Are you still keeping discussions over which Costco multichannel HT system under $400 is the best one from turning into a flame war?
While there are indeed a number of noobies seeking advice, very few threads need to get locked down any more. There was one recently, however, where a new guy wanted to bitch about AK. Bad form indeed.
"Actually, it was that same morbid human fascination as with staring at a car wreck that originally drew me to trying to understand the original characters over there."And that I suppose that is what keeps you there in the aftermath of the wreck. A sense of superiority. Those with a tiny bit of knowledge however inadequate or out of context are miles ahead of those with none at all. So what's the best MP3 player for under $100 today? Which store has the best "deals" on speakers, Best Buy or Circuit City? Which audiophile speaker wires to hook up my rear speakers to my $200 HT receiver? What's the best speakers for my computer? And to think it was once far better than this board. Eric still minding that nursery school for retards and dummies? Still got any semblance of a useful discussion pigeonholed into a small corner called "the laboratory? Well if there's nothing else to massage your ego, you can always do a bit of Bose bashing. That usually works...for about 30 seconds.
And that I suppose that is what keeps you there in the aftermath of the wreck.It's the concept of volunteerism I practice at church, in my neighborhood, on the web, and elsewhere.
A sense of superiority.
I'll leave that to those who make comments like this:
"First of all, I'm an electrical engineer who has purchased and installed well over one million dollars worth of cable of every conceivable type.
Me, I've built power plants, steel mills, electronics plants, telecommunications networks, data centers, and a lot more and I've passed on opportunities to work on the space program and on nuclear submarines.
He said I had too much money invested in houses. Since then, I've made over a million dollars profit in real estate."
But then a diner seeking a fillet mignon and a great bottle of claret would find pablum totally uninteristing...as I find you.If you want to perform a really useful service for children, why not volunteer to read stories to 5 year olds at your local public library. That would be far more valuable than pretending you know something about audio equipment to those whose minds have not caught up to their body's chronological age and giving them advice on which portable cd player works best while jogging.
People by definition get what they are paying for- or they wouldn't make the purchase. Now what they may be buying may be attention from sales staff, fancy lights, feeling of conquering their own inferiority complex, admiration from friends or colleagues, alleviating boredom, feeling on top of the world because they think they own the latest and greatest, or whatever.Now they may not be getting any bang for the buck on a pure sound, engineering, or value point of view, but if that's what they wanted they'd build their own or buy used.
Aloha,I absolutely agree that in general, there is a pretty dependable price/performance curve.
However, this curve is idiosyncratic for every audiophile or non-audiophile.
Therefore, all opinions are correct for the owner of that opinion and his or her curve.
Even if you think a 150 dollar pair of Infinity primus speakers are terrific and a stupendous value, there will be someone who thinks spending anything over 40 bucks for their computer speakers is crazy.
We all sound crazy to some people, and there are probably price levels that are fine for others that we will finally break down and call nuts.
For instance, I can't relate to the 350,000 dollar per pair Wavacs or the 90,000 dollar Continuum, but that doesn't mean another 'phile is wrong to think that for him or her, those products offer value that places them reasonably on the ol' price/performance curve.
Or, say that I somehow get an offer to buy those two products at 99% off retail; 3,500 for the Wavac and 900 bucks for the Continuum. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but at those prices, there will still be tons of "civilians" who'd say they offered poor value. Go figure, 99% off is already well along the asymptote of that curve for many people!
The same curves apply to wine, cars, collectibles...we're all correct and all crazy, too....it's too hard to create a definitive value curve for things that have such a personally diverse and subjective component.
As a side note, I've also thought about these curves in relation to my love life, and I've found that every man except me is well beyond the final inflection point when it comes to choice in spouse. :)
Cheers!
IME, there is WAY too little correlation between cost and value. Almost everything in my system today cost less -- often far less -- than what it replaced. Yet the system sounds incredibly better (it's in Inmate Systems).And don't get me started on "Trust your ears." Mine proved untrustworty until I figured out that I had been mostly trusting my EYES. :-)
I dropped them from my list because I thought they'd be too much for my 30wpc amp.
Yes, and this is in an 18 x 40' room with an "L" off the far end of one of the 40' sides. However, these SETs have humongous Magnequest transformers and are otherwise overbuilt. But I've never run out of steam and the Ref 3s sound glorious.
While I believe in the laws of diminishing returns, I also believe there are aberations along the way that stand out in terms of outstanding value and very poor value.Without going into great detail...
I feel that the Odyssey amps although very reasonably priced perform extremely well. They belong toward the top of the curve in terms of performance but not price.
On the other hand lets use the Mark Levinson 383 integrated amp for the other extreme. This guy belongs toward the early ramp-up of the curve in terms of performance but is otherwise a very poor value based on price.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
