| Author |
Thread: Diminishing Returns ? |
    
Bronze Member Username: Soundideas
Post Number: 90
Registered: Jul-05
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 04:49 pm: |
|
How much should we spend on speakers and audio gear before the diminishing returns start kicking in? |
|
|
|
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1698
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 04:57 pm: |
|
Probably less and less every day now that China is getting into the market.
It also varies personally. For speakers, it'll be $150 for someone, $500 for another, $1000 for another and $2500 for another. I spent C$300 on a used CDP, C$700 on a refurb AVR, but over C$3000 on a pair of used speakers. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3558
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 04:57 pm: |
|
As soon as you have to ask.
Really. |
Gold Member Username: Project6
Post Number: 8880
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 06:24 pm: |
|
Limited only by the amount of money in your wallet and by the perception of your ears. |
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 8909
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 06:40 pm: |
|
.
You should stop spending when the incremental changes you hear do not match the number of dollars you have.
. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3562
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 08:11 pm: |
|
ie: as soon as you have to ask. |
Gold Member Username: Edster922
Abubala,
Ababala
The Occupation
Post Number: 4352
Registered: Mar-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
my totally subjective estimations would be:
$600 for a pair of speakers for HT
$1500 for a pair of speakers for music
$600 for an analog AVR
$800 for a 2-channel amp
$500 for a CD player
$200 for a DVD player |
Gold Member Username: Dakulis
Spokane,
Washington
United States
Post Number: 1028
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 06:32 pm: |
|
"You should stop spending when the incremental changes you hear do not match the number of dollars you have." LOL
I think Jan forgot the word "left" at the end of his sentence. At least, that's how I got to where I am. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3594
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 07:32 pm: |
|
Great, Ed.
You should hear the Classe. |
Gold Member Username: Stu_pitt
Irvington,
New York
USA
Post Number: 1434
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:18 am: |
|
If you're investing in a stereo worth having for a while, sound quality isn't the only factor to consider in diminishing returns. If it is, you're doing something wrong. You also need to factor in -
Warantee time and limitations
Build quality
Obscelence
Value retention
Resale market
Very few people will argue that a $5000 McIntosh integrated amp sounds 10 times better than a $500 'your brand here' integrated amp.
Just about anyone who knows a few things about both products knows that the $5000 is WORTH more than 10 $500 'your brand here' integrated amps. |
Gold Member Username: Edster922
Abubala,
Ababala
The Occupation
Post Number: 4361
Registered: Mar-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:12 am: |
|
the Classe? I thought Marxism was dead! |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3618
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:37 am: |
|
'now there's no more rouge oppression, for they passed a Noble law, now the trees are all kept equal by hatchet,axe and saw.' |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3619
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:39 am: |
|
Sorry, that would be rogue as opposed to the cheek coloration of rouge.
Friggin edit doesn't work |
Silver Member Username: Stefanom
Silver Spring,
MD
United States
Post Number: 101
Registered: Apr-06
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Damned maples...ruined it for everyone. |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 31
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 01:48 pm: |
|
Edster,
What $800 2ch amp do you have in mind, if that is where your return on investment peaks?
I've not heard one at that price that I would take over a good integrated (although my experience is far more limited than many other here), or even a good receiver. |
Silver Member Username: Stefanom
Silver Spring,
MD
United States
Post Number: 104
Registered: Apr-06
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:45 pm: |
|
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=PARC2125&product_name=12 5-Watt%20THX%20Ultra2%20Certified%20Two-Channel%20Amplifier
For 699 would be sweet, but for 899
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=PARBC2250&product_name=2 50-Watt%20THX%20Ultra2%20Certified%20Two-Channel%20Amplifier%20--%20Factory-Refr eshed
The headroom this beast would afford would be worth the extra 200 bucks. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1711
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Neat, I never realised that audioadvisor shipped to Canada. And they have such great stuff too. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1714
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 03:47 pm: |
|
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=VINCSP331B&product_name= SP-331%20Stereo%20Power%20Amplifier
Looks sweet. |
Silver Member Username: Praetorian
Canada
Post Number: 316
Registered: Dec-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 04:00 pm: |
|
"We are sorry that the item PARBC2250 is currently of limited stock and cannot be backordered. This item has been removed from your order. We apologize for the inconvenience."
/me sniffles |
Bronze Member Username: Hifisoundguy
Post Number: 18
Registered: Aug-06
|
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 04:58 pm: |
|
Polk Audio lsi15 speakers $1350.00, Marantz sr8500 receiver $899.00, Two Clever Little Clocks $250.00, Any CD/DVD Player, you can not hear a difference anyway! |
Platinum Member Username: Project6
Post Number: 10202
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 06:38 pm: |
|
"you cannot hear a difference anyway!"
Sage advice from someone who believes that "Two Stupid Little Clocks" will make a difference! |
Gold Member Username: Frank_abela
Berkshire
UK
Post Number: 1602
Registered: Sep-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
In answer to the question...
...as soon as you don't feel happy paying out for the performance improvement you have just experienced.
Regards,
Frank. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3896
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:52 pm: |
|
yup! |
Silver Member Username: Praetorian
Canada
Post Number: 374
Registered: Dec-05
|
| Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 05:10 pm: |
|
Good answer, objective response to a subjective question. |
New member Username: Jamoson
Lancaster,
PA
USA
Post Number: 6
Registered: Aug-06
|
| Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 07:42 pm: |
|
Trust your ears. Lets look at percentages. I would spend 70% of my money on speakers and 30% on other componants. the money you spend will be the most noticeable in your speakers. They will also last the longest,(most likely). Go with the speakers that sound the best to you. At the point you no longer hear a difference stop going up. |
Gold Member Username: Stu_pitt
Irvington,
New York
USA
Post Number: 1443
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
"I would spend 70% of my money on speakers and 30% on other componants."
That's gonna draw some criticism. While speakers are very important, they aren't that important. If your source is garbage, your amp will amplify garbage and send garbage to your speakers.
Garbage in = garbage out, no matter how you look at it.
I'll also add great source to garbage amplification to great speakers = garbage out.
Great source to great amplification to garbage speakers = garbage out.
Do I detect a trend?
Just like a chain, your stereo is only as good as it's weakest link. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1784
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Sure Stu, but perhaps Anthony thinks that the variance in link strength is much higher within speakers than they are within sources. As a ballpark figure, I agree with his 70% as long as we're talking stereo. The price of a TV in a HT system shifts the numbers quite a bit. |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 55
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
NO! Once you get into moderate hi-fi, all speakers should give a reasonably accurate projection of the sound coming into them. Spending more can give you better flavour, but not more flavour.
If all the parts that create the sound are weak, you end up with less flavour.
I'd rather live with less expensive speakers that give me flavours I like and at the same time flavours I don't like, rather than live with electronics that offer nothing but blandness. (is that a word?)
Salt anyone? |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3937
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
You are not going to change the presentation of a source or amp by moving them around a room.
Speakers are far more flexible in their placement, thus their delivery.
Even gnarly speakers can be made to sound better depending on your tastes and the room.
I vote speakers less than 50%. 35 in fact. 10% for cables and the rest on source and power. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1788
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 01:09 pm: |
|
To be sure, it's an issue that divides all audio forums. There is no consensus. |
Bronze Member Username: Clarence_y
Illinois
USA
Post Number: 31
Registered: Apr-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 02:43 pm: |
|
Ah a good source first versus speakers first discussion. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3948
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 03:51 pm: |
|
But agreed, it must be, that the speakers are the most flexible of the system. Their performance can be nuances, aligned or destroyed, simply by plunking them down.
The cdp is what it is.
Amp too. |
Gold Member Username: Chitown
Post Number: 1232
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 03:57 pm: |
|
The other issue is that speaker technology does not change much with time. A good speaker will sound the same in 10 years. If you don't have too much to put in, then spend most (70%) on speakers. The other stuff can be upgraded as time goes on and technology changes. |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 56
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:15 pm: |
|
stof
Give me an example of something 10 years old that has been surpassed so much that it is made obsolete, or at least undesirable (within the moderate budget you speak of - i agree that prices drop on hi-end technology as adoption widens with time)
And speakers can wear out too. And technology does change with them too. Whether or not you like the different tweeter materials, many of them weren't out there 10 years ago (more so if you look 15 years back).
With amps, i think that the old adage 'they don't make 'em like they used to' applies to a lot of mass market stuff. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3951
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:16 pm: |
|
I suppose the advancement in materials, like woven kevlar, polypropylene and the like are dated. Open air inductors as mainstream, poly capacitors, and high core count internal wiring are passe. Metals, cermets and ultra high frequency tweeters with computer designed housings to control resonances are old school.
Cad-aided designs in assymetrical cabinetry to control resonance, aid stability and improve frequency response have not changed for a while.
Has it always been 6" woofers delivering 30Hz(and lower) frequencies from paper drivers and paper tweeters?
Probably. Not. |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 57
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:24 pm: |
|
I've been thinking again about the original question. I light of all the "depends on how big your wallet" comments, let me give this perspective.
I first got into audio about 10 years ago. Over about 3 years, I acquired gear at values close to what Edster listed, and then rested on it for 7 years. For those 7 years, my mindset was, I'd need to spend more than double on any one part to hear a significant return.
Assume Ed's numbers to be fact, if you figure that you'd spend $700 to increase your CDP by a couple hundred $ in 'performance', it seems like more waste than gain. Once you're able to dump 2 grand into one, tossing the old one doesn't seem like such a big deal anymore.
Only now that my wallet is bigger have I decided that there is enough marginal return. And so I jumped big so that I can sit happily for another 7 years with my Bryston power. |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 58
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:33 pm: |
|
I admit I'm confused, Nuck. Are you with me or against me?
...not that i'm trying to create 'sides' |
Silver Member Username: Eib_nation
Ohio
EIBville
Post Number: 114
Registered: Jul-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:54 pm: |
|
I think the subject is moot, considering that most people dump their speakers into a room, and completely ignore the effects of room acoustics. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3953
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 05:05 pm: |
|
Geoff, I do not pick and choose on this one, because so much is to be had for old tech/new tech/new money.
I really like this DISCUSSION because it draws out so many happy memories of our old stuff, as well as exampling the new stuff.
And you really have to consider what is old, Ja?
Stof says a speaker should sound just like new for 10 yrs.You bet! But starting when? 1957?
Insert Quad here. 1990? Still a lot of paper then.
Give me an example of something 10 years old that has been surpassed so much that it is made obsolete, or at least undesirable.
Sure. cd players.
How much were cd players 10-15 yrs ago(something upscale)? 400$? ok. Given inflation and the other shite, thats 700 today, maybe? A Rotel 1072 cdp on sale(or a 1070, replaced, even better) is the same price, and the performance is beyong comparison.
OK my comparo may not fit all, but there it is.
I love this topic when it comes up, I hope y'all do too!
Jan's old classics come out, and Dave(wheres Dave) will propound the Lansings!
Take the trip, folks, old and new!
Maybe a new thread? |
Gold Member Username: Chitown
Post Number: 1234
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 05:20 pm: |
|
I'll give you a couple a good example. I'll warn in advance that I will not limit my discusssion to 2 speaker music only gear since the general audio needs and the technology has gone beyone that. Today we talk about the integration of audio with video produced through many devices and formats. Argue if you will about the pure sound quality of some of these devices, but the fact is that the need has arisen and the vendors are producing to fulfill the needs. (or perhaps it was the other way around)
The "Surround sound" of 10 years ago has been replaced with 5.1 surround that is not only delivered, but recorded as such. A decent $500 receiver from then will be inadequate to deliver the potentially needed technology available today. Sometime in the next year or two we will be discussing the ability (or lack thereof) of higher capacity discs to deliver uncompromised, uncompressed music. Knowing it is coming, is it worth spending $2000 on a CD player knowing the limitation of the CD itself? or would you rather spend $2000 on a set of good speakers that can last a while?
That's the base of my point Geoff. I have a 15 year old Rotel amp that is truely wonderful, but has been relegated to my bedroom. Though I am envious of your Bryston, it would not have met my needs for an HT system and its fate would have been the same had I bought it then. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3954
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Still using the speakers, Stof? |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1796
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 07:55 pm: |
|
I was also thinking along similar lines as Stof. Of the gear I bought when I got my first Klipsch speakers, I still use the speakers and the power amp; the rest is long gone. The pre-amp was replaced a long time ago by a Pro Logic receiver, which was replaced by an h/k avr-325 for true 5.1, which will be replaced by something that can decode the new formats down the road. The speakers are still there, 25 years later.
Plus, to my normal everyday ears, swapping speakers always makes a huge difference in sound, dynamics and soundstage, but swapping amplifiers or even CD players leads to more subtle changes. But I guess my speakers aren't refined enough, or my interconnects are not up the task of pulling out all the information the change in source or amp has introduced. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3965
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:37 pm: |
|
Guys, you can swap players like undergarments.You can change amps and pre's all you like.
The redbook cd is not going away, and all the bells and whistles and hockey cards in the spokes will never change 2 speakers for 2 ears.
It is pure. It is logical. And it is forever. A super quality stereo never needs replacing, never needs an update and never,ever needs an excuse.
The speakers are flexible and moveable.
That and 3 bucks will get you a coffee. |
New member Username: Jamoson
Lancaster,
PA
USA
Post Number: 7
Registered: Aug-06
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
I think most of you are getting my point. Most of us have speakers we have been using for years and they still have many years in them.Those that think that source componants or amplifiers are more important are maybe a little over optimistic on the degree that these effect the sound.If I were to give you a blind test and ask you to tell me the difference between a $500 receiver and a $1000 receiver not many of you would be able to do it. But if I switch between a $500 pair of speakers and a $1000 pair your experience would be quite different.Remember it takes a pair of accurate speakers to reveal the benefits of better componants. So those starting out building there system should always put the bulk of there budget into speakers. Who's with me? Drinks for everyone!!!! |
Silver Member Username: Praetorian
Canada
Post Number: 382
Registered: Dec-05
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Where the hell are you buying coffee for three dollars!!!??? Its funny, thinking back on all arguments about "high end" vs. "mid" level market gear, then you bring up the coffee... You can buy a urine-sample sized cup of coffee at starshmucks for 5$, or an x-large triple/triple at Timmy's for 1.60$, and some gas station's brand for 50c, yet they are all pretty much of the same... You don't get the fancy wrapping though at the gas station... There seems to be a parallel... |
Bronze Member Username: Pointe
Ottawa
Canada
Post Number: 59
Registered: Jun-06
|
| Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:19 am: |
|
You see, Nuck is hitting my point. You can talk about the advancements of 5.1 and what may come next, but we're here in this forum for two channel home audio. It hasn't changed since the late 80s. the sources have gotten a little cheaper, but that's it.
In ten years, my electronics have lasted just fine. I decided to leap frog my amplification to accommodate speakers I will eventually buy.
I'm not suggesting to chince out on speakers. I'm just saying that you're playing with different flavours, not the full body. My ears, my opinion.
I like hearing all yours' too!
keep it comin |
Gold Member Username: Chitown
Post Number: 1235
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 05:57 pm: |
|
Yes Nuck. I bought a pair of BA speakers and a subwoofer with my Rotel almost 16 years ago and they are still serving me well.
Geoff I read through the original question and I didn't see this thread as referring to 2 speaker systems only. In fact right off the bat Peter and Ed mentioned AVR's so I was just following suite. I do agree that in the 2 speaker systems there may not have been any serious upgrade. However in the 5.1 arena, I feel that some recordings are better than the original at least as compared to the CD transfer. I honestly think that the recording of the Eagles Farewell tour from Melbourne sounds better than any of the musci's original recording and some of it has to do with the way that the music is dispersed between the 5 speakers.
Nuck I can see how redbook CD's will stick around for a while, but I will be highly disappointed if some level of uncompressed music does not get released with higher capacity media. Who knows it may not even be the aluminum disks we look at now. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3977
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 08:40 pm: |
|
Stof, I will keep this short, as I have little to add thus far.
2 Ears, 2 Speakers.
Done the dts, eehh?!
All the more power to the masses. I never thought I would be so retro.. Of course, I never thought I would be 42, either. |
Gold Member Username: Chitown
Post Number: 1242
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 07:43 pm: |
|
Hey don't forget your brain that understands a third dimension and your soul which can comprehend infinity. |
Silver Member Username: Mike3
Lewisville,
Tx
USA
Post Number: 118
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 12:56 am: |
|
I think we all get to a point with our systems in which there are diminishing returns. As Geoff stated "if you figure that you'd spend $700 to increase your CDP by a couple hundred $ in 'performance', it seems like more waste than gain". I tackled this subject in a different thread "Hierarchally Upgrading My Components" and Nuck sort of covered a lot of this ground in "After Much Soul Searching".
I always sought to have a balanced system and in my initial mid-fi system I spent the most on my speakers. Then I upgraded a second hand amp and pre-amp for a Creek Integrated. Then when I got the Rega Apollo, nothing seemed to fit right any more, so I changed everything around the Apollo. Even though my refurbished Carver M-4.0t is the least expensive piece in my system, it would cost me $2 to $3K to find an upgrade. Things are fairly balanced again and with my Linn TT the Apollo went from the top looking down to the bottom looking up. I am not going to upgrade to the Saturn, as I view that as diminishing returns.
How come tin cup has had nothing to say since starting this post? |
