Point of saturation. (1 Viewer)

[Jedd]

What have you experienced, where this point lays, when the price increase doesnt produce noticeable quality increase?
(i.e. if you are not specially trained you wont differ wine for $50 from $20, so why to pay more. )

 

[Paul Clarke]

I take your question to be more philosophical than technical.

I guess it depends on how people define intrinsic value and from which perspective. I am a 'glass half-full' person so a $500 sub that performs at least 95% of a $1500 sub is all I need, trained ear or untrained. A 'glass half-empty' one might have greater impetus to seek the $1500 sub, economics regardless. One perspective is better suited to handle the supposed shortcomings while the other might incline to a shortcoming awareness.

Your wine analogy is very apropos. I personally have never paid more than $28 but I understand why someone with a more refined palette would.

Sensitivity can breed a certain quality intolerance to any of our senses. But is there ever a price point at which the supposed 'suffering' stops? I doubt it.

My wharfedale Emerald 97's are a superb upgrade from my old Pioneer 303's. But until they arrived I really didn't mind the sound from paper cones and still don't.

Waiter, another bottle of this delicious $9 varietal, please!

 

[Greg_R]

This will certainly differ between people. For me, I think anything past:

- $3k receivers / seperates

- $2k floorstanding or $1k satellite speakers

- $1k subs

- 50+" HDTV or intro level CRT

is the point of diminishing returns. Beyond that you're going to spend a good deal more for smaller improvements.

 

[Jedd]

I know it's philosophical. :b
Just want to solve it before investing the money, so I won't be torn apart for saving that bloody hundred or two.

 

[Larry B]

Jedd:

know it's philosophical. Just want to solve it before investing the money, so I won't be torn apart for saving that bloody hundred or two.

This question is unanswerable, except by you. In audio equipment, as in many things, there is a law of diminishing returns. That is, you will get more "bang for your buck" from the first $1,000 (or $10,000!) than from the second thousand (or ten thousand). People often say "product x has 95% the performance of product y, for only 50% the cost." To me, this is ridiculous, because quality of sound is a subjective propery, and thus is not quantifiable. What it really boils down to is, "How much are YOU willing to spend for a particular sonic improvement?" Your answer will depend on (1) how important the particular sonic improvement is to your ear, and (2) your wallet.

Listen, then decide.

Regards,

Larry