[wab]

Quote:

This has been a very musical thread, in my opinion. Palpable, yet refined discourse, exceptionally liquid in its themes and polite in tone. A fine addition to Head-Fi's appreciable accomplishments. Highly recommended.

LOL!

 

[TerriblySorry]

Maybe we should stop here, cos we're approaching the point of diminishing returns...

 

[shivohum]

Maybe some economist could enlighten me here, but it seems to me that the point of diminishing returns for any particular audio device is the smallest amount of money one can spend to get a working component.

Most of us would agree that having even a dinky transistor radio is far superior to having no audio at all. Most of us would also agree that having some audio at all is a much bigger deal than the quality of that audio.

Now with these assumptions in mind, let's examine radios and diminishing returns. The leap from silence to some audio, say with a cheap transistor radio, might be purchased for $0.50. For every cent you pay above that amount, you are just getting a (perceived) increase in sound quality or features. But no possible increase in sound quality or features can equal the satisfaction of having a radio in the first place. So every cent you spend after the initial $0.50 is diminished in returns compared to the first $0.50.

No?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum ...it seems to me that the point of diminishing returns for any particular audio device is the smallest amount of money one can spend to get a working component...Most of us would also agree that having some audio at all is a much bigger deal than the quality of that audio...No?

No.

If, when you pay US$0.50 for said transistor radio, and it stops working before you even get it home, then that money was less well spent than, say, some fictitious US$5.00 transistor radio that continues working -- albeit poorly -- for years to come. So you're still getting more for your money for the US$5.00 transistor radio than for the US$0.50 one. Diminishing returns is when you invest X% more on an item (than on another item), but you receive less than X% improvement in quality -- be it, as we usually discuss, in audio quality, or, as is more commonly discussed when discussing dimishing returns in consumer circles, how long it lasts.

 

[redshifter]

what i meant by diminishing returns was simply fabio has spent $100,000 on his speakers, while you have spent $1,000 (for example). as long as you haven't bought bad expensive speakers, do you think fabio is getting 99% better sound for $99,000 more than you spent? probably not. he's getting less for the money he put into it. of course this does not include factors such as status, interior decorating, or butter substitutes.

the fact is we're all audiophiles. we LIKE AUDIO [equipment], thus audiophile. it is also a fact that in reality the audiophile world is an exclusive club who membership requires a high fee. i'm not making a value judgement on this, it is just a fact. so either way, you can call yourself whatever you want, in my own mind i'm an audiophile but to the rest of the world i'm just an audio enthusiast.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

I thought musical means that "symphonic, warm, full-textured, realistic" sound that you hear from a live musical show. So I guess the Senns 600 would be musical as oppose to Grado 225

Actually it would be the opposite. The HD600 is great at breaking down the recording details and creating space that's not in the recording, while the Grado sort of reproduces the instruments in front of you.

Some new terms:

Cholesterol-like bass
Freezer-burn treble
Grand Canyon midrange
Microwave re-heated coloration (X-CANS!)
Constipated lower midrange
Casper-like bass (K501?)

Chainsaw-on-ice sibilants (Grado bowl pads!)
Bean-fart bass (loose, not tight or snappy)

Another one I hate is "overcooked bass" to derscribe exaggerated bass in a recording. I have seen it a few times. I don't get it. If I overcook a roast, it's going to be lean, is it not? If I undercook it, it will be fat/flabby, no?

 

[Raymond Kim]

LOL Beagle!

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by TerriblySorry "diminishing returns" is one that's often spoken as if diminishing returns is a bad thing.

What bugs my anal-retentive side is that the term should also be "diminishing marginal returns," not "diminishing returns," which is what most people use

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum Maybe some economist could enlighten me here, but it seems to me that the point of diminishing returns for any particular audio device is the smallest amount of money one can spend to get a working component.

Well, I'm about as close as they come without having "Economist" on my business card

(That's what "Policy Analysts" really are -- we just have a different title.)

"Diminishing marginal returns" refers to the phenomenon whereby the amount of "product" (in this case, good sound) you get for each dollar diminishes the more dollars you spend.

There is a basic market assumption that the more $$$ you spend, the more product you get. However, for many products (and by product I don't necessarily mean a physical object -- the "product" could be build quality, features, output quality, etc.), there is a point at which the graph of cost x return ceases to be a straight line -- the graph will begin to level off.

For example, in audio, it's quite possible that $200 buys you twice as much "quality" as $100. It's quite possible that $600 buys you 3 times as much quality as $200. (The return could also have a different ratio: $200 buys you 50% more quality than $100, and so on.) However, at some point, you don't get that same ratio of cost/quality. It's difficult to argue that $50,000 buys you twice as much quality as $25,000. And most would agree that $100,000 doesn't buy you the same increase in quality over $50,000 as the jump from $25,000 to $50,000 got you.

What happens is that past a certain point, how much more quality you get (the "returns") for every additional dollar spent (the "marginal" cost) diminishes the more dollars you spend. If you actually plot the graph of cost x return is a curve that starts as a fairly constant increase but at some point begins to level off... the marginal returns begin to diminish.

 

[coolvij]

I hate it when people talk about the lush analog sound they get from their vinyl that is so smooth and life-like; organic yet clear; expensive and way over my budget

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

"Diminishing marginal returns" refers to the phenomenon whereby the amount of "product" (in this case, good sound) you get for each dollar diminishes the more dollars you spend.

So then, as per my example of the transistor radio, can *any increase* in sound quality or features be said to be proportional to the initial increase in quality from going from no sound to having some sound? It seems to me that the leap from no sound to some sound is much larger even than from $1 sound to $50,000 sound.

If by spending anywhere from $0.00 to $0.49, you have a sound quality of 0 (you can't afford even a cheap transistor radio), and then at $0.50 you have a sound quality of 1, isn't that unmeasurably - 1/0 - (perhaps infinitely) better and thus pretty much unmatcheable in % term returns by any more money spent?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum So then, as per my example of the transistor radio, can *any increase* in sound quality or features be said to be proportional to the initial increase in quality from going from no sound to having some sound? It seems to me that the leap from no sound to some sound is much larger even than from $1 sound to $50,000 sound. If by spending anywhere from $0.00 to $0.49, you have a sound quality of 0 (you can't afford even a cheap transistor radio), and then at $0.50 you have a sound quality of 1, isn't that unmeasurably - 1/0 - (perhaps infinitely) better and thus pretty much unmatcheable in % term returns by any more money spent?

Well, I suppose you could argue that the first "purchase" (from having none to having some) is a bigger step than any other "purchase" -- if this is true, then diminishing marginal returns sets in immediately. However, for most products, that's not the case.

The other thing to keep in mind (and I didn't mention this earlier for simplicity's sake) is that all of these theories are based on what is called "utility" -- the "value" that an individual gets out of the products he/she purchases. So the graph of cost vs. return isn't really the best graph. A more telling graph for individual purchasers is cost vs. utility. In other words, how much value THAT person thinks he/she is getting for each additional $ spent.

In the example you have, you made an assumption that the person values being able to *hear* music at all over increases in the fidelity of that music. If this is true, then that particular person's utility curve is going to show diminishing marginal returns from the get-go -- as you said, just being able to buy a cheap radio and hear music is the biggest leap. However, there are many people who take the first step -- having a radio -- for granted, and for them, the utility they get from buying that little transister is nil. For these people, it's going to take a lot longer for diminishing marginal returns to take effect.

And that's where the "audiophile" comes in -- a lot of people are truly excited and pleased by the minimal increases in fidelity they get at the margins of high-end audio. If I play my headphone system for my better half, even though it clearly offers 3-4 times the performance of our living room stereo, she gets very little enjoyment or added value. But I have a friend (we all do

) who get so excited over the tiny increase in sound quality that a $500 accessory gives him, that he got a whole heck of a lot of value/utility out of those 500 bucks. So each person's utility curve is going to be different, and the point at which marginal returns begin to diminish is really different for each person.

Did I confuse the matter even more?

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

Did I confuse the matter even more?

Nope. That was a clear and concise explanation. Thanks

 

[cajunchrist]

I think that the concept of diminishing marginal returns, and indeed any attempt to quantify a decidedly qualitative assessment of sound is bound to run in to a brick wall. The slightly more natural sound of a $1000 speaker cable may not be immdeiately noticeable compared to the slightly harsher sound of a $100 speaker cable, but that slight difference may take your listening experience from merely adequate to truly enlightening.

Something we tend to forget in our discussions of gear is that it's all about the music. We get the gear we need to have the best possible listening experience. If I have enough money to spend $100,000 to get gear that gets me off, I will. But if I had that astronomical budget, and discovered that $5000 worth of gear would get me high, I'd use the rest for a Mercedes Benz and a week in Hawaii.

Within more reasonable budgets, we have to make comprimises to get near Nirvana. Hence, our affinity for headphones, which produce far more bang for the buck than traditional loudspeaker systems. When price is an object, we have to rely on our hearts (not our ears) to tell us what sounds best. To this day I cannot tell you the actual sonic difference of crossfeed, because I can't hear it. But when the crossfeed is on, I feel that the listening experience is improved and everything feels more relaxed and natural. Can I plot that feeling on a graph? Can I place a dollar figure on my psychological impression of the changed sound? No, and I don't have to. I like it, so no matter what it costs, it stays.

cajunchrist

 

[Xevion]

Odin: Silibance is the sound made when you make a sssss or ttttsss type sound. If you have Nevermind by Nirvana, Cobain's voice in Something in the Way is quite silibant. The female spoken word in Run Lola Run is also a good determinant of silibance.

IMO a mention of exxagerated silibants is important because I don't like it at all myself.

Terms I dislike:

Pace. What the hell is "pace". Also rythm. Speakers don't have rythm, performers have it. If they make you want to tap your toes, say that, but don't say that they have excellent rythm or pace. Maybe a speaker is "slow" or "resonant"? I don't know

.

Musical is so ambivalent, it means entirely different things to different people. So, if Eagle Driver says something is musical, I would think in my head (Slightly bright, detailed sound with a punchy but not overpowering bass) whereas if Tomcat said something was musical I would think smooth, euphoric goodness

.

 

[mr_slacker]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter what i meant by diminishing returns was simply fabio has spent $100,000 on his speakers, while you have spent $1,000 (for example). as long as you haven't bought bad expensive speakers, do you think fabio is getting 99% better sound for $99,000 more than you spent? probably not. he's getting less for the money he put into it.

Actually I do. I'm sure Fabios speakers are twice as good (at least) as as those 1000$ ones.

Perhaps you meant that is highly unlikely that Fabios speaker are 10000% better? (since they cost 100 times more than the 1000$ dollar speaker).

BTW, I agree with you that the point of diminishing returns kick in rather early.