Steve Guttenberg Doesn't Believe in Law of Diminishing Returns?

[joentell]

I had to give a shout-out to @amirm and Audio Science Review on my latest video. I do appreciate what he's doing, and I'm glad he's decided to make some YouTube videos.

I've seen that many folks here are turned off by many YouTube reviewers. I'm here to say that as a "YouTube reviewer" (I don't love the term) I also disagree with many of the reviewers I see on YouTube. I do think a review should have some objectivity. I don't have a Klippel NFS, and I only can do in-room measurements using basic tools, and I am realistic about what my measurements can or cannot tell me, but at least there's some level of objectivity and repeatability, compared to some of these other guys. I dare any of these subjective only reviewers to draw what they think the frequency response of a speaker is based on just listening, then we'll compare that to the actual measured response. I have a feeling they won't be as accurate as they like to pretend they are when they use their flowery descriptions.

 

[Ericglo]

I know I gave you a harsh comment when I watched one of your videos awhile back. I have watched a couple of more since and you are doing some good work.

I don't mind the two guys that you have on your hifi video. Some of the others that I have seen have left a lot to be desired. Maybe guys like Z-reviews is an acquired taste.

 

[pozz]

Keep doing what you're doing.

+1

 

[joentell]

I know I gave you a harsh comment when I watched one of your videos awhile back. I have watched a couple of more since and you are doing some good work.

I don't mind the two guys that you have on your hifi video. Some of the others that I have seen have left a lot to be desired. Maybe guys like Z-reviews is an acquired taste.

Yeah, I read your other response and took it to heart. So I was partially speaking to you in my video response.

I've been about measurements for a long time, and I've learned a lot since starting my channel a few years ago. I try to read Toole's book every night. When I get a chance, I talk to some of the folks I look up to like Paul Barton, Andrew Jones, Charles Sprinkle (Formerly with Harman, now with Kali Audio) and others. I talk to Brent Butterworth about combining objective with subjective reviews. I get to talk with the guys at Dirac and Audyssey. I talk with @hardisj on a daily basis. I still have a ton to learn, but just know that I'm always trying to improve in more ways than one.

Right now, it seems to me the goal is to make the concepts of objective measurements and how they correlate to subjective hearing, easy and fun. As silly as it seems, like anything in this world, it needs to be "sold" to people. I know that sounds crazy, but being correct isn't good enough. You have to communicate that effectively and I think I can help in that way.

This video summarizes it well to me. I would argue that the concepts he discusses is even harder to grasp. https://www.masterclass.com/classes...ers/communication-it-s-not-enough-to-be-right

 

[watchnerd]

When did Gutenberg ever say he doesn’t believe in diminishing returns?

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

What people really mean by "diminishing returns" is at what point is it not worth it for them to spend more. I don't think there is any universal limit.

 

[joentell]

When did Gutenberg ever say he doesn’t believe in diminishing returns?

I linked to his video on my video. Look in the description or the pinned comment. It's on both.

 

[watchnerd]

What people really mean by "diminishing returns" is at what point is it not worth it for them to spend more. I don't think there is any universal limit.

And my opinion on it has changed in my life as my income has increased over time.

 

[watchnerd]

I linked to his video on my video. Look in the description or the pinned comment. It's on both.

You posted here.

If you have a case to make here, make it here.

Otherwise you’re just baiting for clicks on your vid.

 

[Mnyb]

What many (me) thinks' as a typical "YouTube reviewer" is that guy that opens boxes of free stuff and just go on telling how awesome it is . every time .They may catch an audience that think they are fun personalities , but the actual review is just product placement at best .

My thinking is that there is a finite amount of "quality" to go around (due to actual hard work cost and competence , there are not enough good guys/gals to put behind every camera ), but the publishing capacity of modern media nears the practical infinite .

Good to se more people trying the quality angle with good content with actual information good luck

 

[joentell]

You posted here.

If you have a case to make here, make it here.

Otherwise you’re just baiting for clicks on your vid.

So do you want me to link to Steve Guttenberg's video here? I don't mind if that's what you're asking for. I just thought you may not want to give more traffic to that video. I don't mind hence why I linked to his video on mine. Just trying to respect this space.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=steve+guttenberg+diminishing+returns ;-)

 

[watchnerd]

So do you want me to link to Steve Guttenberg's video here? I don't mind if that's what you're asking for. I just thought you may not want to give more traffic to that video. I don't mind hence why I linked to his video on mine. Just trying to respect this space.

i’m not interested in watching either video.

Too much of a time suck.

But with a sensationalist title I expected some evidence

What‘s the summary?

 

[ta240]

What people really mean by "diminishing returns" is at what point is it not worth it for them to spend more. I don't think there is any universal limit.

The problem with a lot of arguments is that their definitions of things aren't the same. Steve may have been thinking that diminishing returns means there is a point where it is no longer a benefit to spend more; rather than there is a point where spending more gets you smaller improvements.

I would think the point where it is "not worth it for them to spend more" would vary from person to person. It would differ based on their interest in the item and their available funds.
If I always dine out then my point of not wanting to spend more on a stove would be pretty low. If I'm a well paid professional and aspiring amateur chef then I'm likely to spend much more.
The incremental improvements that result in a better end product will be the same but for the first version of me a stove that fills the empty spot in the kitchen, looks fine and works in a pinch is the point where the returns diminish to the point that I don't want to invest more in it. The well off, amateur chef version of me will be more than happy to spend substantially more to gain an appliance that is 10% better.

Same with speakers. If someone is a multi-millionaire that really enjoys music then for them going from a $2500 speaker to a $50,000 speaker if it gets them a 10% improvement is still worth it. A $47,500 increase to gain 10%.
Meanwhile a working joe might go from a $100 speaker to a $500 speaker and be thrilled with a 50% improvement. A $400 increase gained them 50% compared to a $47,500 increase to gain 10%. Over 100 times the increase in investment got them 1/5th the improvement. The return on the investment is diminishing as the price goes up; but it is still worth it to some.

 

[richard12511]

i’m not interested in watching either video.

Too much of a time suck.

But with a sensationalist title I expected some evidence

What‘s the summary?

What’s the point of demanding he post evidence that you admittedly will never look at? He posted evidence in his original post, but it was “too much of a time suck” for you to look at.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Well, I would disagree with how some of y'all are defining "diminishing returns". IMO, you're actually talking about "value" and how much that that additional improvement ("return on investment") is worth to an individual listener. It is, or should be, fairly objective to determine once you spend over X amount of dollars for any given piece of equipment, the improvement in sound quality in the same system/room is Y. After that, it just becomes a discussion on whether that improvement is worth the cost to the individual (value).

 

[JSmith]

The only question here is, who made Steve Guttenberg a star? Anyone have a stonecutter handy?



JSmith

 

[ta240]

The only question here is, who made Steve Guttenberg a star? ....

I used to watch his videos for entertainment but when the lockdowns hit he was talking to someone in his video and the person commented that with things locked down where would people go to find out what components they liked. Steve's face lit up and he gleefully announced "to me!!" From then on his personality seemed to change a bit as he realized his relevance just skyrocketed and I just can't make it through more than a few seconds of any videos. It is interesting and a bit disturbing that with him and other infomercial hosts (not the ones actually producing videos with real information) that people after watching them don't even just go "Yeah, he's got some good things to say" they go "Oh, my god! You are so amazing! Keep doing what you are doing."

Few things are as depressing as looking at some of the people who are youtube stars (not you joe) and realizing that the population as a whole decided they should be stars.

Every time I launch youtube I do it in a private window so they don't have any info on past videos I've watched and it puts the same girls 'reaction' videos at the top. I haven't watched any but apparently people watch her watch other videos. I did get curious enough to see what the sites that guess at how much youtube channels make said for her income and it said she pulls in between $200,000 and $2,400,000 a MONTH

 

[joentell]

The problem with a lot of arguments is that their definitions of things aren't the same. Steve may have been thinking that diminishing returns means there is a point where it is no longer a benefit to spend more; rather than there is a point where spending more gets you smaller improvements.

The law of diminishing returns is well defined. If he used it incorrectly, then he's incorrect. At some point we have to draw a line about what is right and what is wrong. We can't just say something is green when it's really orange. Those are established terms used to designate concepts surrounding them.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Partly it depends on how you define "returns", that is, value. Astronomically expensive equipment is sold and that equipment isn't necessarily even better in terms of performance, (ref. cable example). However there buyers for whom that is irrelevant; for them higher price confers prestige and that prestige is what they buy -- for them there are no diminishing returns.

 

[joentell]

Well, I would disagree with how some of y'all are defining "diminishing returns". IMO, you're actually talking about "value" and how much that that additional improvement ("return on investment") is worth to an individual listener. It is, or should be, fairly objective to determine once you spend over X amount of dollars for any given piece of equipment, the improvement in sound quality in the same system/room is Y. After that, it just becomes a discussion on whether that improvement is worth the cost to the individual (value).

But we can agree that after a certain point, returns will diminish. The point is not where it is exactly because as you stated, it's different for each person.