The point of diminishing for speakers is...?

[abdo123]

Being rated by Stereophile means a speaker is already way, way above the price point of diminishing returns….. and it still might not be any good.

What point are you trying to make? Because arguably the Dutch & Dutch 8C is probably one of the best speakers in the world.

 

[Newman]

In case you didn’t notice, I’m talking about being rated by Stereophile, not about D&D.

 

[AMPaul]

From what price would you say speakers hit the point of diminishing returns?

i'd say it hits pretty quickly ( see Wharfedales 12.1 - at £250). Great speaker for the price.

Nevertheless i would say that different factors govern your decision on where you feel it is not worth it anymore. It's simply financial too, do you have $500- $1000 to spend? Will there be some improvements (noticeable going from 500 to 1000)? There should be but i believe after that it is not the sound that matters that much anymore ( when you compare say bookshelves to bookshelves- not to towers), its design, it's materials, it's bragging rights. So, soundwise it hits fast - bragging wise- it goes to wherever you can sustain it without mortgaging the house i guess ).

 

[Robin L]

. . . On the other hand, this is a demonstration of someone who broke through the point of diminishing returns for speakers. Money was no object: he built a room for his "stereo" to maximize potential sound quality and custom built his own audio system. This is the point of no return:

 

[YSC]

80/20 rule. When you get 80% of the satisfaction when spending 20% of your money.

And even in absolute terms it is also, say I have a tiny room, so a pair of 8030 should be as good as it can go, further up maybe a 8330/ 8331 could let me calibrate the response with a bit of more perfection but not much.

But even say only consider Genelec non-dsp speakers, if I am wealthy enough to have the listening room being 1000 sq ft, the 8030 is definitely not up to the job, and some full tower or the 8361+W371 would do a much better job, that's when the scale of diminishing return kicks in

 

[YSC]

. . . On the other hand, this is a demonstration of someone who broke through the point of diminishing returns for speakers. Money was no object: he built a room for his "stereo" to maximize potential sound quality and custom built his own audio system. This is the point of no return:

the room looked very nice, but the speakers cast some kind of horrid feel for me, maybe due to the driver array... I would prefer some kind of stereo tower say a pair of Vivid G1 with subs, and in this room, hey, where's the center gaming console?! should remove the center speaker, put a 60" TV in and a hyper PC and PS5 with all those geeky racing steering wheel or flight sim cockpit.

Now that's a Men's dream of being very rich and yet you can fulfill your childhood dream

 

[Jim Matthews]

Isn't this more about budgeting priorities than performance?

According to the handy preference chart (post #34) the Polk punches *way* above its weight class at 750 euro. By definition, anything spent beyond this price point is excess.

 

[Trell]

And even in absolute terms it is also, say I have a tiny room, so a pair of 8030 should be as good as it can go, further up maybe a 8330/ 8331 could let me calibrate the response with a bit of more perfection but not much.

In my tiny home office GLM AutoCal made a huge difference for my 8330A, and as typical of small spaces the peaks are tall. There is only so much one can do with just moving speakers and MLP around, and effective bass treatments would very much eat into the available space of the office. I've added a Genelec 7360A subwoofer, though, with xover at 95 Hz.

GML calibration with using 7 positions close (max 7" from MLP):

 

[Newman]

From what price would you say speakers hit the point of diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns obeys a 'general rule' that makes the most expensive products of each type unlikely to deliver value for money. In a technology area, such as hifi, there are definable parameters of performance with measurable standards of excellence. And what invariably happens, is that refinement over the years leads to a lot of performance being achievable at a modest cost, and usually sold at a price level described as "good entry level". When we compare the performance rating of this gear to the price, we get a peak value-for-money rating. To increase the performance rating by 10% will require a price increase of more than 10%.

From that point onward the incentive for spending more is no longer value for money, it is willingness to pay. There are performance gains to be had, for sure, but only at a diminishing return per dollar.

How low-priced is this peak in value for money? Usually pretty low, for a refined technology. Which should be good news for those interested, but for some reason, enthusiasts can get cranky about it.

If I had to guess where it might be for in-room hifi, I might point to a $700-1000 subwoofer with auto EQ like Elac Debut SUB3030 or SVS PB/SB-1000/2000 Pro; controlled-dispersion flat-response powered satellites like JBL LSR 305/308 II for $300-500; and a digital multi-source music player for $400-500.

cheers

 

[Blaspheme]

I reckon diminishing returns sets in after you've bought a pair of Krell Evos that match the right size Focal Utopias for the room.

 

[YSC]

In my tiny home office GLM AutoCal made a huge difference for my 8330A, and as typical of small spaces the peaks are tall. There is only so much one can do with just moving speakers and MLP around, and effective bass treatments would very much eat into the available space of the office. I've added a Genelec 7360A subwoofer, though, with xover at 95 Hz.

GML calibration with using 7 positions close (max 7" from MLP):

View attachment 141037
View attachment 141040
View attachment 141038

That looks nasty but maybe I am kind of lucky the dip switches in the 8030C corrects the peaks very well, of coz not glm perfect but hey, I spend only 1/3 or less if counting in the sub and no dsp latency, which I will call that diminishing return. This is 8030C only with only dip switches used

 

[Trell]

That looks nasty but maybe I am kind of lucky the dip switches in the 8030C corrects the peaks very well, of coz not glm perfect but hey, I spend only 1/3 or less if counting in the sub and no dsp latency, which I will call that diminishing return. This is 8030C only with only dip switches used
View attachment 141046

Small room acoustics is nasty in the bass region and due to the limited position of the monitors/subwoofer I was certain that some kind of EQ was needed for my new 2.1 desktop system. I thought the dip-switches most likely would not satisfy me.

As for diminishing returns, it's for me about features and performance that I need want, and in this case it made sense for me even though it was more expensive. For me, personally, a pair of 8331A while nice could not compete with a pair of 8330A, the 7360A subwoofer, the GLM Kit, cables and money leftover.

 

[Tonygeno]

1% above your maximum budget.

 

[YSC]

Small room acoustics is nasty in the bass region and due to the limited position of the monitors/subwoofer I was certain that some kind of EQ was needed for my new 2.1 desktop system. I thought the dip-switches most likely would not satisfy me.

As for diminishing returns, it's for me about features and performance that I need want, and in this case it made sense for me even though it was more expensive. For me, personally, a pair of 8331A while nice could not compete with a pair of 8330A, the 7360A subwoofer, the GLM Kit, cables and money leftover.

I've posted mine a few times over other threads also but this is how the 7040A fared in my REALLY small room. Of course nowhere near your SAM system type of flawless, but it generally fits my need and taste, and most importantly, not breaking the bank.

And I completely agree your point. Everyone have their own justification of that exact point, someone who can afford a Porsche and a nice house would sometimes think for audio he think the best is bose sound bar which fits his decoration and any of our stuffs over $1000 is crazy expensive and not worth it

 

[redshift]

1% above your maximum budget.

$ N-1 USD

Where N is defined as the no-fault hard limit when the family court insists that you should flip half of your gear.

 

[Count Arthur]

$ N-1 USD

Where N is defined as the no-fault hard limit when the family court insists that you should flip half of your gear.

I thought N, was the number of bicycles you needed.

 

[rdenney]

There are great speakers at every price point. The differences between them depend on a range of features not so closely related to their fidelity:

1. Bass extension (which can easily be enhanced with a sub)
2. Loudness (of varying importance depending on the size of the room and their distance to the listening position, though my Revel F12's--definitely their budget product, especially on the secondary market--maintained linearity at higher SPL production than most speakers tested at the NRC).
3. Aesthetics (of varying importance depending on the wife)
4. Directivity (of varying importance depending on the room)
5. Demonstration of wealth and discernment (of varying importance depending on the buyer)

I frankly don't see all that much correlation between basic sound quality and price, but those other features do have a cost (and therefore price) component. For some of them, there is no law of diminishing returns, and more is...more.

Rick "who generally spends as little as possible" Denney

 

[YSC]

There are great speakers at every price point. The differences between them depend on a range of features not so closely related to their fidelity:

1. Bass extension (which can easily be enhanced with a sub)
2. Loudness (of varying importance depending on the size of the room and their distance to the listening position, though my Revel F12's--definitely their budget product, especially on the secondary market--maintained linearity at higher SPL production than most speakers tested at the NRC).
3. Aesthetics (of varying importance depending on the wife)
4. Directivity (of varying importance depending on the room)
5. Demonstration of wealth and discernment (of varying importance depending on the buyer)

I frankly don't see all that much correlation between basic sound quality and price, but those other features do have a cost (and therefore price) component. For some of them, there is no law of diminishing returns, and more is...more.

Rick "who generally spends as little as possible" Denney

um~ seriously? I think the basically FR standpoint alone quite a lot of duds out there? not only the very cheap ones but also some of the really well known brands also have extremely uneven response?

 

[gsp1971]

Rick "who generally spends as little as possible ..." Denney

as little as possible ... provided a certain benchmark of performance is met, correct?

 

[antennaguru]

I bought Anthony Gallo Acoustics main speakers and subs, and they came with a 30 day in-home trial. Accordingly I was able to hear them in the room and be sure I was satisfied.