jacob@PSYCHE.MIT.EDU (Jacob Feldman) (08/14/90)
I heartily agree that the "law of diminishing returns" as it is applied to high-end audio is bandied about somewhat carelessly. Really, its just a log scale. To go from a $1000 speaker to a $2000 one is no more of an improvement than to go from to go from a $100 to a $200-- but it is no LESS of an improvement, either. In other words, this geometric increase should not obsure the fact that there are still equally large increases in pleasure possible at each level. (And from a really abstract "holy grail" sort of point of view, maybe there is even a special religous component to the really high-priced improvements.) People who espouse the diminishing returns view are often anti-high-enders (spouses, girlfriends-- you know who I mean) trying to put nicely what they really want to say, which is that the high priced improvements aren't worth it (or aren't worth anything). This view, of course, as we all know, is unfounded. I also agree heartily with the view that expensive electronics are more important than expensive speakers. I admit that I find this highly counter-intuitive, and for a long time as I was just getting into audio I assumed that the opposite was true-- that the speakers determined the sound of the system, and that any electronics with enough power would do. But my experience has not born this out at all. The ultimate eye-opener is hearing a $200 or $300 pair of decent speakers that get all the frequencies, basically, but are nothing special (KEF, ADS etc.), driven by really good electronics. When I did this I joined the cheapest-speaker- you-can-get-away-with camp. -jacob feldman