Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: BAAY@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Diminishing returns in the high end
Message-ID: <5764@uwm.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 90 19:06:24 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 69
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


G'day veteran audiophiles,

I'm a beginner in audio, and this is my first posting to r.a.h-e after following
this newsgroup for several months now, so please bare with me.

In article <5745@uwm.edu>, erich@inmet.inmet.com writes:
> Sorry if I sound overly contradictory, but I believe that basic premise of your
> posting is wrong. You assume that each of us have a static and deterministic
> as well as equivalent level of both appreciation of sound and willingness to
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> spend on sound. 

Actually, I don't think that's what the original poster said at all.  He simply
mentioned that the law of diminishing returns applies to audio, and briefly
cited his own experience on this.

I agree with your observation and conclusion, but someone seems to have
misinterpreted the meaning of diminishing returns.  While a person may never
reach his ultimate goal, he is still APPROACHING his goal on the diminishing
returns curve.  That is, diminishing returns refers to the diminishing improve-
ments, not necessarily non-positive changes nor diminishing gross returns, you
get as you approach the ultimate.

Furthermore, this law does NOT require us to have equal or static appreciation
for sound although I'm not certain about deterministic.  It only states that
your positive perception of improvements approaches "zero" as the system
approaches perfection, which I find quite true in virtually anything.
Hence, the law itself does not use some fixed price tag, personal evaluation,
etc. as reference points for any arbitrary person and his/her perceptions at
any time.  Any particular curve resulting from its application represents a
pattern for one particular instance, so time IS as much a variable as anything
else although it may have much less influence than the actual equipment,
personal taste, price tags, etc.

So the law still applies to the millionaire because he will perceive diminishing
improvements as his system approaches, while never achieving, the ultimate IFF
everything other than his system remain constant.  Meanwhile, the poor man has
reached what he feels to be good enough since each successive improvement is no
longer perceived as an improvement, ie. additional returns have diminished to
an effective zero.  The rate of diminishing, NOT diminishing returns, for the
millionaire is much more gradual than that of the poor man.


G   |         ___---    |
R   |      __/          |
O R |    _/             |    C2
S E |   /               | 
S T |  /                |    ____-------        C1 represents the curve for the
  U | /    C1           |  _/                   millionaire, and C2 for the
  R | |                 | /                     poor man
  N | |                 | |
  S |________________   |_______________
      SUCCESSIVE
      IMPROVEMENTS


I hope I didn't complicate the issue too much with all the rambling. :)

-Man-

-- 
/******************************************************************************
* Suspect: Man F Wong			Charges: Conspiracy against mankind
* Status:  Enhanced bioroid renegade	         Infiltration of ESWAT
* Profile: 8^}				         Assault on GAIA
* Last found at:	baay@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (internet)
*			baay@crnlvax5 (bitnet)
******************************************************************************/