The Law Of Diminishing Returns

[struth]

Assuming a figure of £10 for each item of 'software' (i.e. an LP or CD), then I just about meet your criterion of an equal split in expenditure between hardware and software.

Lol. Ive probably 10 times the software at a quick guess. Maybe 20

[danilo]

Likely a reasonable/healthy ratio.
Was a time when the Music was the rationale.

[Gazjam]

Yeah, there's a few groups like this one, aren't there ?

To be honest, I'll drool over the pictures as I love design in every form - especially industrial - but that's all it is : audio pornography.

Some truly fapworthy gear in there...
Something to be said though about being happy with what you have...

chasing that diminishing return can be a bit unhealthy!
All about a balance that works for you Id say.

[Macca]

Not sure the law of diminishing returns applies to the engineering side as much, meaning speakers and, to a slightly lesser extent, vinyl replay. If you ignore the overpriced rubbish or the stuff that has had most of the cost spent on bling there is a pretty big gulf in quality between expensive speakers and budget speakers.

There is also the expectation to consider. Happy is the enthusiast who never hears anything better than what he has already. Once he is 'exposed' to better he can no longer be satisfied, he must have that crucial extra 10% of performance, even though to get it will cost ten times what it cost to get the first 90%

[Sherwood]

Paul, most economics these days involves mathematics. Indeed, a whole branch of economics (econometrics) uses advanced mathematics and statistics to explore and explain relationships between variables (e.g the relationship between per capita household income and per capita spending on health care).

Sometimes a relationship exists between variables but as this is not a linear relationship it is not obvious when plotted on a graph. For example, in geometry the relationship between the length of square and its area are not linear. If you double the side of a square, its area will increase 4 times. There are a number of statistical techniques available to measure the correlation between two (or more) variables that involve converting the linear measurements into non linear form. In these case of the above example, area is equivalent to length squared so that the area of of square equals the square of its length.

I would not expect the relationship between hifi hardware and software expenditures to be linear. For me, if I calculate the cost of my main system I find I have probably spent over 6 times that amount on vinyl and cds. Over the years I have spent a lot more on hardware but have either sold that on or given it away. If I add in the cost of additional equipment the ratio probably drops to 4 times the software costs. I do know some people who have spent immense sums of hifi hardware and who have less than 100 cds. This seems odd to me.

Sorry for the digression but you did ask!

Geoff

[Macca]

. I do know some people who have spent immense sums of hifi hardware and who have less than 100 cds. This seems odd to me.

I suppose it is possible to be very rich and time poor. If you only have a couple of hours a week to listen to music there isn't much point having a large collection as you'd never scratch the surface of it. Our lives are finite no matter how many records we buy. No relationship there, linear or otherwise

Technology has superseded this partcular argument in any case, Subscribe to a streaming service and you instantly have a collection bigger than pretty much any single enthusiast in the world. (Although I appreciate not everything is available that way).

[Sherwood]

Martin,

at the risk of appearing pedantic (I am of course) the concept is correctly termed "diminishing marginal returns". It is not that performance does not improve with greater expenditures, but that each successive pound spent produces less benefits than the preceding pound spent. That is the marginal bit!

Each person is different in their perceptions of benefits and the value they attach to each pound they spend. For me, the returns fall dramatically above around six grand.

I agree that a lot of the fun is putting together synergistic combinations of equipment that perform above what would normally expect for that level of spending. I am sure we all like to think we are master matchers of equipment and secretly feel a little smug when seeing how much some punters have spent to so little effect.

Geoff

[Sherwood]

Martin,

you raise a valid point. The amount of money and time we have is important though they are not unrelated and change over time. We can trade off time for money by working longer hours (and vice versa) and tend to have more free time in our later years. However, a key issue is how we value music time in relation to other leisure pursuits such as watching tv, going to the pub, walking etc. Some activities can be conducted simultaneously. For much of my career I have worked in remote locations overseas where there was little worth watching on tv and so spent many evenings listening to music. During that time I would regularly travel long distances by car that allowed me to listen to music for many hours. For me, music both live and recorded rates high in my preference list.

Geoff

[Sherwood]

Grant,

are you counting all your equipment or just the main system?

Geoff

[Macca]

I agree Geoff, and I'm the same, will happily get in 20 or more hours a week of serious listening. But the bloke with only 2 hours a week to listen shouldn't be castigated for not bothering to assemble a huge collection he will never have time to listen to. In terms of cost of gear you can't blame him for wanting those precious 2 hours to be really special.