The Magico M9 & The Myth of the Law of Diminishing Returns
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 янв 2023
- Is the Law of Diminishing of Returns relevant to the subjective nature of high-end audio? Lee explores this idea while recalling his visit to Magico's factory.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter: www.theabsolutesound.com/newsletter
About Lee Scoggins:
A native of Atlanta, Georgia, Lee got interested in audio listening to his Dad’s system in the late 70s. By the early 80s he got swept up in the CD wave that was launching which led to a love of discs from Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Later while working on Wall Street in the 90s, Lee started working on blues, jazz and classical sessions for Chesky Records and learned record engineering by apprenticeship. Lee was involved in the first high resolution recordings which eventually became the DVD-Audio format. Lee now does recordings of small orchestras and string quartets in the Atlanta area, became president of Nextscreen LLC in 2019, before moving on to CEO in 2021.
What Is The Absolute Sound?
The Absolute Sound magazine has been a leading publication in high-end audio since 1972. Since the early 2000s, The Absolute Sound has expanded to include web, newsletter, digital magazine, social media, RUclips and Substack platforms. The Absolute Sound platforms have a global audience of over 500,000 audiophiles.
For more show reports, expert reviews, features, and commentary subscribe to our newsletter at: www.theabsolutesound.com
Follow us on Facebook: / theabsolutesound
#hifi #audiophile #theabsolutesound 
Развлечения
Great video, Lee! I think one of your last statements was particularly on point, that being the importance of not confusing "better value for money" with "better sound quality".
Thanks Rich.
Agree with you Lee...with the proviso that room acoustics, components are matched within the system and to the room and system setup is accounted for.
You seem to confuse the concept of diminishing returns; it is NOT absolute improvements stopping/slowing but the ratio of improvement vs. change in price. Absolute improvements continue, but the cost for each unit of improvement generally costs more than the previous unit of improvement. Diminishing returns definitely happens, even if improvements continue.
Lee's example of his progression in DACs is a prime example of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Was Lee's Benchmark 2 5 times as good as his Benchmark 1? Was the PS Audio 3 times as good as the Benchmark 2, and was the Apex 6 times as good as the PS Audio DSD MK1? Sound quality or listening satisfaction are not really quantifiable in this context but if the subjective improvements are not at least of these magnitudes, that is the Law of Diminishing Returns in action.
Mark, we actually defined the term in the video for just this reason. The argument is not with the fact that metrics of some performance approach a limit, but the subjective enjoyment and realism of that event keep getting better. Therefore, the law practically doesn’t kick in until well beyond the range of available products today.
As a designer and small scale producer Mark, I agree with you. There are most definitely laws of diminishing returns, partly for the reasons you mention and partly as the average listening room creates a constrained room power response that negates actually hearing the improvements, we do not live in anechoic chambers or well enough treated rooms (forget dsp…it destroys polar response).
It’s a pure nonsense to suggest that the law of diminishing returns does not exist. It does. It doesn’t take much reasoned debate to prove it. It occurs both at the design/construction stage and at the final user stage.
The hearing argument is actually the reverse if what is claimed! Our hearing diminishes with age so our ability to hear step changes reduces!!! Hearing is most sensitive in the 1 to 5khz range. Above and below that hearing sensitivity falls off. You do NOT need to spend anything like the cost of the Magico M9 good as they are, to achieve a lifelike experience in many listening rooms. There’s balance of scale, efficiency and size. You can have any two of those, pick your compromise.
To suggest that unless you spend a fortune on speakers to benefit from improved front ends is also utter BS. You can buy speakers which are sufficiently timbrelly correct and resolving enough to clearly hear and benefit from upstream changes for around £10K.
Spending what the M9 costs requires millionaire levels of affordability and arguably it also brings in a moral element…is it appropriate to put scarce resources into a luxury good like this or buy at half the price and donate an equal amount to a charity where the money would be better used helping those who desperately need it?
As someone involved in R&D as well as manufacture, I admire Magico but could not justify going that far with speaker design when you can buy very very good speakers at a fraction of the price. You do NOT need to spend as much to get life like timbre and scale, period. It’s delusional imho to claim otherwise but if that’s what somes believe, let them knock themselves out. They’re only kidding themselves. You can buy speakers for a third of the cost, carefully chosen, which will offer similar levels of scale and provide high resolution and great imaging.
For every pair like that at the so called high end, unfortunately, you can also squander a fortune on highly coloured and flawed speakers (no names no pack drill). Many more produce highly compromised sounding than actually worthwhile upgrades at the high end. Magico is not one of them though. I have a lot of time for their products but know equally that I’ll never be able to afford or to justify spending that much on speakers. I’m quite happy slumming it with my £12k RFC hand built creations and and found the law of diminishing returns with a £9K analogue front end. That’s a whole different debate though😉
The M9 is the perfect example of diminishing returns. 😂
First it should be mentioned that higher prices does not always mean better quality. There are some specific units that stand out even when compared to far more expensive units.
While this is of course true, it is a bit of a red herring.
These exceptions of, high priced gear underperforming, or lower priced outperforming some higher priced gear, is not what the video is about.
Of course, there are exceptions but not at the top of the range in my experience. Good value items are not an argument for the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Lee states that these speakers cost $750k because the speakers disappear and have multiple drivers. Lee must not get out much because I have had little monitors that cost < $5k that disappear and have had speakers with the same number of drivers as the Magico for a lot less than $750k.
What is high end audio anyway? People on the street think spending $1,000 on a system is expensive, audiophiles might think $20k is getting into high end. It’s been stated many times it’s not the amount of $$$ you spend on a system that makes it high end. For example, TAS reviewers stated that the Wadax music server ($75k) was the best of the best (typical TAS/Stereophile review, everything is the best that they have had in their music room) and the review of the Stenheim speakers that were also the best of the best, but together they were voted 1 of the worst sounding rooms at axpona. Other rooms at axpona that had streamers costing a few thousand $$$ sounded much better than the room with the wadax. Is this not part of the diminishing returns scenario?
The Curve to the Highest Pleasure in Audio will always be an Upward Climb unless you can't hear the difference! Or never Content at some point! Point Well Made in this Presentation!
@@user-cp5yx6om1h I have Wilson Alexia V speakers at home and TuneTots as well. Both disappear…but the M9 just vanish more than others if you will. Which is a bit disconcerting initially as these are 80” tall and big speakers. As for the Wadax + Stenheim room, you are really talking about the quality of the setup and the acoustics of a room at the trade show. Both are great brands but not every exhibitor gets the setup right. As for price levels, I think any system at almost any price can be considered “high end” if the setup is good and if the components have been selected with care for the budget that one is comfortable with.
Great video and something interesting to consider, as we all have different levels of ability to properly hear subtle improvements in sound quality. Whether it is because of hearing loss or inadequate room acoustics to get the best out of the very highest end equipment. I think many of us a better served to seek out equipment that is not necessarily expensive, but produces sound that is beautiful and musical sounding to our own ears. Even though my own system that I have pieced together over the years is stupid expensive and fabulous sounding to my ears, I get equal enjoyment listening to a modestly priced setup, listening at near field, where room acoustics don’t interfere as much as a large listening room.
I think the job at The Absolute Sound is to cover the vast universe of hifi and point out the special components that are especially good sounding at each price point. But then it is best for that to be used as a “short list” for the consumer to go out and hear the component for themselves. Everyone has different preferences. As for near field, I have a video on the ideal speaker placement formula in another video on our channel. Jim Smith has created something special based on his own vast experience setting up systems.
I hear your point and if someone wants, and can afford a $750k speaker, more power to them. For me, however, I think its preposterous, even if I had the money. Why? As you mentioned a $750k speaker needs a special room- lets say thats another $200k. It probably merits electronics costing another $200k as well. Let's say with cables and ancillaries, we are looking at $2 million. I'm going to suggest I could spend $50k on electronics and $30k on speakers, and treat a "normal" room for $5k. I also believe that with their back turned, you would not find unanimous preference for one system versus the other among a panel of say 10 people listening to random blind trials. And I'm sure that when told of the price/quality trade off, most would say they could live with the lesser system. In the meantime, I could take the $1.9 million I've saved and hire the Jazz combo or chamber group of my choice for live performances in my living room once a month. Once a year or so I could hire Billy Joel or Donald Fagen, or the group of my choice for a private concert. I could sustain this level of hiring for about 10 years. At the end of that time I still have my sweet $85k system. So, which path resulted in "better" sound? The point is that diminishing returns is not the only economic concept in play. The substitution effect is relevant as well.
Interesting perspective and thought provoking.... 🙂
Thanks you for your input. This obviously gives us all something to think about. On the other hand…I’m still perplexed that this could be just a commercial for magico speakers.
I would love to have 3 M9's in a Left, Center and Right "LCR" with a 240" Retracting Acoustic transparent screen.
Law of Diminishing Returns is a general might be principle and not always applies in all cases, but in audio it centenary applies. one can enjoy music and getting an M9 won't make you enjoy the music 800K more.
Regarding M9, speakers needs to fit the room they would be played in, there for in smaller room you can achieve M9 results with "just" M6, and in smaller room then that this could be achieved with M3 (with or without subwoofer if needed).
I think it may be better to rephrase the diminishing returns from sound quality to enjoyment vs additional marginal dollars required. In this scenario diminishing returns could be more pronounced such that it would be the music played rather than higher sound quality that sways the enjoyment factor more and it is at this point where you reach the limit of the value of a system...
What is the second best speaker you have heard? What were the differences between that and the M9? Thanks!
You used DAC (ironically, arguably the best example of diminishing returns) but stopped at the $30k range with the dcs. But how about that versus a 50k dac or a MSB reference for 100k? Can you honestly tell us a couple % increase (if any) in presentation is worth another 50k+ on top of your Rossini?
A very interesting video. I had not thought this was the case until I watched the video. Lee makes a compelling argument that there is a positive correlation between price and performance that does not cap out above a certain $ spent. NOT an R2 of 1 (a perfect correlation) but a positive correlation nonetheless. I can only imagine how good the Magico M9 system must be.
My view is that since it is in this realm a qualitative rather than quantitative judgement the rules of diminishing return are not so easily applied. For what one person considers value for the cost is not what others would find in the same setting . It appears to be distraction the reason one owns thing that being the performance of the equipment for the owner. Once factoring status to the equation thing change a good bit . This does remind me of the question of how many angel fit on a head of a pin .
I agree that different people have different utility for these components.
Diminishing returns is a thing in hifi but where lines are drawn on the performance spectrum is very highly speculative. The Magico speaker lineup is a case in point and for some the difference between the M9 and A5 is "worth the money" because it IS audibly the better speaker. How one plots and prices the sonic improvement on his spectrum remains subjective.
Sadly, this question is still bothering me, more than I should have ever let it. I just subscribed to TAS, so I am remaining in contemplation about what is the end game? I get that the folks at Magico decided to see what it would take to design the best speaker on the planet, and by Mr. Harley's review, they have done just that. I have also just ordered a recording by Pianist Scott Goodyear that is rated 5 out of 5 for engineering/sound. His performance is as well. I have ordered Wood and the Keith Jarrett disc just to know what audio was used for the audition. I already own the Diana Krall SACD. More to learn.
I found this video and it’s subject matter absolutely profound! What a time we are living in that the state of the art in sound reproduction has reached such heights. I will never actually experience this level myself I’m sure so it is so important to have resources like this to, at least, experience things like this in the abstract. It has urged me to rethink my own system and what may be possible for it in the future. Thank you!
I've been saying this for many years and relieved to hear someone express the same, finally.
I have been at High end Audio shows and had manufacturer's themselves prove that the Law of Diminishing Returns exists. How many times have you heard a manufacturer (or a reviewer) say that Model B will get you 80% of the performance of Model A. So if the LODR does not exist then the cost of Model A should only be 20% more than Model B but that is rarely the case. Model A is often costs much more than the 20% difference in performance.
I totally agreed with you. Audio is subjective and is constrained only by human imagination. The law of diminishing return does apply to many real things in life but not on the human imagination. For human imagination sky is the limit. People shall spend as much as they could to achieve their dream in audio. Do not constrain your dream and limit human imagination.
Perfectly stated...kudos
I have listened to a few dcs products, and to be honest, I wasn't blown away as they always sounded like most digital products in that they sounded like someone is polishing the sound. Then I had the opportunity to listen to the rossini apex in a side by side with the none apex and have to admit there was a huge difference. The apex sounded much better still not as good as a well set up turntable or anywhere near that reel to reel that was behind you, I've never listened to the select 2 dac, but it gets great reviews but I don't listen to others, I use my own ears to make a decision and opinion 😁 anyway I hope everyone had a nice Xmas and a happy new year 😁 stay safe everyone 😀
As I write I am filming a review on the dCS Rossini Apex. I agree with you as I lived with the non-Apex version for a while and was happy but the Apex version is next level. A remarkable reworking of the system by Andy McHarg and Chris Hales. I have lots to say on this wonderful piece of gear.
the video starts around 7:00
This is beautifully analyzed. I don’t believe in a law of diminishing returns. You wallet will run out before anything else. You hit it on the head it is a Crutch that others have come up with to control someone else’s spending because they can’t afford something and feel guilty, so they want to extend that guilt to the next person.
So you use a catch phrase like this to explain your guilt or perceived inadequacy instead of just saying, I can’t afford it. There is nothing wrong with being honest with yourself. An item doesn’t make you a better person.
You often have people that will have a component that they are proud of and they will say, this is better or comparable with components costing 2-10 times it’s cost. How can you say this unless you have experience with items of greater value that you are testing at that time. This is just a phrase to make you feel better about your purchase to someone else’s detriment and it’s self serving garbage.
This applies to homes, cars, watches, boats, motorcycles or any other luxury item. Be happy where you are in life or make changes and please let’s stop these stupid phrases like law of diminishing returns to control your fellow man or women.
As good as my system is, I have not only heard better, but significantly better and I’m okay with that because I’m comfortable with who and what I am and I don’t use a brand name to define me as a person, so I don’t get angry when that brand or price class is criticized.
It isn’t the responsibility for a manufacturer to stay where you are, it is their job to constantly push the boundaries to extend their brand and bring in new customers. It is trickle down technology and the used market that we can benefit from these technologies.
I have one of those Revox A77 machines and its 2 track 15 IPS and its great but my Tandberg TD20A which is 4 track 7.5 IPS has lower noise and better frequency response.
That may be true. This is a very good four track machine but I do more listening on my rebuilt PR99 now that I have heard what 15 ips can do.
@@realleescoggins Ahhh yes. I have other 15 IPS machines and I plan on modifying them someday. I'd like to get a Tandberg TD20ASE that is 15 IPS and 2 track. That should be a killer.
To me the biggest problem we have is in the recordings we buy. We are still in the era of the ratings of recordings of LPs, CDs, or SACD.DSD. We have so many, if not more that are not 5 out of 5 or 10 out of 10. So if in the case of the Magico M9's how far can you go , to say the next better model, say the M10, that could sound "better???" if a recording that was a 4 out of 5? So, if you have to spend more and race to a $ One Million speaker set how much more are you going to hear from a less than stellar recording? We still can't even agree on which format is the best and complain to the extent of the Princess and the Pea syndrome. Those of you who have these mega dollar systems are probably more affected by the recording problem that I am. You will hear things that I never could. What is also interesting is that the sound of all of the very best amplifiers, preamplifiers, all sound different from each other, measure different, yet reviewers will say that either one might be the one for you, and then you have to deal with your room acoustics. The idea of diminishing returns is up to the buyer/owner. When is enough of your money going out the door to say I am hearing all I can hear nor want to worry about hearing? Many of you have playback systems that cost more than the recording gear that is used to make your favorite recordings. I do believe that not as much money or effort is made to improve recording gear as is made on playback gear. Until the recording gear moves up, we can never hear it all. Plus, in the recording process there are many "hands in the soup" and in the end the mastering engineer can make or break the process. Lastly, I have many recordings that hive a too high recording noise floor, some just prior to the music starting that is above -50db or as high as -40db; and I don't know if it is the room, the recording board and mic preamps, microphones, or in the delivery of AC to the recording venue, or just the ambient noise of the room. All of this is part of it.
Great points. My thought is that I'm surprised we're even getting this level of reproduction. We should feel blessed.
Jim, I agree on the recordings being important but that’s a different topic.
@@realleescoggins Then, I would ask what recordings do many of you consider worthy of using to make an assessment of diminishing returns? You buy all this great gear to hear more, deeper into the music. What are the standards of recording excellence that one uses? I consider many of the early Sinatra Capitol releases to be good if you like and prefer the tape medium. I have also always loved the late Al Schmitt's work with Tony Bennett and Diana Krall and consider it STOA. I have loved Jim Anderson's work on the Pete Malinverni's piano recordings as one of my standards. I only bring this up as I just bought Michael Buble's latest recording, "Higher" and the first track has some problems and many engineers did other tracks on this release that are much better. I don't think that any one would use this track 1 and think they needed to buy better speakers, IMHO. Maybe I am off here, but to keep pushing the bar for higher performance from the gear we buy when the music we buy to listen to is not always keeping up seems to be a bad model. I would doubt that Magico folks are just using measurements just to determine an improvement in performance. I would trust the folks at Magico are always pushing the bar forward because it does matter, emotionally, to THEIR customers who can afford to reach the playback pinnacle of accuracy because the MUSIC matters so much to them. There will be some who own the M9's, that will sell them and buy the next, great thing Magico brings out, because it all matters to them. I would think that is what motivate the folks at Magico. Surely the folks at DCS will not ever stop improving their great line of DACs and their customers will be ever so grateful for it. Some might say the returns are not great enough at some point vs. the expense, but many will always keep improving their music playback systems because it matters to them, because of the music. I hope you see I am not trying to be difficult.
@@davewin1792 I have a very modest gear and have spent more on recording gear over the past 10 years than on my listening systems. My free recording attempts for local schools and universities has helped me greatly in learning more about getting better recordings, what THAT means, and to listen to them, and why some commercial recordings are missing this mark. The students have always appreciated hearing themselves on these recordings, many for the first time. This has to come first: better recordings. There is no doubt that owning the Magico M9's would be a wonderful thing, the sound they present is certainly to be appreciated and the engineering admired. I would also bet that their owners seek out reviews of the better recordings and would not waste their time on less than stellar recordings unless they just loved a particular artists, the emotional side to music. There is certainly more to be heard the better your gear, no doubt, If one can afford it. I can see where the sky is their limit, people will follow, and manufacturers will be there with the product that will do that. The last 5% to 10% of performance will always cost the most to achieve. I am most happy for the people who can afford that journey. I don't this there is an end for these folks.
@@jtavegia5845 That's a great thing you're doing for these students. Music is so very important and bless your heart for giving these kids something that will last a lifetime. I to have a modest system, and the better components I put in my rig, I quickly learned exactly what you are saying. Even buying vinyl, I was choosing mostly Philips for the quality, but have just accepted that the music has to come first.
Law of diminishing returns is definitely real and kicks in as low as $200 in audio.
As with your comparison between dacs of different price ranges , one must consider how much perceivable difference there may be between audio components , if listened to under blind conditions . Most of the “ differences or improvements “ could very well be due to expectation bias .
But there is the fact that one’s enjoyment of a system takes in visual and emotional cues , including pride of ownership . They certainly add to the experience in this hobby . For example , a meal in a highly rated restaurant is more than just the flavour of the food served . Other factors clearly are involved in the overall experience .
But this is a different argument from actual audible improvements . We would be fooling ourselves by stating the perceived improvement in sound quality , because of these environmental biases our brain is picking up during these auditions .
Mmmm M9. Legendary.
Good argument.
Thank you for this video!
I've been posting the same types of things on audio forums every time I see anything about the law of diminishing returns applied to audio, for years.
My rich cousin has proven it doesn't apply to audio many times over. He recently made a very expensive mono amp upgrade to his system (Von Schweikert Ultra 9) , that already sounded amazing. For the increase in price, he got a tiny bit more mid bass definition, and a wider and deeper soundstage. But to him, the 5 figure expenditure was worth the $$$$, because he still hasn't reached his point of diminishing returns.
I think, the reason why many people think this kind of audio gear is beyond the point of diminishing returns, either: they have not spent enough time with it, do not yet have the educated ears to hear it, or, there is a bit of 'sour grapes' happening.
Now to throw everything upside down ..........perform a blind test of several audio systems and ask the participants how much they think each system is worth .......the answers will be quite revealing in an incredibly objective way. Of course we can convince ourselves that the more money spent on the design etc. then it just has to be better . Although that is never really the case is it ?.....Try taking a $200k speaker and compare it to a $350k speaker , that increase in price does not assure a better sound afterall. Listen more to the "notes" of the music and not the money "notes" so to speak. Then again people like Lee would be out a job and some nice audio factory trips if they did not at least try and debunk the Law of Diminishing Returns in audio.
what about your wilson's
The Law of Diminishing returns applied when technology was limited as it was years ago. As technology increases that law no longer applies. I agree with you. Put price itself is not a direct indicator of a direct increase in sound quality. A lot has to do with marketing, product development, size of the company, number of employees, etc. and all costs associated with the running of said company.
Sometimes, products at a lower price point, can sound better than more expensive items. Not always, but it is possible.
I understand your argument. Obviously there are qualitative and quantitative considerations in all of this. If you make a Venn Diagram, two intersecting circles, somewhere in that intersecting area lies the real value for each piece of gear. That gear should be able to be placed along the line created by the x and y axis. Some magazines that review gear do rate that gear for value using various schemes. AS does not. I guess it's hard to do because value, like beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, it's relative for each individual. A $750,000 speaker depending on an individual's values, competes with a lot of other things. Maybe it's not so much that there's no such thing as diminishing value, your argument, completely understandable, but the real issue is bang for the buck. And to determine that for each individual, they would have to listen to a giant amount of gear in various combinations in their own listening space. With endless combinations and permutations, even reviewers and show attendees can't do that.
You could say that I am suggesting that the qualitative realism experienced is far more important than incremental improvements in measurement that don’t capture the entirety of what we hear.
@@realleescoggins And that's even moreso today than it ever was. I've been an audiophile for 55 years. When I was young I guess we had measurement marketing wars but I think that was because solid state was new and quality was improving and could show big gains in those numbers. We also used to drive pretty crappy cars. Now, the worst car you can buy is leaps and bounds better than then. I think today it's the same for electronics and the tech is amazing. Hard to buy something really bad. We depend a lot on reviewers but the gear is so much better today the reviews seem to always be good and the gear seemingly always recommended. Maybe that's because if there is a piece of junk, why would we want to read a review about it. Listening is obviously critical, but not everyone can listen to everything, even in larger cities or even at shows. I think there's an art to writing a review but there's also an art to reading them. First, you need to read a lot of reviews. Then you have to train yourself to read between the lines. Maybe AS should review a piece of gear that is crappy and write about it without showing the photo or revealing the name of the manufacturer. It's almost like we read about such good equipment without major faults reading about one that would not be recommended and disclosing the reasons why could be very instructive.
The act of throwing money at a high end system is directly proportional to what your room and your goals are.
The room size defines the speaker, the quality of speaker defines all the electronics downstream which defines the resolution of each piece of gear
A very large room ( 30x 50) properly acoustically treated with ones goal of producing realistic sound pressure levels to emulate Carnegie Hall when listening to the Berlin Philharmonic with a real sense of space, is going to cost you over 500k. A room 12x 15 room much less. Well under 50k for datisfaction
Its not about diminishing returns,
It was about the cost of giving you what you want in a given space.
But If you feel the need to spend 50k on a turntable, 35k on a tape deck, 50k+on a streamer and DAC then be my guest. That will skew the whole arguement
As I engage with ultra high end systems daily I 100% concur with your findings. I am quite curious to experience the likes of the M9s with my full signal chain and perfected power. My systems with my signal chains with perfected power still is not bested with any system I have heard north of 1.5million but, I truly believe the M9s would change that. They appear to be simply glorious. Full Kudos to Magico on true cutting edge speakers and quite possibly the finest made dynamic speaker at ANY price, the Magico M9. I have heard the M6 and have had tons of seat time with the M3. Again, Kudos to Magico. For Me, it's about "Building Enjoyment and Creating Engagement at The Pinnacle Level"
I hope you hear the M9s soon.
Years ago I heard the Infinity IRS speaker system twice. Once with Conrad Johnson equipment and once with Mark Levinson equipment. While the sound was great they didn't sound any better than my Acoustat X's. But there was one issue with the IRS which made them sound unacceptable to me. The image wandered. With my Acoustats the image was rock solid.
A landmark experience for me was a trip around 1989 to Lyric Hifi in NYC where I was lucky enough to hear the IRS Betas with Mike Kay. That sound was so unlike what I had heard before. It showed me what was possible.
@@realleescoggins I was lucky to get a job working for a high-end stereo store so I got to hear many things.
@@realleescoggins I should mention that a guy came to work with us who said he worked for The Absolute Sound and he gave me issue one of the magazine.
national?
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of diminishing returns at work here.
main problem I have with your argument is with the key word is "benefits"-------you seem imply that somehow this is objective. Here we are talking about something that is NOT measurable but is subjective pleasure-----it's different for every person. Simply, there is a point for each of us at any time where spending more doesn't give us a proportionate increase in listening pleasure. Now, I agree that this point can and probably will change for each person. A good $10,000 system in a normal size room might give a particular person almost all the listening enjoyment they consider worthwhile-----sure a $100,000 system will more closely approach reality but how much and is the difference worthwhile?-----again, different answer for all of us. Like a lot in the audiophile world, not EVERYTHING is susceptible to measurement. To sum up, there is nothing wrong with the concept of diminishing returns-----it's just that it's different for each person
Purely from a theoretical standpoint, there clearly is a limit to how good sound reproduction can be and that is your name sake, the absolute sound, the sound of the original live performance. Sound reproduction can approach that limit, perhaps asymptotically, but never quite reach it. The problem with your example is that the Y axis can never be truly quantified. As you say, at this point in time it probably cannot be objectively measured quantitatively. First, what is the appropriate metric - satisfaction, as you suggest? Probably as good a measure as any. So in those terms there probably is no limit apart from being present at the original performance.
The only good subjective measure may be only a group of good critical listeners agreeing that the loudspeaker does get us noticeably closer to a realistic portrayal of live events.
Hi Lee, great video! If only you had some pictures or video of your visit to Hayward. I know the Australian distributor, he's actually listed the M9 on his website. Stephen, Sydney, Australia (fellow Etna Lambda owner)
I am sure a $250K pair of speakers would sound great in a $1M listening room but how much difference would it be if you replaced it with $10K speakers?
I suppose if one has an unlimited (undiminished) income, then it is easy for one to claim they can have a subjective experience of a linear, one-to-one return on their expensive hi-fi "investment."
After all, the majority of uber wealthy people purchase million dollar toys (hi-fi, automobiles, etc) as status statements--and the acknowledgement of diminishing returns is nulled by a lack of self-knowledge.
Per the mutable nature of our senses, such an evaluation becomes little more than folly--and to claim the so-called, "Law of Diminishing Returns" (in audio, auto racing, etc) is a myth, well, such a claim only reinforces the general perception of high-end audio as driven and lived by those who have dissociated themselves from any semblance of reality.
Thus, would it not follow that such a dissociated life would be, itself, little other than myth based?
The second question begged follows: what is the point of arguing against the Law of Diminishing Returns?
And (question #3): who does it serve, especially when subjective experience becomes the ruling metric?
The problem with this is that Absolute Sounds never measures anything at all so how would they know if measurements matter and then in another breath talks about the Klippel Analyser that Magico uses :D LOL
I have been "into" stereo components since the Marantz 1200 was new.
The prices of current components is so out of line , it is stupid. It's a shame, but true. 750,000 for speakers? Bull crap!!!!
Well, I'm really not sure that what you're saying actually proves what you think you're saying. Seems the opposite.
If you have 750k speakers as opposed to the average 7-8k of the average audiophile, it shouldn't be surprising to hear a consistent improvement (I could add that the terms you're using - lifelike experience... like having the musicians in the room... speakers disappearing... etc.... apply to just about any hi-end review I've read or seen. But I'm not going there).
The graph you show could be drawn by a child, probably is. I see no math to support it.
And even if what you're saying was true, even if 750k speakers could provide a life changing experience, you probably wouldn't get a proportional improvement with a hypothetical 2 million speaker... So the law of diminishing returns DOES APPLY anyway, it's science, it's not like you suddenly discovered that acoustics for some eerie reason escape the laws of physics. Just saying.
It would be better to state what you get for more money in terms of engineering.
T o enjoy the M9 I would need a new house,. So my cost would be far more than $750,000.
Absolutely false. Investing in room treatments will produce far better results than taking losses on your components in order to buy new ones.
First of all, I think you make your argument well, although a few bits of video from the Magico factory tour to illustrate your points would have been a great addition!
Second, I agree with your thesis. My most recent "reset" was unexpectedly with video, not audio. At the recent CEDIA conference in Dallas, I had what was absolutely the greatest theatre demo I have ever experienced on a show floor. It wasn't the audio (Steinway Lyngdorf, which is elite but we're a Lyngdorf dealer so I'm used to what that sounds like), but the video, which was a new $450K, cost-no-object projector that absolutely permanently reset my expectations about what's possible. Absolute black when there was no signal (equivalent to an audio "noise floor") and such deep, rich and solid colour when it was playing that I can still see in memory. It's that contrast that stands out.
Third, now that you've had your expectations reset about what's possible, what's your reaction when you go back to regular, high end audio? Is everything else now moved down a level and does that affect your enjoyment with other systems?
Keep up the great work, the upgraded RUclips presence is very enjoyable!
Mate, just pause for a minute.
Take a breath and listen to yourself.
😳😳
How can you justify what you are saying when you know very well that it doesn't stack up. 🤦
Audio systems can never sound real. It's just so-called audiophiles falling in love with how expensive their audio gear costs.
We did not comment on actually achieving exact parity with a real musical event. However, you should hear these M9s as you may be astonished how close we can get in 2023.
@Lee Scoggins Hi there, I don't have any issues with the M9. I've not heard it, I believe they'll sound good. I personally wouldn't spend such an amount on a loud speaker even if I were to be a billionaire. There are cheaper alternatives.
My issue is that using the law of diminishing returns is not feasible in a vacuum. To apply the law, all other things must remain equal.
So, on what grounds is he applying this law?
Cost vs satisfaction?
Value for money vs wife acceptance?
Affordability vs budget?
What......?
@@venus263 My point herein is to suggest the Law doesn’t apply well at all to audio. The Law relates sound satisfaction to the money spent on the system. How do you define the Y axis? What metric captures the sound quality? I will put it this way. If the Law actually works, the difference between a $100K speaker and a $750K speaker would be small. But in fact it is not small at all. The $750K speaker is significantly better. So at what point does the Law work? $2 million? $3 million? Nothing is quite that expensive yet so there is no data point that proves the Law.
@Lee Scoggins
Hmm, mmm.
Interesting. So which variables did you hold constant before arriving at your conclusion?
Was this test conducted in the same room?
Same audio gear?
Same cables?
Equal distance of the speakers to the listening position?
Equal level/ height of the midrange and tweeter drivers to the listener's ear at the same listening position?
Same temperature in the listening room during both tests?
The same number of people present in the room sitting at the exact location during both tests?
etc....
Budget is a significant factor too. So consider it and re-plot your findings. Am eager to know the outcome.
One important thing to note here is that these laws were not just formulated. They've been tried and tested and proven to be accurate, provided that the user knows how to apply it.
We all have different opinions. If I had millions of dollars, law of diminishing returns wouldn’t apply.
For $500k you could DIY twenty graphene midwoofers for $500 each per side, for total $20k, 3 huge alnico woofers at $2k each per side, thats only $12k and some ten RAAL ribbons for $10k. All for $42k. Hmmm where to spend $460k? I dont know maybe $100k DAC and $100k amp. Still way cheaper and absolutely better than M9
Nothing is wrong, or are there any myths about "the law of diminishing returns." It's a mathematical fact and based on actual measurement. Where and how the law is applied may yield "debatable" outcomes/results. Regardless, the law remains a mathematical truth.
I don’t think you understand your own graph. If the slope changes for a given input then the returns are indeed diminished.
Oh I understand it. I was trying to keep the line going up at roughly the same 45 degree rate. I didn’t want to interfere with the title on the graph. Next time I will make a PowerPoint slide that is more clear.
@@realleescoggins Was a good discussion though and I think its accurate. Would like to have seen the room.
c est de la sono pour jacky
Prove it. Prove that $750,000 speakers are 100 x better than $7,500 ones. I’ve heard $90,000 speakers and didn’t them to be 10 x better than $9000 speakers. Better? Of course but not 10 x better. Perhaps 50% better which would be .5 X better.
I think that you're entitled to your own personal opinion in regards to the "Law of Diminishing returns," which is fine and dandy. However, you shouldn't take the liberty to make broad definitive statements as if your were speaking for us all. All things high end audio are supremely subjective, including ones interpretation of the Law of Diminishing Returns. There are those who could very well afford a pair of the 750K Magico M9 speakers who simply prefer the sound of the 350K Wilson Chronosonic XVX, for a cool 400K less, etc, etc.
Since you invited disagreements I'll take you up on it. I don't know or care if anyone puts the label "audiophile" on me. Once upon a time I was but that lasted about 13 years and ended nearly 50 years ago. But I have enjoyed both recorded and live music literally all of my life. I'm also an engineer with a long successful career not in the audio industry. When I was an infant and a toddler by coincidence I was exposed to highly reverberant sound fields very frequently and became fascinated with them. My goal was what this industry once promised but never delivered on, concert hall realism from recordings in a home. Therefore I had to figure it out for myself and you can see part of the results in my patent 4,332,929.
In every engineering concept there are inherent limits sometimes dictated by practical considerations and always dictated by what the idealized realization of that concept can achieve. Therefore there is always a law of diminishing returns. The closer you get to the limit of what an idea can achieve, the harder it is to remove the remaining defects between the state of the art and the ideal state. So the question here is, can the 2 channel paradigm achieve the goal of concert hall realism for people who have a lot of experience with live concert in the large spaces they are performed in for optimal listening and public performance. Having figured out how to mathematically model, analyze, engineer, and measure sound fields using straight forward methods that are hinted at in the patent, my answer is a resounding no, not even remotely close.
The first blunder is not understanding the nature of sound fields. The textbooks by famous acousticians use an approach very different from mine and what they deliver is a confusing array of individual characteristics that try to encompass an entire space. The entirely different analysis developed by those who invented Wave Field Synthesis comes much closer but there is one glaring fata; error. It is also very hard to understand the development of the mathematics which starts from a rather oblique but entirely valid set of well known principles. My method describes in one equation the sound field propagated by a single source of sound in one spot, the resulting sound field at another single spot, and the relationship between them.
The next blunder is lack of understanding critical aspects of hearing. When I was about 14 years old I read an article about binaural recording with microphones in a dummy head. It made sense that the results should be perfect until I got to the end where the author said that because the sound turns with your head, it appears to be coming from inside your head. The question that was never asked let alone answered was "why does it matter?" If you look at the back of some early stereophonic record jackets it will explain to you that stereo works by the fact that sound off to one side of you will reach one ear sooner and louder than the other ear. Later the factor of HRTF was added. Binaural recordings made in a dummy head and played through headphones meets all three criteria but fails. Why? Because sounds we hear are vector fields, that is time varying pressure gradients while headphones produce the equivalent of two scalar fields, that is each of them has no direction. In fact as soon as sound hits a microphone and is converted into an electrical signal, it becomes a scalar where the only variants are voltage and time. All directional properties of sound fields are lost. Speakers turn them back into vector fields that have no remote relationship with what fell on the microphones let alone what you'd hear at a greater distance from the source than the microphones are located in commercial recordings. Why did I have to know this? Because most of what you hear live is the reverberant sound field and you cannot tell what direction the reflections are coming from even though they are all vectors. Therefore any sound system that is going to recreate concert hall acoustics has to take this fact into account.
That brings me to the next blunder. The recording is far from an ideal capture of the sound you'd hear. Therefore no matter how perfectly you convert the electrical signal back into sound it's going to be very very wrong with much of what you should be hearing gone, missing, absent. Making what you have louder to compensate for the loss gets you nowhere because it is qualitatively very different from what is missing. Therefore your claim of hearing the choral piece like it was in a large space is the result of lack of experience and acoustic memory.
What solution did I use. I had to figure out how to reconstruct the part of the sound field that was missing from the signal I get from the source of the recording. Here's another audiophile blunder, one size does not fit all, one size fits one. Each recording is made differently and each genre of music has its own acoustic requirements. A solo violinist would get lost in a vast cathedral while a pipe organ would be overwhelming in a jazz club. Each has its own optimal space. This is not an easy thing to do. For one thing to get what acousticians call Diffusivity Index high enough in a practical system, the acoustics of the room must be engineered into the system, an integral part of the system. Audiophiles try their best to kill the room or at least tame it. So the system must be designed for the listening room, tuned to the listening room, and adjusted again for each recording. What you call high end audio is not satisfactory to me.
The original intent of the idea was to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra as it would be heard live but the prototype shows that it can enhance all types of music. There was no commercial interest in the patent and it probably could never be modified to become a marketable product. So I probably have the only one of its type. Since I can't make any money out of it, I've decided the secrets of it will die with me.
This is a thoughtful reply and I appreciate your efforts for obtaining better sound, but I don’t see these supporting the Law of Diminishing Returns because as great speakers like the M9 show, there is still non-incremental gains in realism to be had even at the reaches of stratosphere-like pricing. Perhaps we can recognize an asymptotic line approaching some theoretical limit in the future but for now, I believe the $750K speaker such as the M9 can beat the $300-400K speakers by a margin that is non one of increments.
all this talk, and you are totaly wrong anyway, don't tell me that these speakers are 10 times better than my IRS Beta's for example. it's not linear ! NOT and that is actually the justification for the price, that it is very complicated to gain another few percent, and very expensive. if those M9 sounded that much better, it's also because of the room, that costs more than a million actually (as per other sources)
Sorry no offense against Magico
Too funny!!
You literally read the definition & literally misunderstood it. Re-read it; it doesn't say it stops or doesn't payoff at a specific point.
When Magico learns how to Time Align, I’ll consider their speakers.
I'll second that. Magicos are great looking and I like their sound signature but found their imaging to be lacking, especially with regards to imaging height. I heard A5, S3 MkII and M3.
As someone with Wilson speakers, I understand where you are coming from, but I think basing an entire opinion on this one area doesn’t give proper credit to Alon’s achievement.
@fluterra It was already explained to you that this time alignment BS is, well, BS. Do we need to retake this dance ? Don't you want to learn, grow up, and move on? Perhaps get a better speaker?
@@Luke-vu1wm Hahaha, you are a moron if you do not understand that the sound of each driver must reach your ears at the same time. At least for the high end.
@@Fluterra You shouldn’t look at the mirror when you write.
Unfortunately, as I already explained to you, this subject is more complex than you are trying to make it. But I understand you are limited in your capacity to understand the concept. I can't help you any further.
Eddie, think of it as buying a car. Take Ferrari good chance that resale will be great.
Audio 5 products come to mind from yesterday good resale value.
Magico sure you will take the Gas Pipe . Wilson also these products change Models so much SO think of it as buying a GMC, Ford OR Mini Cooper Classic statment'""". It sounds what you hear at the Concert"" . NO the more you jack jaw. I can't take it. PS audio ??? Is that Mid fi. ??? Talk talk
There is Nooooooooooo Speaker Out There worth 750k
If you used a logarithmic scale for your x-axis cost the theoretical line would be perfectly reasonable…Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
This is stupid..imo..the law of diminishing returns does apply to everything!
It's all on illusion. Start to listen to music not your equipment.
If this guy think Magicos sound superb, then I know I can’t trust him.
Lol, you can’t win them all.
BS
There is no “law” of diminishing returns 😂 - you spend more and get better sound (if you know what to buy).
The “law” is a made-up fallacy by those who are unwilling or unable to spend more. The reality is that you realize massive improvements in sound when you go from a $10K to a $100K to a $1M system.
It is a fact not debatable! You keep trying to sell that overpriced crap! You saying the law of diminishing returns does not apply to HiFi makes you look incredibly dense.