When browsing this subreddit, you often come across that phrase, diminishing returns.
I’m German, English is my second language, and there isn’t really a German phrase for this concept that would be on everyone’s mind when talking about this concept like ‘diminishing returns’ seems to be.
It’s a really neat concept and is true for so many hobbies, or things one can buy in general, but it is also ultra subjective, isn’t it?
Like, if someone has a 2000$ headphone but doesn’t really like it, and then spends 4000$ on one that they do like - does objective performance matter? I think the difference between the 2 could be 5%, but if it’s 5% in the right direction, they make the difference between selling it or keeping it and being happy.
I think there are people out there who don’t really shop in the 2-digit price category, or even 3-digit one, only 4 and above, for whatever reason - but they just wouldn’t be happy with a 500$ headphone, knowing that there is better stuff out there if you just spend the money.
I don't really have a point, I just got a bit philosophical about that phrase I guess.
I think there are two different aspects at play here with "diminishing returns". First, there's the "objective" evaluation that others have mentioned. Spending twice the money won't give you a soundstage that's twice as wide, for example. Twice the money won't get you headphones that give you twice as many details. So in terms of these "technical" attributes, there are diminishing returns on how much more of any one quality you can get from spending more money.
On the other side, there's another subjective factor working against these "diminishing returns". I'm sure there's a psychology term for it, but I'll call it "the princess and the pea" effect. It comes from the fairy tale of the princess and the pea, with the idea being that a princess raised in luxury and comfy beds would find even a single pea under her mattress to be uncomfortable, while a person raised in normal circumstances with average beds wouldn't notice that pea. Once someone is beyond the point of diminishing returns, what often happens is that the small objective differences in performance make large differences in that person's enjoyment. That's where those 5% differences will make or break someone's enjoyment of a headphone.
My most recent example of that pea effect is when trying out the Stax SR-X9000 vs the Dan Clark Audio Corina at Capital AudioFest. Both of those headphones are extremely good. If I were to compare them side-by-side in any "objective" quality, they'd come out pretty close. But the Stax was just ever so slightly more open and layered in its positioning and imaging of sounds, and ever so slightly more reverberant with the trailing ends of notes, and slightly more relaxed and airier in its tuning, such that I found it significantly more enjoyable than the Corina. Again, they aren't that different in absolute performance levels, but in terms of my personal enjoyment of music, it wasn't even a contest, I'd pick the Stax every day and twice on Sunday (another funny English phrase).
I have never heard this before but it is what I have been trying to verbalize for so long. It was like the difference between the Ananda/Edition XS and the Arya for me. The first two were so impressive and really a nice step up from what I previously had, the DT990, but when I tried the Arya it just felt so much more complete that I truly let myself get lost in the music. It’s not that the other two weren’t amazing or extremely similar even, it was just that last couple percent changed everything for me.
YES, that’s where I’m at… high level of objective quality, but something that I can’t quite put my finger on is missing, and at that point, I’ll only get more gear if i heard it first.