The Famous Point of Diminishing Returns

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobro
  • Start date Start date
Yeah, you're right. But one thing I'm trying to do with this thread is establish my own point of diminishing returns by looking at other people's experience. I'm looking for things like what Shakes reported - clearly better sound that comes of using more expensive gear. The question I've got is: how much better vs how much more expensive? If I get anything like a consensus about Life is Great gear, I'll go for it. If I don't, I'll probably happily stay with my Got a Life gear.

I know my clumsy categories have limited utility - it's just a way of finding out whether and how much consensus exists.
 
I Think...

I think a big point to realize here is with: How many tracks are you working with?

The point here being:

Yeah your signal-path may not result in "muddiness" and any other or many other non-pleseant qualities when tracking 1, 2, 4, or even 8, but when you get up into 16 or 24, how are the results?

And dobro: When I know there are boards out there into just under $1 million US, and tape machines into the $80k'sUS and I'm sure far above, and rackmount gear into the $20k'sUs, and mics into the $20k'sUS, yes, I consider anything less than $1kUS really in the same category, price-wise; not that that it all can't be broken into sub categories.
 
Yeah, I understand, but you have to understand you think that way because you're an engineer. :) It's like the difference between astronomers and people who just look at the beautiful sky. They both study the same thing, but the astronomers have the big telescopes and a different agenda.

Tell you what. There are quite a few engineers who come to this board, so I'll include them in the scale I proposed, which I didn't at first. When I put the names on that scale, I did it from the point of view of a home recordist, not an engineer, and that's why I called the fourth category Silly Life, because for a home recordist, buying pro gear is silly. Henceforth, gear which only an engineer would buy shall be known as Neer Gear. So whack me with something long, heavy and wet if I ever buy Neer Gear, and call me a Silly Person.
 
Life is Great!

>yes, I consider anything less than $1kUS really in the same
>category, price-wise; not that that it all can't be broken >into sub categories.

And RE: don't take this the wrong way but I consider that attitude to be nothing more than your laziness in considering such gear when you already own shit that's much better. Just because <you> no longer need it doesn't make the selection of such components less important for a more modest studio.

Dobro: I'll say the dbx 386 slides into the Got a Life category because of its versatility and price and has a foot in the Life is Great category, much like our Rodents, due to its noise floor and gain adjustment ranges.
 
Wazoo! Zakly the sort of thing I'm looking to hear. Yeah I figured the 386 was *at least* Got a Life gear.

BTW, I did a 3-way comparison tonight:

AKG C1000 alone on the 12th fret of my guitar

AKG on the 12th fret, Rode NT-1 just behind the bridge

Rode on the 12th fret, AKG behind the bridge

Guess which setup of the three sounded best? I got my wife to listen as well, and she agreed. If both of us can hear something, it's there.
 
What's Up, Doc?

Wait a minute there doc. What attitude? There's no "laziness" in my response. My first response (the first response to this thread) clearly stated I didn't really understand what dobro was trying to get at. And I STILL don't. But I've been TRYING. So you think I'm being lazy about this because why? Because I have "expensive" gear? Actually, I was showing I have cheap gear too compared to "pro" studios. Hell when one component costs more than my entire studio, THAT says A LOT.

And DON'T for one second think I don't have to work just as hard as everyone else here for my gear. Most of my equipment literally came from my burger flipping money I saved that didn't go to bills while I was working at Micky D's for 3 years from 16-19. Then the rest, so far? A great year and a half of full-time grave-yard work.

How's that for "laziness"?

So did I take it the wrong way? Cause I have NO IDEA what you were talking about either...
 
> I consider anything less than $1kUS
> really in the same category
RE: Methinks our only disagreement here is how much of an exaggeration/oversimplification that statement is.
Even when I read this in the full context you provided, you seem to be saying that because equipment exists that is many times more expensive than entry level gear, comparisons of equipment near the bottom of the price range (read: sub $1K) are not worth your time to make. Your last statement reinforces this as you admit that further subdivision is possible, but you haven't considered it worth your time.
While this might be a correct attitude, it <is> an attitude.
 
How can I be exaggerating when there is A LOT of gear out there costing up to 1k Xs of 1k?

"...because equipment exists that is many times more expensive than entry level gear, comparisons of equipment near the bottom of the price range (read: sub $1K) are not worth your time to make. Your last statement reinforces this as you admit that further subdivision is possible, but you haven't considered it worth your time."

How can you even imagine I think that or don't considering I'm here nearly every day talking about and comparing what's in that "sub $1k" to itself and beyond categories, especially in the Microphone Forum, and MOST of my equipment is in that "sub $1k"?

Hell, I coulda/shoulda said $5k... Would have you thought that then? Cause I don't own a damn thing costing 5k by itself; my car included.

"While this might be a correct attitude, it <is> an attitude." Yeah, well there isn't much that isn't.

My point about that "sub $1k" is that there probably isn't enough quality difference bewteen the units to hear the huge difference you're looking or hoping for; MYSELF included.
Of course, there are a substantial and notible amount of exceptions to that above statement; just as there is to EVERYTHING. IMHO (and to A LOT of people), the RNC is a REAL GOOD example of one of these exceptions which blow MOST of that stuff in the "sub $1k" category out of the water even though it's damn-near the cheapest (cost-wise) compressors in that category.
 
Well this hearkens back to the comparison between the ART tube MP pre and the dbx 386. Both under a grand. Not in the same ballpark IMHO, even when plain functionality as a pre/ per channel/per dollar is compared and I've only read the reviews and heard the former in the context of someone else's recording with many other variables obscuring the comparison.
It's like shopping for a car under $20K. So many entries, so little time.
 
"My point about that "sub $1k" is that there probably isn't enough quality difference bewteen the units to hear the huge difference you're looking or hoping for; MYSELF included."

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, because I trust your ears. I started this thread putting forward these four categories for a number of important (to me) reasons, but the two most important things I was fishing for consensus on were these:

* In the sub-engineer gear range, are there, broadly speaking, at least two levels of quality (quality being what anybody, even Brad's mom, can hear)? For example, I've got an ART Tube Pre for $100. It's respectable for what I'm trying to achieve. Now if I dish out $439 for the dbx 386 will the difference in sound be so apparent that anyone could hear it? It seems from the above quote that you're saying no. If that's the case, then I should save my money, right? How about $579 for the ART Pro Channel (just one channel) - is all that extra money just for the compressor and EQ, or DOES IT SOUND BETTER TOO?

* Past a certain point (maybe your $1k figure, but I think it's lower than that) it's just not worth a home recordist's hard-earned dosh buying certain equipment, because the improvement in easily noticeable sound quality is small compared to the huge amount you pay.


Not Good Enough| for homerecording purposes

Good Enough | "

Great | "

Unnecessary | "


Is this a useful set of distinctions for this board?
 
Early on, I used a Yamaha 4-track cassette with the obligatory alesis idiot boxes. At the time I thought it was "good enough". As I listen to the old tapes, I hear the obvious improvement in sound - made by investing in Cakewalk and Darla.

Now, I would deem the cassette player "not good enough" and the upgrade "great". I could never go back. For the $300 price difference, I would recommend to anyone, to bypass the cassette and go directly to jail.

When I upgraded to a prodif plus soundcard the quality of sound differences, to the average bloke, would be minimal. But for the $100 price dif, I had the full gamut of digital i/o's with adat capabilities in a 24bit souncard. Which, at the time, Darla could not do.
 
When you said you would never go back to the 4-track because of the sound difference, that was the sort of thing I was looking for. That would make (for you at least, and probably for most of the people on this board) that 4-track Not Good Enough (Get a Life Gear).

When you talked about the extra capapilities you enjoyed through buying better gear, however, that's not really what I'm interested in, in this thread anyway. The reason is this: I can gauge whether or not a piece of gear is worth the money based on what it will do, and how cleverly it will do it - that's relatively easy to assess. For example, I understand that one reason the Joemeek VC6Q costs what it does is because it has compression and EQ in addition to the preamp. And when I look closely at its compression function, I see that my Behringer Composer Pro has got *way* more control. But what I don't know about the Meek unit is whether it sounds any better than my ART Tube Pre run through my Behringer into my soundcard and then having the EQ tweaked in software. So if someone (or better yet, 3 people here) were to say to me something like you just said about the 4-track, 'dobro, dude, I got the Meek, and I would commit crimes before I went back to those silly little ART boxes,' then I would be getting somewhere. I'm not looking for people with emotional and useless gear loyalty, I'm looking for people with reports about upgrading that mattered to their ears - upgrades worth the money.

Like yours. Thanks for the input, Bball Jones.
 
Here we Go

About the Tube MP and 386... Is there a difference? Yeah. Is there a big enough difference for us here to tell and make it worth our money? Yeah. Is there enough difference for the average listener to hear? Yeah, probably. Is there enough difference for the average listener to hear with you being able to use your onboard eq to "help" the Tube MP to sound just as good as the 386? Nah; unless you X's that by 16-24 tracks. That'd just result in some pretty thick mud that anyone could hear.

And about the 386 and Pro Channel... I suppose the answer to which one sounds better would largely depend on which pre section would you usually prefer between the two. It's true the signal is only as good as the weakest link; and the pre is second in the link.

Ed has said the MP and MPA don't sound much different other than a little more high-end in the MPA. Of course, maybe the MPA pre in the Pro Channel with Pro VLA and/or Tube Eq in combo sounds better than the 386 pres alone but that would suck if you didn't like the MPA pre by itself as much as the 386 pres if you didn't already have other pres you generally liked better.

"* Past a certain point (maybe your $1k figure, but I think it's lower than that) it's just not worth a home recordist's hard-earned dosh buying certain equipment, because the improvement in easily noticeable sound quality is small compared to the huge amount you pay."

I completely don't agree with that. In fact, I really think the opposite of that; especially when it comes to pres and compressors. There is really not much of a selection when it comes to stereo pres or comps under $1k when I do my elimination since I can't listen everything. Lets see... we have ART, Joe Meek, TLHHB, LA, Aphex, dbx, Presonus, Focusrite, Behringer, RNC, plus a few others.

I have a Mackie so lets drop the Presonus pres. Like my Mackie better than the Aphex 107. Haven't heard the Focusrite Compounder. Hear nothing but crap about LA; but I've never heard any. TLHHB are nice but not worth the money in the US. I've not heard the Presonus BlueTube. I've never used ANY Behringer thing so I won't say anything about them.

So, that leaves ART Tube MP and Dual and MPA and Pro VLA, Meek C2 and SC2.2 and VC7, dbx 386 and 586 and 566, Presonus ACP22, RNC.

There's my list. Not very big, huh? That would be why I sorta put my options for pres and comps under $1kUS into the same category; cause there's not much for me to put in there. Now once I get enough pres and/or enough space, I don't have to think about whether or not the units are stereo.

And I'll hear a sigificant difference between say the MPA, VC7, and 586, or Pro VLA, SC2.2, and 566, but each one really has a color of its own. Not better. Just different.
Believe me, I'd be happy with one stereo pre and one stereo comp from each of those three brands. And the only ones I have are the RNC which I haven't had for very long and the Presonus ACP-8 (older version of the 88; sorta the 8-channel version of the 22) which I bought a few years ago after recording my band's album, realizing I need a lot of compressors and gates for drums, and fast. I still have a dbx 266 which I don't use in the studio but for live PA. I should sell it to put towards an RNC for the PA. So anyone want to buy a 266 from me?

So instead of buying one of the common stereo pres and comps in the sub $1kUS range, I went for the DaviSound TB-1 and TB-3. I don't know what pre I'll buy next. It'll probably either be the VC7 or a Buzz Audio MA2.2, or maybe a Brent Averill Neve 1272 I've been wanting for so long. Or maybe I'll go the transparent route and get the Sytek MPX-4A or MSS-10

Next comp I buy for the studio will probably be the C2 or yet another RNC. Or, maybe even the Buzz Audio SOC 1.1 since I JUST saw they're going for $880US.

So what's next? FX? Sorry, I haven't really heard too many to know. Not my area...
 
confused....

Now ya got me confused RE... It seems to me that you are saying there is a BIG range of things under $1k. I guess you are saying that there are several quality pre's/comp's in the under $1k range, but they are just "different." Is that it?

Still, there are others that you wouldn't consider. In my opinion, in any range, there are similar quality items to consider with their plusses and minuses. Like you said, you would like to have one from each of several companies to get different sounds. But there are definitely some that aren't acceptable to you.

I think with most instruments, the biggest difference is in the under $1k range. Play a $200 guitar compared to $1000 one. Same with mic's, which aren't being discussed here because of the huge differences in that range.

I dunno... I guess I am just all confused. :)

Anyway, my contribution is this. I have a Joe Meek VC3 that I use to track a lot of things. This is the only alternative I have to the pre's in my Mackie 1202vlz. The Mackie is good. But, I hear a HUGE difference in just the PRE of the Meek. Is it "better?" Well, for most of my purposes, yes. I still track some things straight through the Mackie, but I have to say the Meek is a very different sound, and for my purposes, generally much better than the stock Mackie pre's. I'd also like to get a better Meek pre, but on my budget, there is a BIG difference between $200 for the VC3 and $800 or however much the VC7 is. I would also assume there is a significant improvement in the quality of it.

I guess I am just trying to emphasize the range in the sub $1k price point.
 
RE: " Here we Go

About the Tube MP and 386... Is there a difference? Yeah. Is there a big enough difference for us here to tell and make it worth our money? Yeah. Is there enough difference for the average listener to hear? Yeah, probably."

Now, *that* was useful. It was a precise comparison of two pieces of gear. I got lost in all the variables and valuations in the rest of your thread, though. I'll read it again, to be sure.

KaBudokan: your report about the VC3 pre compared to the Mackie was really useful. I'm starting to think: don't use a mixer unless you have to. I think you and I are operating from a similar vantage point - I agree with you when you talk about the biggest differences in gear sound existing under the $1k mark.
 
Recording Engineer said:
My point about that "sub $1k" is that there probably isn't enough quality difference bewteen the units to hear the huge difference you're looking or hoping for; MYSELF included.
Of course, there are a substantial and notible amount of exceptions to that above statement; just as there is to EVERYTHING. IMHO (and to A LOT of people), the RNC is a REAL GOOD example of one of these exceptions which blow MOST of that stuff in the "sub $1k" category out of the water even though it's damn-near the cheapest (cost-wise) compressors in that category.
Click to expand...

I would say that the exceptions exceed the rule for stuff under $1k. If you said sub-$100, you'd mostly be right.

The difference between almost any $150+ audio interface and a $30 SoundBlaster will be orders of magnitude more than the difference between a $150 interface and a $2000 interface, though the latter may add useful features like more channels, more preamps, etc.

The difference between almost any $200+ microphone and almost any sub-$100 mic will be very large and very noticeable.

The difference between almost any current Yamaha or Peavey mixer and almost any Behringer or sufficiently old Mackie mixer is night and day.

The difference between almost any "toob" preamp and a good clean op amp design is night and day, too, only people argue about which they like better. :D

You get the idea.

IMHO, what would be most useful as far as ratings would be a ratio indicating perceived (sonic) value per unit cost.

IMHO, my Nady RSM-2 is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. It sounds very good relative to what it costs, at least for what I'm using it for. YMMV.

My old Mackie CR1604 mixer: 1:2. Its sound quality is comparable to the average sound for stuff costing half what I paid... or maybe a little less.... Don't get me wrong, they're not bad, but they're not great by any means.

My Nady drum mic is probably a 3:4 (i.e. for 3/4ths the price I paid, it would probably be a reasonable buy.

My Nady overheads... maybe 1.5:1. They're worth more than the cheap price I paid, but they're really inexpensive, so while I'm impressed with them for the price, doing it again, I'd probably drop the extra $30 apiece for a B1, which from what people say, is probably a 3:1.

Just a thought.
 
Holy cow! Five years old almost to the day!

We should have a birthday party for this thread. :)

-C
 
In truly BLIND A/B hearing tests, listeners are consistently UNABLE to discern which gear is the more expensive stuff. There was an infamous "preamp shootout" in which the winner was the preamps on the Roland 1680 Digital recorder ! (Yes, some of the boutique stuff was in the shootout.)

The truly amazing thing was how AFTER the results were in, the (somewhat embarrased audiphiles) respondents tried to rationalize their choice with statements such as "the 1680 preamps didn't capture as much detail, which helped soften the harsh echos in the room"...or some other such nonsense.
(If you search for this on the 'Net, you might still find it, but it was a few years ago.)

If you ask someone who just paid $4000 for a preamp if he think that preamp sounds better, what do you think he is going to say ?

IMO there is a line at which equipment becomes noticeably bad sounding, buit it is at closer to $100 than $1000. Experience and musical taste rule in the end. A crappy sound is going to sound CLEARLY crappy through a $8000 signal chain, and a great sound can sound great through a $200 signal chain.
 
dobro said:
RE, you said: "What's listed above is rather roughly in the same category price-wise."

At 8th Street, the ART goes for $99 and the dbx for $439. Your idea of 'roughly in the same category price-wise' is obviously different from mine. The Meek VC6Q is even more expensive.
Click to expand...

But that is roughly the same price category compared to the whole range of prices that preamps go for. Both are budget units. There may be some improvement in sound with the DBX, but it won't be earth-shaking.

dobro said:
At some point, you're paying way more money for a not very great increase in sound quality - that's the point I'm making.
Click to expand...

In your example, that's really not way more money. That's why you would not get a big increase in quality. You do however get a big increase in quality if you truly spend *way* more money. The ART or 386 will not be able to compete with a $1,000 per channel preamp. There will be a difference that you will definitely clearly hear. So no diminishing returns there.

dobro said:
Shakes - *now* we're getting down to it. But your example is a bit confusing, because I'm wondering if it was the Neumann, the Pro, the JoeMeek or the combination that produced the better sound. All three obviously, but was *one* of them the predominant factor. Tougher to be scientific when you deal with three variables at one time.
Click to expand...

But think about this--your sound is a combination of all your gear, and is only as good as the weak link. So if you are looking for one predominant piece of gear and planning to surround it with lesser gear, you will only sound as good as the lesser stuff. Yes, better than if it was all not so good gear, but the good gear will be crippled by the weaklings around it. Every piece of gear in the audio chain is as important as every other piece of gear, including the cables. You absolutely must deal with *every* variable, not just choose which few to concentrate on.

dobro said:
Also, your example takes things off track. We all know that topline gear gets you a better sound. What I'm saying is this: for the sake of most of the people who frequent this board, putting together decent mp3s and demos, you don't need the Neumann, the Pro, and maybe not even the JoeMeek. From my point of view, your example has exceeded the Famous Point of Diminishing Returns.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he has exceeded the point of no return for the budget category, but certainly there is a long way to go before improvements in sound become too small to notice--even for the average listener. I personally would say he is not close to the point of diminishing returns, if you consider all the gear on the market in all price categories.

I think the point of diminishing returns concept only really works if you limit it to very narrow price ranges. So perhaps the concept is useful when considering whether a $129 preamp is better than a $99 preamp, or a $1,500 preamp is better than a $1,200 preamp. But if you apply that concept to the broader range of gear, comparing very low budget gear to all the gear available, then the law of diminishing returns doesn't kick in for a long time.

Interesting thread though, and a good thing to think about when buying gear. It sort of brings things back to something I believe in: that there is no such thing as small upgrades. You either do a big upgrade, or if not, then it's a side-grade. Most of the examples you are giving are really side-grades in my book and indeed fit your description of diminishing returns.

However, that doesn't mean it is right to stay with a $99 preamp. If you go beyond the area of side-grades you can indeed get your recordings to sound much better by jumping up a few classes in gear quality. Whether it is worth it or not financially, that is a decision everyone has to make for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top