If diminishing returns was reversed what would be your present Naim system?

« if the sound improvement was commensurate to the price increase, that is, it was reversed somewhat... »

Erm, could you rephrase the question?

When you say 'in detail' don't you mean 'at all'?

G

It would be what I've got because it represents the best sound/value for money for the prevailing  budget available. Always has. Everybody will draw the line in a different place and this also will depend on the perceived relationship between cost and value. - two different things.

If I could start all over again I'd stick with my first "proper" system from 1979 and save for the kit I now have. It would save a lot of money and possibly a bit of time.

You don't tend to get diminishing returns with Naim, any more than you get more of the same. Every pre and power has it's own signature and abilities. I think the middle of the range is weak in both amp types. But at the bottom and a bit above and the top and a bit below there are some truly peerless  products. Not that I've heard all the rivals. Again, what a diminishing return actually is will be different for everybody. 

Hi Harry,

I'd agree in principle that saving up over the longer term, in order to upgrade to one's eventual goal, makes sense.

On the other hand, sometimes, one simply has to capture a second hand bargain when it presents itself, even if the box in question is "only" the next step up.

That, and the fact that I'm blessed with a dealer who has consistently shown creative thinking when it comes to trade ins / upgrades, means that whilst I'm with you on this, I don't seem to be much good at applying the theory. 

Harry posted:

It would be what I've got because it represents the best sound/value for money for the prevailing  budget available. Always has. Everybody will draw the line in a different place and this also will depend on the perceived relationship between cost and value. - two different things.

If I could start all over again I'd stick with my first "proper" system from 1979 and save for the kit I now have. It would save a lot of money and possibly a bit of time.

You don't tend to get diminishing returns with Naim, any more than you get more of the same. Every pre and power has it's own signature and abilities. I think the middle of the range is weak in both amp types. But at the bottom and a bit above and the top and a bit below there are some truly peerless  products. Not that I've heard all the rivals. Again, what a diminishing return actually is will be different for everybody. 

I considerded myself in the middle but certainly couldn't describe my amps as weak.

cyclo posted:

I considerded myself in the middle but certainly couldn't describe my amps as weak.

Just me stating a personal opinion. Not the Ten Commandments.

Probably a Qb 

Good point Dave. Second hand is something I didn't factor in.

For some the journey is a big part of the enjoyment. I should have guessed long ago that the point at which I think I've reached my natural stopping point (for the umpteenth time) was just me having a rest!

Well, I might be off point here, a little confused with the wording.

But this is my take, and I'm with you Dave, Second Hand!

I suppose logically, if the total expense of your present system is "x" and you never upgraded, it would be the same.

But then again, if the Statement was still the same price and the price differences were commensurate to improvement differences, most wouldn't upgrade past the Mu-so!!

Statement is a different proposition. Whereas you might forgo a replacement car to get a 500/552, Statement money is approaching house sized and that's altogether a different thing. Invest and build a pension versus HiFi. This makes Statement seem comparatively frivolous regardless of sound per pound. Which is another way of saying I'm not in the target customer group, which is fair enough. If they can sell them they should build them. How the individual perceives the products will always vary and won't affect profits all that much.