The salient point is stretch. Spring. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that spring.
The tried and true method is to test for cheap or free. When I first heard about vibration control the idea seemed preposterous. But if there is anything to it then a phone book or bag of sugar on a component would make a difference you could hear. It did. Not much. Hardly any. Not the point. It proved the concept valid. However preposterous it seemed, nevertheless it did in fact work.
One of the many advantages in doing things this way is you become a seriously good listener. Straining first to hear and then identify and evaluate the microscopically minor influence of a phone book means when you hear something really good you are not straining at all. You know it is really good. And right away, too!
When spent on tweaks that work there are things like Nobsound springs that are a huge improvement, and when you can significantly improve a $3k component with $30 springs that is hardly diminishing returns. The reason that lame old cliche is around is people try stuff that costs ten times Nobsound but are only slightly better. But then Townshend Pods are only slightly more than that and yet so much better they shatter the whole idea of diminishing returns. Moab on Podium outperforms Ulfberht on floor, and for less. That is hardly diminishing returns.
The dealer who first started teaching me about all this, Stewart Marcantoni, once let me hear a system with twice the money in wire as components. Say again, the speaker cables, interconnects, and power conditioner all together cost twice the speakers, amp, pre-amp, and source. Twice. Not 50%. Not a little more. Twice. It was the best system I heard at that point in time, and for a good many years thereafter.
The tried and true method is to test for cheap or free. When I first heard about vibration control the idea seemed preposterous. But if there is anything to it then a phone book or bag of sugar on a component would make a difference you could hear. It did. Not much. Hardly any. Not the point. It proved the concept valid. However preposterous it seemed, nevertheless it did in fact work.
One of the many advantages in doing things this way is you become a seriously good listener. Straining first to hear and then identify and evaluate the microscopically minor influence of a phone book means when you hear something really good you are not straining at all. You know it is really good. And right away, too!
So the only time diminishing returns are a factor is when spending money on tweaks that don't work.Winner winner chicken dinner! Diminishing returns is a canard, a red herring, close enough for horseshoes and government work at best.
When spent on tweaks that work there are things like Nobsound springs that are a huge improvement, and when you can significantly improve a $3k component with $30 springs that is hardly diminishing returns. The reason that lame old cliche is around is people try stuff that costs ten times Nobsound but are only slightly better. But then Townshend Pods are only slightly more than that and yet so much better they shatter the whole idea of diminishing returns. Moab on Podium outperforms Ulfberht on floor, and for less. That is hardly diminishing returns.
The dealer who first started teaching me about all this, Stewart Marcantoni, once let me hear a system with twice the money in wire as components. Say again, the speaker cables, interconnects, and power conditioner all together cost twice the speakers, amp, pre-amp, and source. Twice. Not 50%. Not a little more. Twice. It was the best system I heard at that point in time, and for a good many years thereafter.