Apologies for potentially being slightly cynical, but I do not subscribe to the notion of an ROI or 'diminishing returns' in audio. Not because I have an open-ended budget, but because many others do.
“Cost-to-Audio Experience” doesn’t mean anything. Debates about how much one should spend on audio gear assume there’s an objective relationship between cost and experience. But the idea falls apart because audio value is entirely personal (and therefore subjective). ROI in audio depends on who you are, your budget, expectations, sensitivity to detail, and what an “audio experience” means to you.
A small upgrade can feel life-changing to someone on a tight budget, while someone with more means may barely notice it. The same improvement can be high ROI for one listener and negligible for another. There’s no shared metric because everyone starts from a different place.
What a listener expects, warmth, realism, detail, impact, all determines whether a change feels meaningful. One person may be moved by subtle improvements, whilst another may not care at all. If the goal varies, so will the value of each step toward it.
The idea of diminishing returns assumes everyone hears the same benefits and values them equally. They don’t. Some find immersion at $200, others at $20,000. No curve exists outside the individual.
Audio satisfaction is therefore completely subjective. Cost-to-experience has no universal meaning because only one ROI matters: yours. Your ears, your expectations, your budget, your experience.
Perhaps a divisive perspective, but I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the music.
