Rock? money down the drain?


I have seen posts where people describe their systems and ask for upgrade advise and their systems cost $5000 and up and their primary music is rock. here is a question for everyone. is it worth spending $10,000 on a rock system or do think there is a cut off point where all rock systems sound the same?
mboldda1269a
Anyone catch the article on classical music in the latest Listener? Eldragon - Have you heard Keith Jarret's solo work?
Both - I think you reach the "knee in the curve" of price vs. performance earlier with rock music than other genres, but that knee is still past $10K (retail) for a single source two-channel system that is used primarily for rock. Two excellent points earlier though - first is that rock is a broad categorization, so the answer might be at least subtlely different if you've got a strict definition. Second, rock has a lot of low end which is essential to it's fullest reproduction and is costly to facilitate.
If we're going to show this type of narrow vision prejudice;Let's have an election/you'll have to sell your stuff/if you don't have the winning components.If your system looses,you can have a recount. Joy is where you find it; let each of us find our own.Actually I think 8watts is "overkill"--just kiddin'.May the farce be wit'cha.
I upgraded my entire system about a year ago. I carefully chose my main system to be able to reproduce Mahler, Bruckner, Wagener and Stravinsky at realistic concert hall peak spl. I also listen to a lot of Heavy Metal. Both my before and after systems were way over $10K. The improvement was significant and noticable on my favorite metal recordings. The system (virtually flat to about 24Hz) also sounds great on "Art Techno" music which usually has significant power in the lowest bass register. Value for money, as always, is a highly personal thing