Where do you draw the line???


There are many interesting threads here about innumerable topics where people share many different opinions. If the truth be known I think many of us are still open to suggestion or opposing points of view regarding most things, but there must be some issues about which we are unwilling to budge.

In your own mind what is the concession you are unwilling to make?

For example; many people feel tubes are superior to solid state equipment. I have owned tube gear, and have several friends who I respect that still own tube gear, but I will not concede that solid state equipment is inferior to tubes.

Another concession I cannot make is the superiority of CDs to vinyl. I have a good CDP and have listened to better than my own, and in my experience LPs still are the hands-down winner for sound quality.

I have and like Krell equipment, and have been taken to task because of it. I'm still not selling it to buy another brand.

The question is: Regardless of the opinion of others what views or opinions are you unwilling to change???

Lets not fight! This is supposed to be fun!!!
128x128nrchy
I have seen a lot of people who suggest that a $10,000 system can sound as good as a $30,000. I have yet to see this actually happen. Too often statements like this are made, but they are never substantiated.

What would the $10,000 system consist of, and what $30,000 system are you taking about? Does equipment go down in quality as the price goes up? Are cheaper Revel speakers better sounding than the more expensive models. Do smaller and cheaper amps sound better than the next model up in the companies product line?

I am opposed to spending money for the sake of spending money, but every time I have bought a more expensive product it sounded better than the cheaper product it replaced. If it didn't sound better I would not have made the purchase!!!

What does all this mean.
Nrchy, I'll go to even further extremes. I argue that a good $15,000 system is comparable to some $75,000 setups. I include a specific example. It's an old thread, but it got some interesting responses.

click here
Onhwy61, Comparable in what respects? In the same way a boom box plays pretty much the same music as a cheap stereo?

I have never heard the two systems mentioned in the TAS article, but if the $75,000 system sounded even remotely similar to the $15,000 I would eat it!

How is it possible that two people who know this industry and what is available would be incapable of getting the right componants to put together a system that would not be drastically different from each other.

I understand if a person closed their eyes and randomly picked products that there would be no continuity to the system, but this is true at any price range. How could that system sound great? I think it would sound good, but it would not be great.

What are these "some systems" that you mention? I guess this whole discussion is meaningless without particulars!

I don't beleive that one person could put together two systems with a $60,000 price difference that would sound close to one another. If a moron went out with $75,000 while a true 'audiophile' went out with 15,000 it is possible that the systems might, possibly, maybe, not exhibit a huge difference in sound quality, but otherwise this is a foolish analogy
Nrchy, I'm not sure Onhwy6's link disagrees completely with you... if you look at the posts that follow. There's a good point being made in that we sometimes set a system to play our "indispensable" kind of music. Mine, for example, is large orchestral. That doesn't help where pricing of commercial speakers & amps is concerned!

OTOH, I too, have NOT noticed that "cheaper Revel models sound better than more expensive ones" (or other brands, for that matter). Ultimately, I find that a more expensive well designed & well executed product (especially speakers) performs more ACCURATELY in MORE situations than its well designed etc, cheaper sister or brother as the case may be.

Bar exceptions, maybe? Or, bar badly set-up systems??

In the end, I think we all pursue a system that doesn't compromise in aspects we find indispenable and does compromise where we don't really mind -- I've noted this in another similar thread. So, the game is subjective & time realted: when our list of "indispensables" goes up, so do our expectations and, often, the price of the equipment that meets our new demands.
Nrchy, your over the top language is undercutting the credibility of your arguments. Specifically I'm referring to the boom box comparison, your insistence that the sonic differences between the systems must be "huge" and your characterization of some buyers as morons. Yes, expensive systems can do things that less expensive (but still quite costly) systems cannot do, but to insist that the two systems are not even remotely similar is a gross overstatement.

This is another example of a mid-price (by audiophile standards) system that can easily compete against mega-buck systems.

Speakers: Harbeth Monitor 40s
Amps: take your pick from any of the better integrated amps from Rowland, BAT, Mark Levinson, Plinius, Musical Fidelity, YBA, etc.
CD: Gamut or the Sony 777
allocate up to $2,000 for cables and stands

The total system cost is in the neighborhood of $15-20,000. The system won't go extremely loud, it won't do deep bass and the soundstage/imaging while quite good won't be SOTA. Nrchy, within these limitations I defy you to come up with a system that is a "huge" improvement.

BTW, the system proposed above will not satisfy everyone. Pipe organ freaks, heavy metal heads and techno/dance ravers will not be happy. A single system, not matter how good or how expensive, can be everything to everybody. Nor do I want to get into an analog vs. digital argument. It's besides the point in this discussion.