Where do you draw the line???

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.

Onhy61, That your Harbeth system won't do deep bass, won't go extremely loud and the soundstage/imaging is not SOTA, is precisely why some better healed folks will pay more than the price of your system to get exactly what you say it won't do. They will not consider the sound from your suggested system and what they want to be remotely similar. How much does it cost to design, manufacture, and retail such a system - we all know it cost a lot of money to effect small improvements in very high quality equipment. The value of such a system is only relevant to those who want the differences and are willing to pay for them. Just because some of have lesser requirements doesn't negate the value such equipment has for these people. For those folks who don't have the room for the equipment to shine, don't have the ears to hear the difference, don't have the money to spend, let them enjoy what they have. Why do folks want to comment on what others see fit to do with their money. Frankly its none of their business and in my view its done only to compensate for their own poor view of themselves. If you can enjoy music thru a boom box, Bose, or you need Wilsons (whatever) it only matters if you enjoy the music, not if I would enjoy the music.

Nrchy

I somewhat agree with Onhwy61, and somewhat agree with you.

Not everybody feels the need for a megabuck system. On the thread "how much does your system retail for" i beleieve there is a 1.8 million entry. (holy crap)

Regardless, If somebody does alot of research they can probably build a system that does what THEY want for 15,000. Of course, some people want a system that does more and will be willing to pay alot more. To the person who is 100% satisfied with thier 15,000 system, the megabuck system might not sound to thier liking, meaning that in thier perspective, thier 15,000 system sounds better than someone elses 150,000 system. And Vica Verca.

When you get to this kind of equipment, stating that a 30,000 system is better than a 15,000 system becomes a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion is your fact and his opinion is his fact, but neither are right and neither are wrong. What sounds good to somebody doesent mean it will sound better to somone else even if it cost 10 times as much.

Also, take into account where that extra money went

---EXAMPLE---

System A) 15,000 2 chan setup
2 full range speakers, 2 chan amp, preamp, turntable, cables

System B) 35,000 HT w/ integrated 2 chan
7 Speakers, 5 chan amp, 2 chan amp, prepro, dvd, cd, vcr, sacd, cables, AC conditioner, 2 subwoofers.

Well, obviously system B cost alot more, there are 5 extra speakers to amplify/cable along with DVD and CD and such.

So which sounds better?

Whichever one somebody prefers. It becomes a matter of personal taste.

Even if system B had the same stuff but more expencive, the idea of it automatically sounding better is rediculous. its still a matter of personal taste

Right now i only have an 8,000 system. But i doubt it will ever break the 20,000 mark unless i come across an obscene amount of cash. (win lucky numbers!!!)

Besides, i told the "better half" that it will not be more expencive than her car. Time to go trade her saturn in for an Audi.