Where do you draw the line???

Onhwy61, They won't sound remotely similar because the prospective purchaser won't be listening for the same things that are important to you or me(so to speak). Now you or I might find them to sound the same because we listen to them quietly reproducing vocals, but if the purchaser listens to Mahler's 8th in full voice, believe me they wouldn't sound remotely similar. In a small room you wouldn't hear the difference either because you couldn't play them loud - I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the point. Fortunately, I don't have a large room or wallet so I'm not tempted by this SOTA stuff, your 15K system would probably sound just fine to me.

A fact is a provable point. The point can be proved by anyone with right equipment. Facts and opinions are not interchangable. If a $30,000 system cannot be proven to be better than a $15,000 system it is not better!

I had a $15,000 system. I now own a system that retails for a little over $30,000. I would not willingly go back to the former system, because there were too many compromises. I don't think I am much smarter now than when I bought the previous system. I have always had to live within my means. So the compromises I made then, and continue (in some respects) to make now are not due to a lack of understanding as to a lack of funds.

I know without a doubt that if I had the money I would make certain changes, all of which would be significant improvements. These improvements would/will come at a significant cost too! These changes have been planned and prioritised so I know what I will be doing as opposed to jumping at the next good deal. If I could not hear an improvement comensurate to the cost I would not spend the money.

The differeence between a $75,000 system and a $7,500 system is like the difference between the back row of a concert and the third row. It's still the same concert, with the same music and musicians, but the quality of the presentation is extremely different.

Gentlemen: a $75,000 system will sound different not better than a $15,000 system. You are trying to reify a subjective into an objective. Ask agoner ASA about that.

Shubertmaniac, I agree that it will certainly sound different, but it could also sound better depending on the definition of better. My American Heritage dictionary includes in its definition "2. More useful, suitable, or desirable". In this instance this definition would apply to the purpose of the user. If the user finds the system more suitable for his purpose then, for him, it IS better.

If a $75,000 system doesn't sound better than a $15,000 system the person who bought it is stupid, as are the people who designed and manufactured it.

Using this logic does that mean that a $75,000 car is not better than a $15,000, or a $75,000 house is not better than a $15,000 house. These statements are simply unreasonable.

If a $6,000 amp did not sound better than a $2,000 it would not sell! I had a $2,000 Aragon 8008st amp which I replaced with a $6,000 Krell FPB 200. Both amps are very close on paper. In my listening room there was no comparison. The Krell is better in EVERY respect. At a $4,000 price difference it should be. Why is it that some people here are so quick to deny that differences in sound quality exist?

The Krell was not better because it cost more, it cost more because it is better. The parts which went into the Krell were better than those in the Aragon. I am not suggesting that the Aragon is a bad amp. It isn't, it a very good amp. I have suggested it to many people over the last few years. The Krell is just better.

My $15,000 system sounded good, my $30,000 system sounds A LOT better, not just different.

Where is the cut off line between better and more expensive??? Is a $2000 integrated amp better than a $500 receiver? Is a $5000 speaker better than a $1,000 speaker? Were is the line?