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!!!
nrchy
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?
Nrchy,

I guess just to be a smart-ass, i gotta point something out about the "House" anology.

A $250,000.00 house in denver will get you about 1,800Sf house, probably not a basement, a puny backyard, and cheap carpet.

In Wyoming, a 200,000 house will get you about 3,000Sqft, probably an acre of land, hardwood floors throughout, and a pool.

Car anology,
A 2003 Honda Civic has a very reliable engine, 30+ miles to the gallon, is decently stylish, and comfortable and is about 15,000.

A Mustang Saleen, about 50,000 (being generous) will get you about 19 miles to the gallon, a hell of alot faster, less room.

WHich is better? one is quicker but guzzles gas. one is slower but will not breakdown as soon. How can anybody say which car is better? they do the same thing. They get you from point A to point B, and unless you are talking about on a speedway, the Saleen will not get you anywhere quicker than the Civic, because by the time the saleen reaches speeds the civic cannot, it will already be pulled over on the side of the road!
It boils down to personal preference. I prefer the saleen just for the record. >:)
It all depends on somebody's needs.

I do agree with something though, If i spend 75,000 on a system, it better sound better than my 8,000 system. And im sure it would.