Where do you draw the line???

I would lose the Sony in favor of a good TT first. Then I would buy a phono section and a good pre-amp.

I couldn't comment on a Lexus since I don't drive Japanese cars (good engineering, lousy materials, styles are ripoffs of German cars) but I have owned Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, and I've driven Jaguar. It's not just a different car, it's a better car. The issue is, how much are people willing to spend, or for what will they settle? Many people cannot justify spending $50,000 on a car. That doesn't mean the car is not worth the cost.

Just because a person cannot justify a $30,000 system doesn't mean the system is not a superior system. I think the reason many people put down systems more expensive than their own is that they don't have to justify their own compromises. If they delude themselves into thinking better equipment is only more expensive they don't have to worry that they aren't getting everything from the stereo that they should be getting.

What do I know!?!

I hope you don't think I'm one of those people trying to justify their own compromises. Nor am I someone who denies that some equipment is clearly better than other equipment. The key point that I'm making (and beating to death) is that above a certain dollar point the differences between components becomes quite subtle. These small differences maybe important and even critical to certain listeners, but they are still small differences. If the difference between a $20,000 and a $30,000 system really was "huge", then the difference between a $7,500 and a $75,000 system must be "hyper-mega-bodacious-gargantuan".

Onhwy61 says: If the difference between a $20,000 and a $30,000 system really was "huge", then the difference between a $7,500 and a $75,000 system must be "hyper-mega-bodacious-gargantuan".

This is the point I've been trying to make all along! I don't believe (based on experience) that the differences are subtle. I don't believe that the difference between third row seats and last row seat are subtle either.

I have friends who own $100,000+ systems who cannot stand to listen to systems like mine because of all the compromises involved. They are unwilling to give up what they get from thier own systems. Since I know some people will say "They must be rich, stupid, or deaf!" I will add that I have never learned more from anyone else in this hobby as I have from these people. They know more than I can ever hope to learn, and have been very helpful in putting together my system.

Not even the rich want to waste money for what they believe to be subtle differences. Since the nember of rich people frequenting this website is (I would guess) extremely small, I would say such arguements are without substance.

So again, the differnces are not subtle.

Ok, I'll throw something into the mix here.

I think that system complexity has alot to do with the performance/cost equation. A very complex system, with a lot of power, and will typically cost more. I know this is not ALWAYS the case, but typically it is.

Here is an example of my own system. I use a simple, one-source system. Yes, I only use TT, but regardless or analog or digital, one source is cheaper to run than multiple sources of good quality. That can bring the price down dramatically.

Second, I bought some items used, and did some DIY, and we all know that money can be saved with both those options.

Third, I opted for a very simple low power SET amp, even though it is a very good one, and a simple set of single-driver loudspeakers(very good ones also) and made the cabinets.

I selected good tubes.

I settled on a very nice set of cables that weren't ridiculously expensive, but were good enough to satisfy my requirements of transparency, extension, and tone balance.

The resulting system is one that I happen to feel will rival many very expensive systems, but is much less complex.

Yes, I did have to compromise in certain areas of complexity and power, and thus be limited in some music selections not available on LP, and don't play at roof-raising sound pressure levels. But I feel my compromises were in areas that I could live with, and provided a musical result that IMO can nip-at-the-heels of the best.

So, I guess I conclude that if you want to have it all, and copious amounts of it, then you may have to spend alot of money to achieve that. If you are willing to make some reasonable compromises that you, individually, are willing to make in certain areas, then a very very good musical result can be achieved at a considerably lower cost.

My system cost around $12k, and I think it will do very very well, musically, compared to many other systems that may cost several times what I paid for mine. Unless a person is very well-heeled, and can afford to do a cost-no-object system, the right combination of compromises that the individual can easily live with, can yield a much lower cost system, that will musically rival, or even beat, some very expensive systems where no similar compromises were made. The key is to make the compromises that are least objectionable to you, and to maximize the strengths that are most important to you. Most of us realistically have to make decisions like this with our systems. Very few of us can really go out and buy anything and everything we would like to have, without regard for cost.

As far as individual products being better when they cost more money, that is only discernable on a case-by-case basis. I have heard some really awful expensive stuff, and some very nice mid-priced stuff. Conversely, I have heard some expensive stuff that truly does sound better than anything else I've heard. So, I really think that both sides of the coin are valid, but it depends upon the individual pieces of gear in question, and also the tastes and experience of the listener. Maybe some of you might hate my $12k system, but I doubt it.

I also think that if I had $100k to burn on an audio system, I could definitely beat what I have now, no problem. Although I would likely still use a similar approach to what I did with my current system, ie SET, single driver, analog, because that is what I like. And I would keep my existing amplifier, because I do think that that particular piece is truly state-of-the-art at any price.

That's a sad, sad story. Someone who can't listen to music through a well put together $30,000 system because it's too "compromised". I hope I never get serious.