Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

Douglas,
Take it from someone who owns more esoteric/rare high-end and expensive gear than you and perhaps anyone else on this site does: Don't ever underestimate the value of "Synergy" between components! At the very core of the matter are such things as the output versus input impedance/capacitance/inductance that governs the electrical interface between components. Higher end gear does not guarantee better sound! In the 80's the higher the price of the component meant a higher degree of refinement, better part selection and a design with more substance but for the last decade and a half the price versus performance does not correlate most of the time. Now a days it is more about audio jewelry and it seems that some of the prices are derived arbitrarily and have no correlation to part costs or design sophistications. On the contrary, some of the highest cost components now a days are based on simple circuits from the 40's and 50's. I would love to continue this discussion but it is irrelevant as most do not understand the laws of acoustics, psychoacoustics and the science behind the engineered circuits.

but for the last decade and a half the price versus performance does not correlate most of the time. Now a days it is more about audio jewelry and it seems that some of the prices are derived arbitrarily and have no correlation to part costs or design sophistications. On the contrary, some of the highest cost components now a days are based on simple circuits from the 40's and 50's.

Now there is a straight shooter. I suspect that you and Stereophile founder J Gordon Holt would be in total agreement on the above.

During the 60's cars went all chrome and wings and hub caps too...

When performance reaches "good enough" for most customers then differentiation often migrates to other features such as aesthetics or nostalgia or exclusivity (high price - limited availability)

Any ordinary watch is good enough to tell the time these days - yet we have nostalgic old world designs such as Rolex that are still popular and aspired too. It is indeed just "jewelery". A Zenith mechanical chronometer movement is an impressive design wonder that achieves mechanically something that can be done for five bucks with electronics. To me that is part of the magic of vinyl. Digital kind of kills this magic dead. But I have no silly illusions that a Rolex in anyway outperforms the best digital watch (in terms of time keeping accuracy).

Over in the slim device forums someone asked the designer of the Transporter, Sean Adams, what he would have done if cost was no object. He said nothing, there's only so much money you can put into components.

Carlos, if you are referring primarily to the realm of low powered amps and high efficiency speakers, I would tend to agree with you.

Shadorne, the watch illustration is fallacious; in timekeeping there is one universal unit of measurement. In audio what is the equivalent universally agreed unit of measurement by which one can easily assess the merit of a component? "Good sound"? Not quite so easily defined as time.

Whereas the different topology of watches is essentially yielding an identical/measurable result, components' topology do not yield a universally agreed upon result. So, a "pricey" component to you could sound incredible to someone else, and well worth the money.

Wireless200, the Transporter is approx. 6 times the price of the Squeezebox. Both perform the same function, streaming audio, yet one is far more expensive. If it would yield superior results, it would, in fact, reinforce my point that typically higher priced gear is superior for assessment of attending components.

I second Douglas's claim. Differences between entry to mid price to SOA (pricey) digital are audiophile worlds apart. One is good two dimensional wall of gritty sound as compared to other approaching life like presence, three dimensionality and simply more believable- no excuses sound. The jewelry factor is icing on a cake. IMHE.