Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

I certainly hear differences but they are small.As audiophiles we tend to really over exaggerate small changes. Also the rest of the system has to be up to the task.A top notch preamp is an absolute must as well as resolving speakers.A good preamp is more inportant in my experience then the source.
In my experience the order of audible differences is as follows
1) the recording
2) speakers/room interface
3) preamp
4) source
5) amp
6)cables
This has been my experience but others may disagree.

Budt, it's hard to disagree with your ranking. Maybe I've never owned a "bad" preamp, but I'd reverse source and preamp, but otherwise agree.

The amp can come up right behind the speakers, depending on the speakers. Some, like the DALIs and Vienna Acoustics, really need a lot of power and damping, elevating the importance of the amp.

Still, no matter how you stack the progression, there is a progression and people should focus their attention first toward the more significant. Cables bring out the last percentiles and seem important in that context, but I think it's foolish to start with cables, for instance, and build a system around them.

Dave

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?

That is just too easy. Although there are more than one universally accepted performance criteria the goal is accurate reproduction of the recorded material: Low distortion, high linearity, high Signal to Noise, large dynamic range, high SPL level capability, wide even dispersion.

It is all to obvious that some equipment is better than others in terms of pure performance.

What you are saying is akin to saying Rolex is a "Good Watch" - sure it is - but that is subjective and so is "Good Sound". Rolex is a poor performer as a time keeper (cost/performance) and so are many nostalgic methods of audio reproduction.

Shadorne, now you added the element/clarification of "...nostalgic methods of audio reproduction." Yes, if you are thinking along the lines of new gear made using older designs and charging an arm and leg, then we are largely in agreement.

Then, certainly, in general the "good sound" one is seeking would cost proportionately much more than one might find in components with different technology.

there is a basic problem in assessing the accuracy of stereo systems. there is no reference that is known.

if accuracy is the criterion, the goal is minimzation of signal loss. but what is the signal ? it is the recording.

how do you compare the sound of the recording to what comes out of the speakers ? the recording cannot be know, just as the sound of each component cannot be known. mathematically, it can be proven that each component and a recording constitute unknown variables.

doug schroeder, you commented on price/performance and used terms like mid fi and high end, without defining them. in fact assigning a component to either category is arbitrary and not scientifc. at best it is subjective.

also, there is no convincing evidence of correlation between price and performance. do you think you can tell the differnece between the cost of stereo system a and stereo system b, blindfolded ?

if you let me configure two stereo systems, i will wager that you will not be able to tell the difference between them, in a blindfold test, more than 50 percent of the time.