Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

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.

how do you compare the sound of the recording to what comes out of the speakers ?

You use a microphone at a nearfield position or in an anechoic chamber and compare the result to the input reference signal. You can measure all forms of distortion and noise this way.

Mrtennis, you're beginning to sound like James Randi. ;)

You win the obfuscation prize.

hi doug:

forget about a blind test. the basic issues the terms high end and mid fi are used for marketing purposes. they are arbitray and subject to disagreement.

as to price and performance. you are entitled to your opinion but there is no hard evidence that spending more on components produces "better" sound, whatever better means.

even if you consider accuracy as the basis for judgment. accuracy is hard to measure.

the recording can not be a reference, rather the live pdrformance must be, and as shadorne said, a microphone feed as the signal is compared to the sound of instruments. for most people, such a test is impractical.

Mrtennis, you said, "the terms high end and mid fi are used for marketing purposes. they are arbitray [sic] and subject to disagreement."

Yes, and the terms "sports car" and "sedan" are used for marketing purposes as well, however they have fairly clear meanings. As do the terms "Mid Fi" and "high end". It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I don't see too many audiophiles disputing that Rotel is Mid Fi and Halcro is Hi Fi. I also don't see too many suggesting that Rotel sounds as good as Halcro! So, mabe there is something to the idea that Halcro costs more because it sounds better?

Why don't you show me some non-subjective evidence for your position that spending more money doesn't produce better sound? :) You're spewing just as much rehetoric; where's your data?

So, if the lower end gear really can sound just as good typically as the higher end stuff, why are there categories of quality in nearly every "Best Gear" report ever published by audiophile publications? And why is the price skewed upward as the quality increases? No correlation? That's rediculous - nonsense!

You think the manufacturers are scamming us? If you think so, you are one very cynical man. I have run into manufacturers at low and high price points whom I felt were giving away their technology/products to the community very cheaply (even in five figure products). Others, again across the price spectrum, have been more suspect in terms of the cost/quality ratio. This is a far more realistic view of the audio landscape.