let me say that when it comes to high end audio in general, there are two viewpoints: technical-oriented and artistic-oriented.
in today's market, the sellers of high end audio are frequently selling to big-money-paying customers who understand little about electronics. as a result, you hear all manner of buzzwords to describe the equipment in highly subjective terms: terms like "transparency", "air", "focus", &c.; where the people using the terms have no concrete idea of what the terms actually mean.
the conclusion at which i have arrived is that from a technical perspective, there is little difference between a $1500 cd player and a $60,000 multi-box cd playing system. if you were to take technical data on each unit, there would probably be little difference: frequency responses are likely to be substantially similar, same for SNR, &c. so, if you are technical-oriented, you are probably less likely to pay the big prices for high end audio. i mean, true transparancy (where i use this term to me accurate reproduction of the input signal at the output) is relatively easy. so, if transparancy is what you want, the thing to do is to buy a rotel cd player or nad cd player (or similar mid-price player).
what you get for the big bucks is a more "artistic" approach to electronic design, where the signal is colored in a way that a particular listener may find to be "engaging". this "artistic" approach is probably quantifiable if you had detailed frequency response data. for example, the artistic approach would probably tweak certain frequencies in such a manner so as to shape the overall quality of the sound as perceived by the listener. accordingly, you might actually get poorer results in some quantitative measures (for example phase response accuracy) as a result. but the net result is that it can be very difficult to quantify the difference in sound between different cd players.
of course, with this artistic approach is the need for marketing hype. after all, since this stuff is subjective, you have to condition the minds of potential customers so that they will be convinced that your equipment is the key to achieving aural nirvana.
i mean, think about it, you get people in this forum who frequently extol the virtues of tube amplification for it's perceived "warmth and transparency". but the problem is, that "warmth" is actual signal distortion - it might be pleasant sounding distortion, but it is distortion nontheless. therefore, the idea of "warmth and transparency" is an oxymoron. but if the distortion sounds good to you, then it's your money.
ultimately, my view is that your audio equipment sounds as good as you believe it to sound in your own mind. there is a rapidly decreasing return to scale in audio equipment. for moderate cash, you get 95% of the way "there" (i.e. the mythical aural nirvana); beyond that you can pay huge sums of money for equipment for slight differences in sound when compared to less expensive equipment. in fact, many makers of audio equipment market the price of the equipment (and the weight of the equipment) as being indicators of audio quality. whether you perceive those differences in sound between difference units to be minor or major is largely a matter of your own state of mind. there is, of course, a certain aspect of cognitive dissonance, where if you shell out a lot of money on equipment; it sounds good (as far as what you tell other people, at least).
but even when you think that your equipment does "sound good" there is a limited lifetime for such thinking. it's like when you hear a record on the radio the first time and can't get enough of it; then a couple of weeks later you are tired of hearing it.
there is also the aspect that when you get new equipment, it takes your ears some time to get used to the new sound. many people claim that during this time the electronics are being "broken in" (something i consider to be a risible claim) but in reality, it's the user's ears who are being "broken in". then there is a period of time when you may achieve the aural nirvana. then, after a few months of listening, you get used to the sound and "the thrill is gone". then the user flips the equipment on audiogon and is off to buy new equipment - in pursuit of the next aural thrill.
so my attitude about it is that this audiophile stuff is indeed a "hobby" and like any hobby you need to decide how much cash you're willing to direct toward it, but it isn't worth stretching yourself economically in some quioxitic pursuit of aural nirvana. if you got cash to burn (such that you can light cigars with $100 bills without thinking about it) then you can buy high end audio equipment without spending a whole lot of time thinking about it (the amount of available equipment and even larger number of possible combinations of equipment would take a prohibitive amount of time to evaluate). if you don't have cash to burn, just keep in mind that that "reference" audio equipment isn't going to sound that much different than the mid-range equipment.
also to be considered, part of the deal with "reference" equipment is that it is like buying a piece of art or a piece of furniture for your home. when you make those kinds of purchases, you don't tend to think in terms of value but rather you react based on your visceral response to the piece of art or furniture. if you come at the purchase from a techical orientation, then spending large sums of money on "reference" audio equipment is a terrible purchase; but if you come at the purchase from an artistic orientation, then it might be a really good purchase.
