$$$ vs music enjoyment

The January 2013 Stereophile e-mail newsletter featured an interesting reprint of a 1994 article titled "R.I.P. High-End Audio?" The reprint generated interesting discussion, and I found one post in particular raising an interesting point.

"The article suggests there is some public good to spreading the high-end. I'd like it first shown that someone is happier listening to music on $20 speakers than 'mid-end' $2k speakers. I mean empirical evidence - hook up blindfolded listens to brain scanners and measure their neurotransmitter levels. If there were a correlation between musical enjoyment and price beyond a certain point I'd have expected my musician and conductor friends to own better stereos than they do."

A few points raised there. Does a more expensive system (a nicely set up, moderate system vs. a significantly more expensive system) indeed elevate the level of musical enjoyment? It would be very interesting to compare owners of all-out assault systems with average audiophiles who can't wait to fire up their systems on a Friday night to get themselves immersed in music. I believe I myself would in fact enjoy the music more if able to afford a more expensive system, even though my modest system has given me extreme enjoyment. But who knows...

And then, yes, why does the audiophile community feature relatively so few musicians? I must say this argument is actually not very convincing to me. The underlying assumption is that any given trade professional would necessarily strive to replicate or pursue the same standards or level of performance in his private life, which I think is a fallacy. Does a fancy restaurant chef have to always eat gourmet food at his home to enjoy it? Does a fashion designer have to always wear designer clothes lest they show high fashion is a sham?

Comments welcome.