"Trickle up" theory

A FEW CORRECTIONS TO "THEORY".

The price paid for home audio system not neccessarily have to be expencive but the purposes may be different for different rooms.
Amp and speakers are two the most expencive components that contain the largest design effort along with expencive row materials.
To make and design a full range 400W/ch power amplifier is much more difficult than 4W/ch SET that can't be full range by default.
A high gain adjustable phono-stage is also effort-based component.
For larger rooms you need larger speakers or at least with larger power handling and larger power amplifier to drive them. High-powered amps wether tube or SS need expencive power-supply parts and quite an amount of time to optimize performance.
The price of preamplifier less affects system performance since there is realy no need for expencive parts for power supply, no need as obvious for expencive output devices. Another words the preamp is cheap compared to amp or speakers in general since row parts don't cost too much.
CD players especially in our digital 21st century are getting better and cheaper. A cheap $50 DVD player will sound fantastic compared to the 15 year old vintage one that probably worthed near $400 back then.

Yes, the system could be expencive especially for large rooms where you need larger power and stronger speakers.

Hey? What happened to Slappy?

I see now that I didn't explain myself clearly enough through this thread, and got carried away myself, though there were interesting and informative results! Some say I am condemning the high-end in its entirety, some associate the statements with a condemnation of complex designs...the focus is too much on the equipment and not enough on the idea. So that people know where I'm coming from, I will say that I am a media analyst, meaning that I examine and analyse how the press uses various rhetorical tricks (playing with the facts) to manipulate public opinion. This includes the audio press. So I felt that the constant "trickle down" the audio press uses encourages us to automatically assume that the high-end is superior, and that we should thus always assume that spending more will gain us more. While this is true in some cases, it is not true in all. Those with experience have all bought equipment which, while more "informative", left us ultimately dissatisfied. The audio press is definitely not objective in this, because if they did not laud the new cost-no-object designs and prod us into constantly spending, then they would have no future. This, again, is not to say that these pieces do not deserve the accolades, but does point to a conflict of interest...we must keep our eyes open and question. If a basically unmusical piece's design is incorporated at a lower price level, then what is the result? Does a purely engineering solution (say more mass which means more expense) always lead to an improvement? Do the men who design these expensive pieces actually have talent with respect to musical as opposed to information issues? And finally, is it always true that the cheaper components cannot teach designers of expensive equipment a thing or two? If cheaper equipment often sounds more musical, then I believe a good designer should stop and say "hmmm...why?" So to the constant and uniform "trickle down" which is universal rhetoric in the audio press, I say "damn it; trickle up!" Quite simply, question and oppose, the key to advancement in any science or art, audio being both.

I went to the movies last night. Typical suburban multiplex with Dolby Digital sound. I found the music in the movie (Monster) and even in the previews (a new Bertolucci film with a lot of great 60's music), which were not in surround, to sound very good in a musically satisfying way. No treble to speak of (which may be why it sounded good), but it had a very smooth sound and the stage was spread way out. Rock music sounds great that way, better than it does on my highly resolving, detailed, extended-range home system. It got me thinking.

I don't know what they put in these movie house systems, but I imagine it's largely junk, not only by the standards of the "high end" but by the standards of John's lower-end, simple, good boogie equipment. I mean, simple, direct signal paths? I doubt it!

I'm still working this around in my mind, because I have a point to make, I'm just not sure I know what it is yet. For one thing, while I agree that many of our ultra high end systems sometimes or often seem to miss the point in important musical respects, I'm unsure about the conclusions that John is suggesting with respect to simpler systems.

Drubin, do you think it might be the sheer presence of the music? A theater has many, many speakers in an acoustically satisfactory environment? Someone had earlier referenced car stereos as posessing the musicality/PRAT/timing (your choice of terms) discussed earlier. Bass is artificially high within a car just as it is in the theater (for different reasons). Plus, there are a lot of square inches of speaker per cubic foot of space in both many cars and most theaters. High ratios of speaker surface to listening space (all else equal) might result in something good. Just a thought. Haven't really explored it at all. What do y'all think?