Correlation: Money and Good Sound


Why do many equate throwing money around with the assumption that it will result in vastly improved sound? I realize this is relative...for example...many who have not heard the GMA Europas will not even consider them because of their affordability(under 1k)...this is just one example...are there any others where a reasonably priced product(1k or under) competes or surpasses those 2 to 3 times the price? I am sure there are numerous cables...but cables are vastly overpriced already...also...the next speakers up in the GMA line are roughly 5k and 7k respectively...just something to think about....it seems there are many who judge a product on its worth vs. actual performance...also...I will probably get flamed for this...but I do feel NAD intergrated amps compete very favorably with others at 3 three times the price...
128x128phasecorrect
I too not too much impressed by NAD sound except NAD C370 ones. Anything bellow just seems to be unable to drive anything anyhow.
Among valuably priced components I'd go for Sunfire, Rotel and certainly McCormack. Schuffling among these brands with right speaker you may achieve the level of megapriced performance just by adding a simple RadioShack cables.
you get what you pay for- sort of. i.e., i had a hafler
300w/ch amp which was much better than a denon amp that it replaced- smoother sounding. but then i lugged home a levinson 23 (200w/ch)-used that was going for a good price.
it took 5 minutes to realize how much better the levinson was- much richer textures to instruments. there was no going back- i got a USED ML-23.5 which stayed in my system for a very long time. but let's face it- most people's paychecks don't cover $5,000 amplifier purchases, and it takes years until the right sound comes along at a price that you can afford. i waited for several years until i could get a pair of speakers that represented "to me" the audio end of the road- they cost $12,000. were they better than my b&w 801's?
way better. but i then heard the 801's with pass aleph amps,
and they sounded like a completely different speaker (again, much better, but the amps were $14,000 at the time-the speakers cost a third of that am't). i amuse myself when i recall the argument i used to make that you could build a state of the art speaker for no more than $2-3k/pair considering the cost of materials and workmanship. it's probably true- there are $10,000 guitars out there that cost
$600 in materials. sometimes i wish my father had been a carpenter instead of an accountant...
You only get what you pay for (if you are lucky)! Its what you do with it that counts. Stehno's comments are right on point.
In all matters, not just audio equipment, I am perfectly willing to pay top dollar for a superb product. However, I look to the quality of the product first, and worry about the price afterwards. I never begin my search for quality by evaluating the most expensive items.

One factor that can drastically affect cost is new technology. Recent examples are DVD players that have caused development of inexpensive high speed 24-bit DACs, and digital power amps that deliver results previously obtainable only at 4 to 5 times the cost. I don't think it makes sense to pay an exorbitant price for a gold-plated version of yesterday's technology.

Many high end audio products are well built and good designs, but carry a huge price tag because of the very small number of units manufactured and sold. If you buy one of these what you are paying for is exclusivity, not performance. People will pay more for a Volkswagen if it has a Porsche nameplate.
I think that Bryston Gear shows that you don't need to spend a small fortune for good sound...I've always wondered though...what are the brands that do cost a fortune...but suck? You always hear statements like. "This integrated/amp/pre etc competes with gear costing many times more" or something like that...funny how one never hears it the other way around.