Correlation: Money and Good Sound

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.

There is a correlation between money and good sound. But it's not a guarantee. When someone tells me, for example, that the Meitner DAC and transport combo sound smooth and almost like vinyl, I say for $12k it better. Some actually think it makes Redbook sound better than vinyl, proving that they are just excited about there new purchase and they haven't heard well set up vinyl.

But the law of diminishing returns kicks in way below $12k. I've gone to dealers who've had $50k+ setups in rooms and sat there and had to listen for awhile before I could figure out a few qualities that make is sound better than my modest system, about $12k total. I can listen to top of the line systems, go home listen to my system, and think wow I really don't get much more joy from the $50k+ system. So it's all relative. I'd rather just listen to music and just keep up on listening to new stuff when I can.

Good Thread,
Rob

There's a number of factors at the edges of this question such as space and convienience. I go to my high-end dealer's house (which doubles as his showrooms) and his main setup, along with a large RPTV, has a large BAT amp which must sit on the floor and Avalon Eidelon speakers which are halfway into the room (this is necessary for proper setup). Listening to 2-channel music makes these monoliths less imposing, but to watch a movie (the room is also set up for surround with Avalon speakers), you get the feeling that you're watching through a set of goal posts. There's also the tweak factor in very expensive equipment. To get the most out of some high-end equipment, every input/output/knob/cable needs adjusting somewhat before you can listen to different music or whatever. Impulse listening is lost because of the necessary tinkering. The bottom line for me is diminishing returns: if I only get 25% improvement for double the cost, I fall into a state of contentment. The nth degree is just too damn expensive and short-lived.

Why is that people can justify what they spend on audio equipment, but anyone who spends more than they do is an idiot? What is the correlation between being able to afford better stereo equipment and not being able to tell that it isn't any better than NAD!?!

Do people loose their ability to hear at a certain income level?

I have heard NAD gear and I have never thought it was anything special. I have heard plenty of stereo equipment that was priced similarly or more expensive that sounded lots better.

Sherwood receivers are the best sounding equipment. Anyone that buys anything else is just showing off, and into this hobby as a way to stroke their egos.

"Why is that people can justify what they spend on audio equipment, but anyone who spends more than they do is an idiot?"

"Sherwood receivers are the best sounding equipment. Anyone that buys anything else is just showing off, and into this hobby as a way to stroke their egos."

wow...are these conflicting statements or what?

you're off to a wonderful start making friends here on the Gon...NOT