Does your system sound better than most demo's?

B_Limo - I used the M3 analogy with a local dealer recently. For some unknown reason he had it in my head I wouldn't be satisfied with anything except a boutique name. I tried to explain that the upgrades I was thinking about weren't to impress anyone except my ears and it wasnt getting through, so I lit upon the concept of the M3 versus exotic. Sure you can squeeze more performance out of a quarter million dollar car but I was happy to be satisfied with the daily 'driving pleasure' of the performance of an M3 (I've owned one and they provide a LOT of daily driving pleasure and a ton of performance).

He took me into his demo room where amongst other things he demo'd his own speaker creations and tried to convince me of the holographic soundstage. All I heard was volume. If you had blindfolded me and spun me around ten times I'm fairly certain I could have shot a bb through the woofer of either speaker. I didnt even bother to reach for the CDs I brought along.

Visceral and emotional experience is the joy of this hobby. Technical achievement is honorable and necessary to keep the pursuit alive and healthy. But I don't care what the specs say, if it isn't fun to drive then I'm going to move on. And if its fun to drive stop telling me about the engineering and give me the keys. Seems simple.

In one of the rooms at the recent Chicago show, a dealer and an equipment rep were talking as if they were presenters at a brain surgery seminar about how the rep made the CD that was about to be slid into a $40k CDP. The dealer summed up the obviously planned conversation saying with great authority… so were talking about integrating pro equipment valued at well over $100k to transfer this music from your turntable to this CD we’re about to hear… the rep smiles… pushes the play button… and seconds into the music a wave of people hit the door.

Sales involve a bit of showmanship but some dealers forget the sophistication of their buyers, especially in audio. Many years ago I witnessed a salesman at a high end salon doing his level best to convince a potential buyer of what he was hearing compared to what he was hearing. It was just the two of them up front and I was at the back but well within the better listening area which allowed me the luxury of moving around as the salesman spoke. What was described as a very wide and deep soundstage with great dynamics and extension had all the size effect of a TV screen. I had to bite my lip and walk out before the urge to say anything overwhelmed me.

The poor customer just sat there, nodding with his head but his face betrayed the motion and I think the salesman had a sale that day. We're talking Martin Logan speakers and AR separates with exotic cabling in an optimum set up in a room dedicated to stereo and it sounded like crap. So when I hear of problematic room set ups at audio shows I take that with the smallest grain of salt as there are others at the very same shows under the very same conditions that can sound fantastic. I believe that near field listening can pretty much help in determining the potential of most systems but in the end, you'll never really know until you hear it in your system.

As to B_limo's point, yes, I experience that most of the time. Even when I hear something markedly better that would require a sacrifice, of sorts, I'm quite content with what I have, in the context of where I listen, and wonder what all the fuss is about.

All the best,
Nonoise

Funny, had just that same conversation with a friend leaving the NYC audio show last weekend. We're both running relatively rarified – and very different – gear, but both adjourned to the bar thinking that there really wasn’t anything we’d heard that we would trade for what we had.

I have always found that surprising. I’ve been to three large shows in NYC, and have never really heard anything that blew me away, including any of the $1/2 million+ room-bruising monsters. Last weekend, thought there was really only one setup that came even close, and it was not the one I would have expected (although it did leave me with an abiding infatuation with Raidho speakers). Never did put my finger on why, but the why of it all has come to concern me a whole lot less. All in all – biased or no – just about the best reaction I could hope for. Hope it keeps up.

Perhaps the reality is just this.... there is essentially NO correlation between cost of a stereo system and the performance of the system... at least after a certain level.

I have heard (at shows) $100-200,000 systems (dozens of them)that, on average, do not sound any better than did the average of the 25K systems (again dozens of them). And some 10-15K systems equaled or bested some 200K systems. There are limits to this... but generally, after a 20K system or so... there is no correlation between cost and sound. Cost is, at that point, not correlated any longer to performance... or at best a 2-3% (subjective) improvement doubles the cost. A typical 25K system is 97% of the way of a 50K system and 94% of the way to a 100K system... something like that. And that is on the average... so much variation occurs that again... no correlation.