System psychology, or just psyched out?

If you are enjoying your modest system immensely, by all means, keep on doing so. You're the one who matters where that particular decision is concerned.

Is it psychological? Heck, yeah! We don't really "need" any of this stuff. Without it, we'd still survive. Your desire and preference for any of it is certainly psychological. You're the one making all this crap mean something...and what it means to you is not necessarily what it means to anyone else. We all do that, it's part of being a human being.

Is your system "better" or equal to a 10-20-100K system? Well, you say it is to you...what more do you need? Why ask any of us? First off, we haven't heard your system, and more importantly, what we believe really should have no bearing on how you perceive the world. Of course, you could certainly choose to make it have some bearing on how you perceive things...and that's psychological too. Do you want to do that? I'd guess you'll find the majority of the folks who actually take the time to post on a list like this one probably don't share your perceptions. Better yet, repeat after me: I do not want what I have not got.

I'm happy for you, because, as has been pointed out, if you really find your modest system as rewarding as you say (and I have no reason to doubt that you do), you'll save yourself a whole lot of money, as well as tedious obsessions that take up time which you could otherwise be spending actually listening to and enjoying music.

Marco

My 2 cents -
1.It's about the music. Everything else is secondary.
2. Enjoying music isn't dependent on the technical/sonic attributes of the hardware (but I'm not saying great sounding equipment doesn't improve the experience).
3. In terms of sonic returns per $ invested, there is without doubt a point of diminishing returns (but where is that point and how does it vary for inividuals with widely different economic means?)
4. I suppose it is possible that $1500 well spent might sound better than $20K or more poorly spent - but I think you would have to work real hard to fritter away tens of thousands to make that system sound worse than a $1500 system (point taken about supporting room acoustics).
5. Listening is a skill and hearing ability varies amongst individuals. How many of us have perfect pitch? How many people are tone deaf and can't "carry a tune in a bucket"? How many can pick out a very subtle accidental mic hit in a studio demo tape? I witnessed this in a recording studio. No one heard it until the guy making the music pointed it out and edited it out of the tape. I've used the term "golden ears" in a somewhat derogatory fashion myself. On the other hand, listening to stuff I could never afford did help train my ear (an ongoing process) and help inform my purchases of lower cost equipment.

Now my question would be is this for psychological reasons, or purely objective?

Purely objective. If you look at my system then you will see that I use some very cheap stuff (similar to your pawn shop quality) alongside some not so cheap gear and without any dubious tweaks (for example, a number of acoustic panels make an easily audible difference - same for a PEQ - unlike many other tweaks that are not so obviously audible. The ultra expensive stuff is only purchased because it is necessary and does make a significant difference; and believe me, there is no short cut or cheap way to skin some cats. I would upgrade my cheaper stuff too if I could hear a significant improvement by going higher end, however, objectively I see no point. (by objective I mean blind tests - switching back and forth countless times between items to compare - easy to do these days with a remote.)

Thanks guys for your responses, they are all very thoughtful, but I think that maybe you are somewhat missing my point.

I will try to clarify.

Chadnliz said: "The Blindfold wont fly around here, many buy with their eyes and will never allow themselves to be taken in by anything cheap or mass market, mentally they are hung up on what they feel hi-end should be..."

That is my point: that other factors(cost, brand name, marketing, reputation, status appeal, ownership, comfort and familiarity with the product, etc.) besides the actual, physical, objective sound influences our PERCEPTION of the musical performance. And, if it was purely about the sound, then the blindfold(a blind listening test of comparable systems) should fly...I don't know, I am losing my train of thought here and am having a difficult time trying to say what I am thinking, but, I just do not think that it does as most people are enamored by the sound and equipment they own and have in their homes. By this I mean they are subjectively skewed and biased, prejudiced toward their own systems. And I believe this is only human nature. Just as we seek new adventures, experiences and discovery, as Markphd said, we also enjoy, prize and value, for lack of better terms, the things which we own. And this inevitably, inherently and indubitably affects, influences our judgement, IMHO. That is all I am saying.

I don't mean to be argumentative or anything, but I just wanted to clarify my point as I believe most of you were going a bit astray... so to speak. And of course there's nothing wrong with that, that's what we're all here for :-O LOL!, I only wanted to communicate myself and my thoughts better, clearer, more precisely, that is all.

Again, thanks for all your comments, it has been an interesting discussion which I do appreciate, thanks.

"I just want to know how many times one needs to watch those Bose commercials (and read the Bose advertising literature) before he can become convinced that an inexpensive Bose system can compete with and possibly beat a $100k audio system."

"Audio_obsessed_novic, do you really believe your Bose system is that good or have you simply been romanced/brainwashed by the ads and have rationalized that the Bose is that good so that you won't need to spend any more money?"

No Plato, I have not been brainwashed by the Bose ads(I cannot stand them and won't watch them anymore), but I do believe that with the exception of maybe one or two in-store setups, my cheap and modest home system really does sounds better than what I have heard. And that is the crux of my problem. I know better sound is available out there (I have heard it a couple of times), but otherwise, I just have not been generally able to find it. I do not want to sound crazy, contradicting myself in every other sentence, but... You see, I am very frustrated: While I do enjoy and like the sound of my home system, I am not entirely satisfied as I do know that better stuff/sound exists out there, but I have been unable to find it, despite my best efforts. Everything I listen to seems to sound worse than my own stuff, at least at the store anyway, and my question of "System psychology, or just psyched out" is simply trying to understand why this is.

"Another simple thing to realize is that because expensive systems typically have greater extension at the frequency extremes and are more dynamic, they excite room acoustics problems to a much higher degree than a more frequency-limited and compressed system would. And matching components for proper system synergy becomes increasingly important with higher-resolution rigs. In other words, it's very easy to screw up the sound of any expensive system if you don't pay careful attention to system set-up details... If you think it must be set up correctly because it's in an audio store... well, I urge you to reconsider that notion."

I am very glad you mention this, as I was thinking that this may be a very significant factor. I am not sure if my audio store has the best acoustic environment in which to showcase audio products. The room is mostly rectangular, has a level ceiling and is usually overly crammed with stuff, inventory, which probably diffises the sound a bit. While I know that given my equipment and setup, my room is probably pretty good acoustically, given the modest size, offset demsensions and slanted roof,(both of which help to reduce modal reflections I believe), along with the mixture of surface types, reflecting and absorbing. Now I certainly do not have a world class listening room or anything, just a shabby studio apartment, but still... it's probably better than the Audio Lab. Well, at least in my mind, ears and everywhere in between. ;-)

Thanks,
BFN.

P.S. Oh, and by the way, I have been to a Bose outlet shop and auditioned the new 201, 301 version 5, along with the 901s. And being thin and waify, strident on top, undefined in the lower base and weak in the upper, they all sounded horrible to me. So I do try to be consistent and objective, definitely impartial, to say the least.