Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

Answers will vary:

$10k rig "There's no difference"
$20k rig "Sometimes I think I hear a difference"
$30k rig "There are subtle differences"
$40k rig "Some Players are definitely better than others"
$50k+ rig "The cdp is a make or break proposition"

Shift the numbers around a bit for more fun.

Jeff, obviously you mean humans (since information/technology by definition cannot create itself; it takes an intelligent source for specified complex information) are giving birth to a new digital era. But, your poetic description is enjoyable.

Omegaspeedy, you commented, "I find it incredible that some here can't hear the difference and weard [sic]comments about the total cost of your system will dictate the amount of difference you will hear between them??"

It's not so incredible that some cannot hear the differences. Between tired old ears subjected to too much Harley riding, concerts, playing in bands, etc. and age, there's a LOT of audiophiles who have no clue how adversely effected their hearing is. Through the years they lose a touch of it and still think they hear "just fine". If people were to get hearing tests as they do vision tests, there would be millions of hearing impaired (to one degree or another) individuals discovered. Likely, many would inhabit the realm of audio, and make their appearance here. I have several times had audiophiles over to my home who, as the conversation lengthened and I discovered they were not hearing nuances properly, admitted they had hearing loss (and or) tinitus.

Maybe everyone chipping in on this thread hears well, maybe not. It cannot be dismissed out of hand. You, like me, seem to be able to mentally parse what is being heard.

As to "...weird comments" about the cost of systems. Does this really have to be explained? This is so fundamental that it should be self-evident, but we continuously are barraged by hopefuls who insist that cheapo gear will compete sonically with higher end stuff. Sure, there's an anomaly occasionally where a budget component outstrips some higher end piece, but on average one gets much higher performance with higher end gear.

My point was that mid-fi (one can easily spend today $10k and end up with a solidly Mid-Fi rig) gear simply won't allow a listener to discern the music as well as truly high end gear. Anyone who's worked their way up the ladder from Mid-Fi to higher end gear will understand that.

i.e. If let's say, Cary Audio has an introductory amp as well as one that's multiples more costly, their top of the line model, which one will allow for better perception/experience with any cdp? (That is, which will reveal the nature of the cdp better?) Well, it had best be the high bucks model, or else Cary is going to be out of business pretty quickly - and the same with any other manufacturer.

So, a guy cobbles together some lower end gear (I'm not dismissing budget audiophiles; I was one for more than a decade). Do you really think that it's going to be as good at presenting the cdp's nature as higher end gear? Is it "weird" to suggest that a system comprised of high end gear will produce better results?

One of my systems consists of Naim Nait 5i, Cambridge Audio Azur 840C player (w. digital input), Audioquest cabling, Eminent Technology LFT-VI speakers with a pair of HSU ST-1 subs - about a $5k system. Nice, fun, but in no way compares to my reference rig. I can pretty much swap out any speaker I want in the reference rig and still have better sound than the $5k rig. I can upgrade pretty much any piece in the $5k rig and still not get near the quality of the reference system.

The point is, there is a sonically cumulative/accretive effect from higher end gear which cannot be achieved at lower cost. Not typically.

The argument that system "synergy" can make up for expending money on higher end components is fallacious. One can achieve stunning results (system synergy) with the proper mix of high end gear.

{BTW, my pics of my rig are way outdated; I'm on about my third system succeeding those pics. I have been so busy reviewing that I've let that aspect of the hobby lapse, as it's not critical.}

Carlos, if you are referring primarily to the realm of low powered amps and high efficiency speakers, I would tend to agree with you.

Shadorne, the watch illustration is fallacious; in timekeeping there is one universal unit of measurement. In audio what is the equivalent universally agreed unit of measurement by which one can easily assess the merit of a component? "Good sound"? Not quite so easily defined as time.

Whereas the different topology of watches is essentially yielding an identical/measurable result, components' topology do not yield a universally agreed upon result. So, a "pricey" component to you could sound incredible to someone else, and well worth the money.

Wireless200, the Transporter is approx. 6 times the price of the Squeezebox. Both perform the same function, streaming audio, yet one is far more expensive. If it would yield superior results, it would, in fact, reinforce my point that typically higher priced gear is superior for assessment of attending components.

Shadorne, now you added the element/clarification of "...nostalgic methods of audio reproduction." Yes, if you are thinking along the lines of new gear made using older designs and charging an arm and leg, then we are largely in agreement.

Then, certainly, in general the "good sound" one is seeking would cost proportionately much more than one might find in components with different technology.

Mrtennis, you're beginning to sound like James Randi. ;)

You win the obfuscation prize.

Mrtennis, you said, "the terms high end and mid fi are used for marketing purposes. they are arbitray [sic] and subject to disagreement."

Yes, and the terms "sports car" and "sedan" are used for marketing purposes as well, however they have fairly clear meanings. As do the terms "Mid Fi" and "high end". It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I don't see too many audiophiles disputing that Rotel is Mid Fi and Halcro is Hi Fi. I also don't see too many suggesting that Rotel sounds as good as Halcro! So, mabe there is something to the idea that Halcro costs more because it sounds better?

Why don't you show me some non-subjective evidence for your position that spending more money doesn't produce better sound? :) You're spewing just as much rehetoric; where's your data?

So, if the lower end gear really can sound just as good typically as the higher end stuff, why are there categories of quality in nearly every "Best Gear" report ever published by audiophile publications? And why is the price skewed upward as the quality increases? No correlation? That's rediculous - nonsense!

You think the manufacturers are scamming us? If you think so, you are one very cynical man. I have run into manufacturers at low and high price points whom I felt were giving away their technology/products to the community very cheaply (even in five figure products). Others, again across the price spectrum, have been more suspect in terms of the cost/quality ratio. This is a far more realistic view of the audio landscape.