Where do you draw the line???


There are many interesting threads here about innumerable topics where people share many different opinions. If the truth be known I think many of us are still open to suggestion or opposing points of view regarding most things, but there must be some issues about which we are unwilling to budge.

In your own mind what is the concession you are unwilling to make?

For example; many people feel tubes are superior to solid state equipment. I have owned tube gear, and have several friends who I respect that still own tube gear, but I will not concede that solid state equipment is inferior to tubes.

Another concession I cannot make is the superiority of CDs to vinyl. I have a good CDP and have listened to better than my own, and in my experience LPs still are the hands-down winner for sound quality.

I have and like Krell equipment, and have been taken to task because of it. I'm still not selling it to buy another brand.

The question is: Regardless of the opinion of others what views or opinions are you unwilling to change???

Lets not fight! This is supposed to be fun!!!
nrchy

Showing 6 responses by onhwy61

Nrchy, I'll go to even further extremes. I argue that a good $15,000 system is comparable to some $75,000 setups. I include a specific example. It's an old thread, but it got some interesting responses.

click here
I hope you don't think I'm one of those people trying to justify their own compromises. Nor am I someone who denies that some equipment is clearly better than other equipment. The key point that I'm making (and beating to death) is that above a certain dollar point the differences between components becomes quite subtle. These small differences maybe important and even critical to certain listeners, but they are still small differences. If the difference between a $20,000 and a $30,000 system really was "huge", then the difference between a $7,500 and a $75,000 system must be "hyper-mega-bodacious-gargantuan".
Nrchy, your over the top language is undercutting the credibility of your arguments. Specifically I'm referring to the boom box comparison, your insistence that the sonic differences between the systems must be "huge" and your characterization of some buyers as morons. Yes, expensive systems can do things that less expensive (but still quite costly) systems cannot do, but to insist that the two systems are not even remotely similar is a gross overstatement.

This is another example of a mid-price (by audiophile standards) system that can easily compete against mega-buck systems.

Speakers: Harbeth Monitor 40s
Amps: take your pick from any of the better integrated amps from Rowland, BAT, Mark Levinson, Plinius, Musical Fidelity, YBA, etc.
CD: Gamut or the Sony 777
allocate up to $2,000 for cables and stands

The total system cost is in the neighborhood of $15-20,000. The system won't go extremely loud, it won't do deep bass and the soundstage/imaging while quite good won't be SOTA. Nrchy, within these limitations I defy you to come up with a system that is a "huge" improvement.

BTW, the system proposed above will not satisfy everyone. Pipe organ freaks, heavy metal heads and techno/dance ravers will not be happy. A single system, not matter how good or how expensive, can be everything to everybody. Nor do I want to get into an analog vs. digital argument. It's besides the point in this discussion.
Newbee, I agree with everything you said except your second sentence - "They will not consider the sound from your suggested system and what they want to be remotely similar." I guess the problem I'm having is in the emphasis. You say the systems won't sound remotely similar. Nrchy says there are huge differences between systems. The way I hear things there are huge differences between a table radio and any well put together $7,500 system. The differences between that same $7,500 system and an equally well put together $75,000 system are subtle. They ain't huge. In making this last statement I am not making any judgments about the validity or appropriateness of purchasing either system. Take a look at my system, it doesn't cost $7,500 and I don't have any regrets. I'm simply saying that great sounding systems don't have to cost the equivalent of one of those large German sedans. I like the way Audiophanatik put it, "stating that a 30,000 system is better than a 15,000 system becomes a matter of opinion, not fact". To each his own, but let's not pretend why we do certain things.
I think Nrchy's car analog is a little misleading. Hi-end audio isn't a comparison between a Passat and a Jaguar, instead it's the difference between a Lexus 430 ($55,000) and a Mercedes CL55 AMG ($120,500). A well put together $15-20,000 system is like the Lexus and they are truly excellent, luxury oriented products. The M/B AMG at twice the price offers offers a little something that the Lexus doesn't, but I would be reluctant to call it superior performance. $75,000+ stereos are like that Mercedes. I think it's more a pride of ownership type thing and there's nothing wrong with that. I could be wrong, it's just my opinion.

Hey, if you don't like the earlier Harbeth based system I proposed, then consider this one:

Speakers: Vandersteen 5s
Amp: Berning ZH270
CD: Sony XA777ES or Gamut
allocated $2,500 for cables and stands

This system lists for $20,000. It goes real loud, goes way deep and offers SOTA soundstaging. You can pay multiples more, but are you really going to make a "huge" upgrade over it's quality?
That's a sad, sad story. Someone who can't listen to music through a well put together $30,000 system because it's too "compromised". I hope I never get serious.