Just want to second those who said that there is no direct relationship between the quality of sound achieved and the cost to achieve it. In addition, those who think you have to spend 35K (used prices) or 80K (retail prices) to get a system which SOUNDS cost-no-object, all I can say is I'd like to borrow your checkbook. I think, with careful matching, you can build what would be called a Class A system for less than 20K. Cost of the components is not important at all in determining how they will sound. How each product complements the others sonically is the most important. Of course, you do have to find products of high quality, but these are rarely the most expensive. Now despite all that I have said, there is a law of diminishiing returns, but it doesn't have to do with money. It has to do with aggravation. When you get this "near perfect" system, there will still be something about it which is still bothering you. The question is will it be worth the aggravation to make a change to it in order to improve it only to find that the modification probably threw some other quality of the sound off.
Law of Diminishing Returns; where does it kick in?
I think that most of us who have been in this hobby for a while have experienced the "law of diminishing returns", the point at which spending a lot more money produces a little bit better sound or just tradeoffs.
I would like your opinions on where you believe this occurs in Speakers, Amps, CD players, and cabling.