More expensive = better?

Hyperbole aside, what about the low end and the high end? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Not HYped . Staright shooting. There are no xover style speakers that will surpass a FR in midr5ange, ] This is common knowledge, If you don't get it by now, I'm sorry you have not yet heard the real deal I don't want my mids piped through a midwoofer and a tweeter. Sorry just dont. Now as for more cash better...well ] If we are taliing WAVAC or Kronzilla's $100K++ SET amps,., well yeah more cash the better. But if we are talking other over priced tube amps, well no , . Jadis' KT170 looks very interesting but at $15K+ , ahhh, I can get a good made in China PP tube amp and come very close to Jadis' sound, for UNDER $1500. 10x's better the Jadis,, ahhh I don't think so, Justa nuance, = Not worth it. Go SET, now for $15K I can get a 845 tube will annihilate the KT170.

What I'd love to see is a double blind lineup of various priced equipment in the same category ( preamps, or integrated amps, or speakers, whatever) least expensive to most expensive in a manageable price range played over the exact system and then have folks pick what they like. I wonder what the results would be.

Has anyone seen such a process if so any takeaways? and yea lots of intervening variables at play but this is just down and dirty for sake of discussion.

It is not too hard hearing differences, but it typically takes time to put your finger on what it is. It is a skill. So, provided it is not just switch, a to b to c, and allows lots of time. Some, of course will be immediately obvious, some will take time. Th

 

The reason quick analysis is so challenging is that music is composed of dozens of constantly changing sounds, and your conscious mind ends up flicking from sound to sound… each time it is changing. This is why for most of us the subconscious must be allowed to integrate an impression of the gestalt over time  of similar sounding components.

 

Highly experienced professional reviewers are likely to be very good st this. 

It is the height of foolishness to believe that the more a component costs the better is sounds because, well, markets! What a laugh! There are massive, absurd, insane levels of diminishing returns as you climb the audio ladder. I’d also say that a lot of those "returns" are pure placebo. Just like with cables. No one will take a bet with me that they will be able to price rank a series of cables on a blind A-B test. You might be able to detect the cheapest pair assuming they were complete junk-- but the moment you hit a certain level of materials and build quality there is no better, there are just differences that, usually, you learn to hear over time. Same is true with amps. There are different flavor notes, different power capacities, and the differences you’ll hear as a result of how it plays in your particular room (most important thing for most people whether they know it or not), and with your particular combination of gear. To believe that a $100,000 amp "sounds" better than a $10,000 amp because it costs more makes you a... perfect customer! Fact is, it just ain’t so. More money does not equal better sound for almost anyone. Been there, done that, it’s a mind f@ck. BTW-- prices on top gear have jack to do with what it costs to make or what they’ll sell it to you for. It’s called "aspirational pricing" and a lot of that has to do with the astounding levels of inequality that exist today in our society. Paying stupid money for something and not thinking twice about it, mostly because you want the "bling factor" is for chumps, show-offs, or for those with more money than sense-- and there are plenty of those folks around-- about 80% of whom inherited that wealth anyway. Beyond a certain range or point, quality never equals price.

What @mahgister (and others) are trying to impart onto you is ‘synergy’ matters. That is, how your individual components (including room treatments) work together.

You can assemble a very inexpensive system that sounds incredible in the right room.

You can also spend thousands of $$ on components that do not complement one another.

Cost has little to do with it.