Correlation: Money and Good Sound


Why do many equate throwing money around with the assumption that it will result in vastly improved sound? I realize this is relative...for example...many who have not heard the GMA Europas will not even consider them because of their affordability(under 1k)...this is just one example...are there any others where a reasonably priced product(1k or under) competes or surpasses those 2 to 3 times the price? I am sure there are numerous cables...but cables are vastly overpriced already...also...the next speakers up in the GMA line are roughly 5k and 7k respectively...just something to think about....it seems there are many who judge a product on its worth vs. actual performance...also...I will probably get flamed for this...but I do feel NAD intergrated amps compete very favorably with others at 3 three times the price...
128x128phasecorrect
There is a correlation between money and good sound. But it's not a guarantee. When someone tells me, for example, that the Meitner DAC and transport combo sound smooth and almost like vinyl, I say for $12k it better. Some actually think it makes Redbook sound better than vinyl, proving that they are just excited about there new purchase and they haven't heard well set up vinyl.

But the law of diminishing returns kicks in way below $12k. I've gone to dealers who've had $50k+ setups in rooms and sat there and had to listen for awhile before I could figure out a few qualities that make is sound better than my modest system, about $12k total. I can listen to top of the line systems, go home listen to my system, and think wow I really don't get much more joy from the $50k+ system. So it's all relative. I'd rather just listen to music and just keep up on listening to new stuff when I can.

Good Thread,
Rob
There's a number of factors at the edges of this question such as space and convienience. I go to my high-end dealer's house (which doubles as his showrooms) and his main setup, along with a large RPTV, has a large BAT amp which must sit on the floor and Avalon Eidelon speakers which are halfway into the room (this is necessary for proper setup). Listening to 2-channel music makes these monoliths less imposing, but to watch a movie (the room is also set up for surround with Avalon speakers), you get the feeling that you're watching through a set of goal posts. There's also the tweak factor in very expensive equipment. To get the most out of some high-end equipment, every input/output/knob/cable needs adjusting somewhat before you can listen to different music or whatever. Impulse listening is lost because of the necessary tinkering. The bottom line for me is diminishing returns: if I only get 25% improvement for double the cost, I fall into a state of contentment. The nth degree is just too damn expensive and short-lived.

Why is that people can justify what they spend on audio equipment, but anyone who spends more than they do is an idiot? What is the correlation between being able to afford better stereo equipment and not being able to tell that it isn't any better than NAD!?!

Do people loose their ability to hear at a certain income level?

I have heard NAD gear and I have never thought it was anything special. I have heard plenty of stereo equipment that was priced similarly or more expensive that sounded lots better.

Sherwood receivers are the best sounding equipment. Anyone that buys anything else is just showing off, and into this hobby as a way to stroke their egos.
"Why is that people can justify what they spend on audio equipment, but anyone who spends more than they do is an idiot?"

"Sherwood receivers are the best sounding equipment. Anyone that buys anything else is just showing off, and into this hobby as a way to stroke their egos."

wow...are these conflicting statements or what?

you're off to a wonderful start making friends here on the Gon...NOT
Great thread

I think one of the problems is the "Latest and greatest" notion that plagues everyday life.
Especially when it comes to speakers. Anyone who has read a basic book on speaker constuction and has the very basic understanding of diffraction can look at a speaker and see it was designed poorly. Extra edges where they dont need to be, cosmetics that make it look real sharp but cause excess distortion of the sound coming from the speakers. etc

HT is one area where there have been massive jumps in technology, but alot of the gear you can buy that is newer and pricier is not automatically better. In my opinion, in amplifiers and especially speakers, there have been no "Revolutionary" changes since they were first introduced. They use the same concepts. As long as there is good constuction with good qualitys in a well thought out box, you have a quality speaker.

I think everyone should have a system like mine. Not to listen to all the time, but to pull outta storage and play with for a couple days, it shows that name brands are not the most important aspect, and that you dont have to spend ALOT of money to get good sound. I think once you get on the upgrade path it is very easy to shun away cheaper gear because it is too easy to assume that it is way inferior to the gear you currently have. Which it probably WILL be inferior, but not as bad as you might assume.

Dont get me wrong though, i know my rig is far far from where i want it to be, but even as now it still sounds good enough to enjoy. Hopefully in the next couple weeks i can look foirward to another small upgrade. :)

As with anything, in any market, in any hobby, there will always be some gear that can hold its own to much more expencive gear, but it might not fit the needs of everyone, and it does not garauntee synergy with other types of gear in the same price range, nor synergy with other gear reputed to compete with gear much more expencive.

Who knows, maybe the Pinnacle of audio gear is a $10,000.00 rowland amp connected to some $880.00 europas.

Attempting to match gear on price really does not garauntee anything.