Audiophile Myths or Facts?

[Groundbeef]

I have neither the least expensive, nor the most expensive audio equipment. However, for my purposes and budget the sound/video experience I have at home is very nice.

I am wondering if at some point the "added value" of higher end equipment changes from an actual difference to a justification for the expense of the equipment.

For example, there is a thread on this board discussing a $24,000 CD player. Please, is there really , a need for a $24,000 CD player? What could they possibly cram into the box that would justify that expense?

And I have seen a TurnTable in a Playboy of mine that sold for OVER $120,000. Granted it's hand made, but what are you really buying? I would argue status. There has to be a line of diminishing returns, and I think at that point you are buying for status. Simply to say "I own a $120,000 TT, and YOU don't."

I would also like to say that I certainly do not begrudge anyone from spending any amount of $$ on gear. Would I spend $120,000 on a TT if I could afford it? Certainly not, but I'm not going to wag my finger at someone that can.

I am just wondering at what point do you feel that you are buying for status, and feel compelled to proclaim that your expense is in fact enhancing your muscial experience?

[Ajani]

I have neither the least expensive, nor the most expensive audio equipment. However, for my purposes and budget the sound/video experience I have at home is very nice.

I am wondering if at some point the "added value" of higher end equipment changes from an actual difference to a justification for the expense of the equipment.

For example, there is a thread on this board discussing a $24,000 CD player. Please, is there really , a need for a $24,000 CD player? What could they possibly cram into the box that would justify that expense?

And I have seen a TurnTable in a Playboy of mine that sold for OVER $120,000. Granted it's hand made, but what are you really buying? I would argue status. There has to be a line of diminishing returns, and I think at that point you are buying for status. Simply to say "I own a $120,000 TT, and YOU don't."

I would also like to say that I certainly do not begrudge anyone from spending any amount of $$ on gear. Would I spend $120,000 on a TT if I could afford it? Certainly not, but I'm not going to wag my finger at someone that can.

I am just wondering at what point do you feel that you are buying for status, and feel compelled to proclaim that your expense is in fact enhancing your muscial experience?

To be honest, I think it's hard to draw the line and determine when audiohiles have moved from "spending more to get more" (quality) to "spending for bragging rights".... The reason I say this is simply because: by default, when you buy a more expensive component it tends to have a more expensive finish (since as consumers spend more on a product, they generally expect a better finish as well, and the manufacturers makes sure to deliver it). So even if I move up from say a $1K floorstander from a Brand to a $2K one from the same brand because I'm looking for better sound, I will also tend to get much better fit and finish by default.

To know how much just improving finish can jack up the cost of an item, try this test:

Go to www.axiomaudio.com and try customizing their speakers with real wood Gloss Black finish... You can easily double the price of their speakers without in anyway improving sound quality, just by changing the finish from a vinyl print to a real wood veneer.

Another problem is that many audiophiles would never admit that they bought a more expensive product because it looked better than the cheaper one... They'd instead write an essay in the review section about how the soundstage was improved and those subtle cues that make "music sound like music" were so much more prevalent with the more expensive gear....

I almost always compare cheaper to more expensive lines from the same brand to see whether the jump in price is worth it... and though I've just about always heard a difference, I can't say that I was ever truly blown away by the difference... Whether I bought the more expensive model had more to do with what was in my wallet than anything else.

[Asterix77]

I have neither the least expensive, nor the most expensive audio equipment. However, for my purposes and budget the sound/video experience I have at home is very nice.

I am wondering if at some point the "added value" of higher end equipment changes from an actual difference to a justification for the expense of the equipment.

For example, there is a thread on this board discussing a $24,000 CD player. Please, is there really , a need for a $24,000 CD player? What could they possibly cram into the box that would justify that expense?

And I have seen a TurnTable in a Playboy of mine that sold for OVER $120,000. Granted it's hand made, but what are you really buying? I would argue status. There has to be a line of diminishing returns, and I think at that point you are buying for status. Simply to say "I own a $120,000 TT, and YOU don't."

I would also like to say that I certainly do not begrudge anyone from spending any amount of $$ on gear. Would I spend $120,000 on a TT if I could afford it? Certainly not, but I'm not going to wag my finger at someone that can.

I am just wondering at what point do you feel that you are buying for status, and feel compelled to proclaim that your expense is in fact enhancing your muscial experience?

Interesting point.
I've wondered about the same thing over the last couple of months.
I'm an audio novice, at least on the hardware side. I bought a new system a couple of months ago. I knew I wanted good sound and I wanted to play my cd collection with the quality it deserves. But, hey, those criteria are a bit vague.
So I just went to a dealer I knew I could trust on selling quality and went listening for hours with a couple of cd's, not hampered by any knowledge what so ever.
I came home with a NAD device and Monitor Audio speakers (BR5) together under 1,5K (euro).
I listened to various speakers in that studio and I came home with almost the "cheapest" speakers there were in the setup. (Ok I was limited to a budget but there was some room left for more expensive ones)

I read afterwards that my choice of speakers was not too bad, according to the reviews.
So I wondered if speakers which costs ten times more (or even more) would deliver "ten times" extra. And would it be worth the money.
Afterwards I was happy I didn't read any review on speakers so I wasn't pre-occupied and bought a more expensive set just because one says it's better.
And for the really expensive stuff....isn't it that you buy it just because you can?

Still wondering...........................

[E-Stat]

And for the really expensive stuff....isn't it that you buy it just because you can?

Still wondering...........................

Perhaps for some. I simply enjoy hearing spectacular systems - most of which are beyond my reach. Hearing one possessing truly high resolution, robust dynamic range, authority, and wall disappearing imaging can be seductive - is that ten times better than something else? What does that mean? Who knows?

rw

[musicoverall]

Perhaps for some. I simply enjoy hearing spectacular systems - most of which are beyond my reach. Hearing one possessing truly high resolution, robust dynamic range, authority, and wall disappearing imaging can be seductive - is that ten times better than something else? What does that mean? Who knows?

rw

A system that costs 10x more than mine does not need to sound 10x "better". I'd settle for a 50% improvement and some of the systems I've heard do even better than that. Incremental improvements are expensive, as I'm sure you're aware, but they're often worth it.

[Ajani]

A system that costs 10x more than mine does not need to sound 10x "better". I'd settle for a 50% improvement and some of the systems I've heard do even better than that. Incremental improvements are expensive, as I'm sure you're aware, but they're often worth it.

This is exactly why there is so much debate about concepts such as diminishing returns. For someone determined to get that absolute last grain of detail and refinement in sound quality, paying 10x as much for a 50% increase in sound quality seems fine.... but to the average person, it is a ridiculous waste of money and is more of an obsession than anything else...

EDIT: My view is that as you spend more, you tend to get marginal improvements in sound and so you generally have to spend a LOT more to get substanially better sound. So my approach is to figure out how much I can afford to spend on my stereo and then pick the best I can get for my money. There will always be better sound available If I'm willing to spend more, but I don't believe in being heavily in debt over it....