Interesting question. I think, objectively, I could be just about as happy with a much less expensive system. The difference in sound may well be less than 5% on an objective scale, in my view, and much of that comes with an effort to get the best quality deep bass that I can in my room. I ascribe my overspending for that last 5% improvement to being obsessive compulsive (my wife heartily agrees), my love for organ and large scale orchestral works and to my desire to have a system where I can be lost in the music. I think, though, that I could achieve that last objective for a lot less money. Particularly if I had a smaller listening room or preferred smaller scale works.
Can $15,000 Sound As Good As $75,000?
The answer is no, but it's real close.
I was reading a recent TAS issue where different writers were putting together entire systems. J. Valin comes up with a $75,000 setup centered around Peiga speakers, Krell electronics and Purist Audio/Nordost cables. While I've not heard the Krells or the Purist components, I have heard a demo of the Peiga. They were very impressive. For the sake of argument, let's rate JV's recommended system as outstanding sounding. Ten pages later, a different writer recommends a $15,000 system centered around the new, big Quads, Innersound power amp, Meridian CD, Placette preamp and Kimber cables. From my experiences with the Quads, Innersound and Meridian, I believe this system is also capable of outstanding music reproduction. I'm not saying that the systems will sound the same, nor am I denying that skilled listners will not have a strong preference for one system over the other. The key point of my observation is that for one fifth the cost, comparable sound quality is attainable. This is a very dramatic example of the role of diminishing returns.
MY QUESTION IS, for those who have invested large dollars in your systems, using perfect hindsight, would you truly have had to settle for lesser sound if you had spent substantially less?
BTW, at a personal level, I have roughly $40k in my main system. I don't imagine it sounds much better, if at all, than the $15k recommended system. I strongly prefer my system (deeper bass, higher volume capabilities), but it is a sobering comparison.
I was reading a recent TAS issue where different writers were putting together entire systems. J. Valin comes up with a $75,000 setup centered around Peiga speakers, Krell electronics and Purist Audio/Nordost cables. While I've not heard the Krells or the Purist components, I have heard a demo of the Peiga. They were very impressive. For the sake of argument, let's rate JV's recommended system as outstanding sounding. Ten pages later, a different writer recommends a $15,000 system centered around the new, big Quads, Innersound power amp, Meridian CD, Placette preamp and Kimber cables. From my experiences with the Quads, Innersound and Meridian, I believe this system is also capable of outstanding music reproduction. I'm not saying that the systems will sound the same, nor am I denying that skilled listners will not have a strong preference for one system over the other. The key point of my observation is that for one fifth the cost, comparable sound quality is attainable. This is a very dramatic example of the role of diminishing returns.
MY QUESTION IS, for those who have invested large dollars in your systems, using perfect hindsight, would you truly have had to settle for lesser sound if you had spent substantially less?
BTW, at a personal level, I have roughly $40k in my main system. I don't imagine it sounds much better, if at all, than the $15k recommended system. I strongly prefer my system (deeper bass, higher volume capabilities), but it is a sobering comparison.
- ...
- 19 posts total
- 19 posts total