2. misc-audio
  3. 994092207

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.
128x128onhwy61
danish
30 posts
 
YES! I had a $40k system - B&W N802, Levinson 333 and 39, VPI HW19 Mk4, etc. (http://audioasylum.thenephilim.net - go to "People" and "Danish")

I sold everything and went to a "budget" HT system, Martin Logan SL3s, Logos, Classe pre/pro, Audio Refinement amp, using a JVC DVD player as a CDp also, yech! Anyway, I get everybit as much enjoyment out of the cheaper system as I did the expensive one. No they don't sound the same, the B&Ws have a liquidity that the SL3s just don't have. The Levinson stuff is also very resolving in detail and sweetness.

The Martin Logans on the other hand, do some things the B&Ws never did - they have a more accurate midrange and highs, exquisite imaging and soundstaging. I bought a SVS sub that really fills out the lower end (something the 802s definately had over the SL3s).

All in all, I am happy with my decision, plus I saved a bunch of money.
viridian's avatar
viridian
4,184 posts
 
Spend the 15K on the system and the other 60K on the best music collection that you can assemble; nothing worse than hearing the same 20 CDs on that 75K gear. Software rules. The hardware's a cool car, but the software is the open road.
pls1
432 posts
 
I think I am is slight disagreement/ My wife and I go to a lot, 3 plus times a month, of live orchestral classical music and opera. We got into this hobby years ago trying to reproduce the this live experience as close as possible. When your regular comparison is live Bruckner, Mahler, Bartok, Strauss Wagner, and Stravinsky (or even Beethoven and Brahms) the difference between a $15k system and a $75K system in a large properly treated room doesn't sound like diminishing returns. However, the reason that we have temporarily stopped our upgrades is that the weak link is now usually the recording.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61 OP
4,163 posts
 
I agree with Pls1, the recording media is frequently the weakest point in the music reproduction chain. However, in a recent post in another thread you gave a comparison of dCS vs. MSB Platinum converters. You said the dCS was the better unit. The point of my post is for you to consider what would happen if you scaled back from the dCS to the MSB, your Sigtech to a TACT, the Dunlavy Vs to IVs, etc. Would your system really sound that different? Of course it would, but how much different?

I'd like to clarify, while I recognize that the effect of dimishing returns is very real, I don't see it as a barrier to further system upgrades. Not just making it good, but making something perfect seems to be an innate human characteristic.
piezo
302 posts
 
Plsl hit an important point with the room treatment comment. The best sound i've heard was from a $20k-$25k dunlavy, wadia, ARC system in a well treated showroom at Audio Vidio Logic. Back to the question at hand. A local retailer had a Mark Levinson system (33 monoblocks, 39 cdp and a reference pre-amp)with all Transparent xl cables to show off Revel Salons. The list price was said to be about $90k. There is no way i would trade my Dunlavy, VTL, ARC, system ($25k retail and about $15K purchase) for that system. The ML system may have had a bit more detail but it lost out in the musicality and involvement catagories. I can't knock really that system it just didn't have the sound i like and it wasn't worth another $65k (plus tax). With the exception of upgrading my phono section and tuner from something so lowly i won't mention I'm done upgrading for a long time and my focus will be on my room to get the most out of the gear i've got.
More to discover