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.
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