Where do you draw the line???

Newbee, I agree with everything you said except your second sentence - "They will not consider the sound from your suggested system and what they want to be remotely similar." I guess the problem I'm having is in the emphasis. You say the systems won't sound remotely similar. Nrchy says there are huge differences between systems. The way I hear things there are huge differences between a table radio and any well put together $7,500 system. The differences between that same $7,500 system and an equally well put together $75,000 system are subtle. They ain't huge. In making this last statement I am not making any judgments about the validity or appropriateness of purchasing either system. Take a look at my system, it doesn't cost $7,500 and I don't have any regrets. I'm simply saying that great sounding systems don't have to cost the equivalent of one of those large German sedans. I like the way Audiophanatik put it, "stating that a 30,000 system is better than a 15,000 system becomes a matter of opinion, not fact". To each his own, but let's not pretend why we do certain things.

Onhwy61, They won't sound remotely similar because the prospective purchaser won't be listening for the same things that are important to you or me(so to speak). Now you or I might find them to sound the same because we listen to them quietly reproducing vocals, but if the purchaser listens to Mahler's 8th in full voice, believe me they wouldn't sound remotely similar. In a small room you wouldn't hear the difference either because you couldn't play them loud - I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the point. Fortunately, I don't have a large room or wallet so I'm not tempted by this SOTA stuff, your 15K system would probably sound just fine to me.

A fact is a provable point. The point can be proved by anyone with right equipment. Facts and opinions are not interchangable. If a $30,000 system cannot be proven to be better than a $15,000 system it is not better!

I had a $15,000 system. I now own a system that retails for a little over $30,000. I would not willingly go back to the former system, because there were too many compromises. I don't think I am much smarter now than when I bought the previous system. I have always had to live within my means. So the compromises I made then, and continue (in some respects) to make now are not due to a lack of understanding as to a lack of funds.

I know without a doubt that if I had the money I would make certain changes, all of which would be significant improvements. These improvements would/will come at a significant cost too! These changes have been planned and prioritised so I know what I will be doing as opposed to jumping at the next good deal. If I could not hear an improvement comensurate to the cost I would not spend the money.

The differeence between a $75,000 system and a $7,500 system is like the difference between the back row of a concert and the third row. It's still the same concert, with the same music and musicians, but the quality of the presentation is extremely different.

Gentlemen: a $75,000 system will sound different not better than a $15,000 system. You are trying to reify a subjective into an objective. Ask agoner ASA about that.

Shubertmaniac, I agree that it will certainly sound different, but it could also sound better depending on the definition of better. My American Heritage dictionary includes in its definition "2. More useful, suitable, or desirable". In this instance this definition would apply to the purpose of the user. If the user finds the system more suitable for his purpose then, for him, it IS better.