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
Hi Hwy61; I've wondered the same thing myself, and have come to the conclusion that I could be very happy with a system in the $15K range. Like you, I have about $40K in my main system. And as I look back on the decisions I've made, I feel quite sure I could put together a similar sounding system using less expensive products from the same manufactures.

For example rather than choosing the ML 37 and 360S digital front end ($11K MSRP), I could have gone with the ML 39 CD player for about half that cost-- and (I think) have very close to the same music quality I've got. Another area I could cut cost is amplification. I just had two McCormack DNA-2DXs upraded to Rev. A by SMc, and MSRP of these two amps is $15K. Well in retrospect, one DNA-2DX Rev. A is enough, as I have a hard time telling the difference between one amp and two. However, the Rev. A upgrade was definitely worth it.

In fact, I could even go to a single DNA.5 Rev. Gold for about $3500. and still have comparable sound quality-- I believe (my Vand. 3A sigs are not hard to drive). And yes, the SMc Rev. A is that good IMO. BTW, these amps were factory matched.

Just examples above, but that's not the whole story with high end audio IMO, and I don't think cost is often even the main consideration when you get into the exotic high cost stuff. I have one of only 4-5 pairs of McCormack DNA-2 Rev. A in the entire world, and that's unique. I love these amps, and consider the experience of owning them worth a lot-- one of the highlights of my audio craziness. Had I not done this, I would never have known what these sounded like. It was a dream that became a quest that I fulfilled-- that's worth a lot to me. At my age (58), how many more chances am I going to have to "go for the gold"?

It may be that Lev335 considers Levinson the best in high end audio, and owning that amp gives him a great deal of satisfaction. Although your thread asks specifically about music quality versus cost, I think there is much more to it than that with many of us when it comes to selecting audio components, eg I'd rather have an ML front end than a Mercedes sitting in the driveway. Pride of ownership is worth a lot to many-- me included.

Also a factor, "wringing" the last few percent improvement in music quality is what much of high end audio is all about, and to do that is expensive, eg getting excellent deep bass is notoriously expensive.

Then there is the "used" factor. While my front end retails for $11K new, I paid about $6K used. For me, i-net buying and selling has put an entirely different light on the cost of high end audio. Cheers. Craig
Simply stated, all things being equal, A 75k system is going to outperform a 15k system. But i bet that there are plenty of 15k systems that outperform 75k systems.
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.
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.
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.