Are you Guys Rich or What!?

It all "trickles down" hey, Bmpnyc? Well, it's a nice thought anyway, I remember that from the 80's. And to think I was feeling guilty about those Harbeths, too. Thanks man, I think I'll go spend some mo' money.

Well, Bmpnyc did somewhat imply that the trickle down effect was at work here, but I think you're short-changing much of his point by highlighting that. To basically say that, with discretionary purchases, we each have different points at which we feel the purchase is unwarranted, and that this point varies with the person, their conditions, and the specific purchase would suffice, IMO. To bring morality into the conversation (at a specific price point no less) is certain to draw a rebuttal saying, "I'd spend that much and I'm not immoral".

Just out of curiousity, if it's not "right" to buy a $100K system (for whatever reason), is it wrong to sell somebody a $100K system for the same basic reasons? If people feel guilty for indulging in something that is clearly a luxury, is there any sense of guilt by the people who facilitated it's existence?

To answer the original post, I'm not rich, though I do work in a Wall-Street related position. I definitely spend more on A/V gear based on having more discretionary money than I did in the past. I love the hobby, but am probably not as fanatical as many who post here, and definitely haven't made as many sacrifices as have been described here. By being interested in the hobby I have, as others have suggested, put together a system I'm very pleased with for far less than a similar system would have cost had I walked into a high end shop and said, "set me up!". But to me, it's all about prioritization - a high end music system, purchased with care, is a tremendous entertainment value - you can use it 365 days a year, very little maintenance, and highly enjoyable. Many of my friends have boats, more exotic vacations, more expensive cars or clothes, whatever - I don't think they're crazy for how they spend their money and I think I've convinced most of them that I'm at least not crazy for spending mine the way I do. In any case, if you're interested in getting to that next level of audio nirvana and not spending an arm and a leg, there are many on this site who'd be happy to offer their advice!

I think building up to a wworld class system over time is the way to go. I'm more or less in my fourth system since my graduate school years (11 yrs ago). I started out with a reasonable mid fi sstem (Denon/JBL), them upgrade the speakers, then the pre amp, etc, etc. One step at a time..and Audiogon. I guess my system now would run over $ 45 retail..but the only items I bought new were the REL sub, the Solidsteel stand and the Linn LP12 front end..though I bought the latter in Euroep as I was moving to the US. The rest were either second hand or store demos. Yes, I make decent money. No, I wouldn't go out and splurge on the latest, flavour of the day interconnects for $ 2000, or change my CD player as frequently as my underwear. At some point you do reach diminishing returns.. and the most important thing (the room) is the toughest one to upgrade.

I think less than 10 people have heard my system thus far (including family). It's in its own room in the basement, not on diplay in the living room..and there is only one decent chair in the room. Most folks have no clue what is costs, and I don't tell them. What matters is the music.

There is a moral issue in how much we spend on audio or any consumption although most of people in a capitalist society are standing in the other side of the line. It may be that the issue is metaphysical to the degree that it hardly fits the scope of this forum, regradless of where you stand. At any rate, let alone moral implications, there is one more thing to think about -- namely opportunity cost. If the opportunity cost of that 75K is minimal for you, you can go ahead and spend it however you desire within the boundary of capitalitic ethos, which is what the capitalism is about. If you are spending without that consideration (i.e., while not being so affluent), I think you will have a dilemma there. For instance, a question can be raised with respect to how much in proportion you allow for yourself with other members of the family. I came to a conclusion that 5K to 7K is adequate for my home economy. Of course, as my net wealth grows, I might upgrade my system. But, I probably won't because besides the fact that I have hobbies other than audio that require money in, the price differential is hard to justify the improvement. Of course, that is a subjective assessment. For those who are affluent enough to consider 75K "not much," the improvement may be well appreciated even when the opportunity cost is taken into consideration. On the other hand, I feel that people are actually doing themselves a favor by refusing to buy super expensive gears -- Rolex or whatever -- in the long run. Let me put it this way, if everyone refuses to buy Rolex or Ferrari on the issue of price, do you think if the companies will go out of business or come back with more palpable pricing? Their modus operandi is to maximize profits. By creating a market segment filled with status symbols with proper quality and therefore product differentiation, they are maximizing their profits by selling less at higher price. Not because they will lose money by selling more at lower price. Since I am a quasi to pseudo audiophile, I much prefer to boycott 15K monoblocks, for instance, even when I may be able to afford it. A simple choice to protect and enhance my own interests to enjoy better gears at lower price in the long term. Of course, the aura of status or whatever may well be gone since the premium for the aura is removed by then -- well, at least for Rolex. I have no problem with those who can afford them. However, if the trend reported is true that the number of diehard audiophiles among middle class has been declining, I am confident that many high end companies will revise the current business model in terms of price, at least partially. Because some, though less than before, profits are better than none by abandoning the business altogether. Why shouldn't they evolve when everybody else has to? But, I am pretty darn sure that I am stuck with my gears since that won't happen in my life time. For those gears are specifically marketed to people in a gated community, many of whom are well groomed by the industry as well (that is, no consumer protection by counterbalancing the power of suppliers with most consumer audiophile magazines being self-congratulatory with the manufacturers, let alone minimal criticism from consumers). So, some of you need not bless me to keep my current gears to the grave -- thanks for the thought, though. At the same time, my simplistic argument will not be met with sympathy; after all, I am talking to audiophiles. And, who knows, I may join the Force of Dark Side. By the way, the nature of business environment for the high end audio industry can be identified as monopolistic competition (not true competition); in other words, they thrive on product differentiation to different sonic taste, which is why we have so many functionally similar yet sonically different gears in the market. So, you need not worry about less diversity when the industry business model changes, since they can make more profits by being diverse before and after. Gentlemen (and ladies), get your eggs ready... P.S. I totally agree with those who think one can get a very reasonably good system with 7K...