clearthink's post below pretty much hits the nail on the head for these types of arguments.
The only missing piece is how some base their argument not on the amount of money spent but rather on the manufacturer's marketing/quasi-technical discussion of what the expensive item is purported to deliver vs. the reality of what the item (cable, tires, etc.) actually delivers and how it actually improves on the competition. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of regulation or a standard for proof for items that are marketed as providing a subjective improvement - such as a cable that will expand your listening experience by lifting veils, extending frequencies, and opening up your soundstage, etc. Each listener must decide for themselves whether the item/cable actually does those things and is worth the selling price.
The only missing piece is how some base their argument not on the amount of money spent but rather on the manufacturer's marketing/quasi-technical discussion of what the expensive item is purported to deliver vs. the reality of what the item (cable, tires, etc.) actually delivers and how it actually improves on the competition. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of regulation or a standard for proof for items that are marketed as providing a subjective improvement - such as a cable that will expand your listening experience by lifting veils, extending frequencies, and opening up your soundstage, etc. Each listener must decide for themselves whether the item/cable actually does those things and is worth the selling price.
