How much money do you want to waste?

You can't tell a blind person about the color purple; he/she lacks a point of reference. And, as all good objectivists know, our thought processes are dualistically-based and require a point of reference to have any validity, logically speaking. The best analogy I can think of is to imagine yourself in a plane flying at a certain altitude. You look down and the coast line appears as a jagged line. Then you go higher and the coast appears more smooth. Its still the same coastline, but you are seeing it from different symmetries of perspective. The person traveling higher has seen both views, but any person traveling below, and always staying there, their assumptions about reality bounding them to that altitude, don't believe that a higher, more inclusive and expansive worldview exists. They are conformist to those assumptions ("...from what I've been told.")and that box of assumptions is a comfortable place for them to live without the introspective trauma of examining their world independant of others' formulations ("they be dragons over the horizon..."). Applying this to the issue at hand, we can say that some people hear at a particular symmetry and others at deeper symmetries. Those listening minds attached to the shallower perspective MUST deny the deeper levels as if they don't exist because, otherwise, their assumptions (always in these discussions, scientific materialist biases)would have to be reflected upon. This is why, psychologically, such assertions from such people are so dogmatic and rigid. You can not have a reasoned dialogue with them because, in doing so, you threaten their world. Or rather, what they desperately want the world to be. This was the case when the mediaval world view that resisted the Cartesian, and it is now happening as the Cartesian resists the next paradigm. Its evolution. Its just that in high end audio, because it concentrates opposing worldviews in the experience that neither can escape from (music listening), we see the butting of heads easier, and more often.

Of course, that doesn't mean that to ME - maybe not to a Czar - that a particular piece of technology is not "over-priced", but again, that is a different discussion as to whether differing perceptive symmetries exist (I own a NBS IC and still think its over-priced, even relatively speaking, but the subjective listener in me loves the altitudes).

Paulwp: I don't think I am giving comfort to the enemy. I assumed Craig does not shop at KMart for all his clothes, so using his logic (not mine) he is wasting his money. I did not buy my system to show off to the neighbors. I do not own an expensive car and probably never will. It does not matter to me. I get no buzz out of driving. But if someone gets a lot of enjoyment out of an expensive Hi-Tech sports car, then they have spent their money fine by me. Go for it!!

Paulwp (and others) you are on to something. There are many kinds of people. Some drive a sports car because they love to drive; some just to look cool. I know people who buy expensive audio equipment to look cool. The sound is secondary.

I hate to do this, but lets get straight on this relative price argument that objectivists are always using to bolster, inauthentically, their arguments. In each of these arguments we always see the phrase, "its over-priced" (and then they say, because its over-priced, its irrationally over-priced, so anyone of the opposing position is per se irrational, so, therefore, they don't need to be listened to. You see how the cascade of logic irrationally goes?). Implied in this position, however, is a denial of market forces and the assumptions of our economic system. Capitalism assumes infinite self-interest that translates into "whatever the market will bear". So, what actually is the problem that these people have with "over-priced" cable (that, nonetheless, is supported by the market): that they don't actually believe in the infinite assumption of our capitalist system? Or, is it really what I've been saying: that their reaction actually stems from their assumptions on objective grounds and they only mix in these arguments when its convenient and because they have that right air of political correct-ness that will keep anyone from saying something about it? You see, here's the thing I don't really understand: have you EVER really seen a scientific, materialist attached, yellow ribbon-tying objectivist who is in favor of changing the capitalist assumption of infinite greed?

First, KEEP ON POSTIN'! What's repetitive to some "old timers" on Audiogon is new to others! Second, I use the analogy of building an audio system to that of building a race car/ street rod. The parts should match the level of performance expected. A simple example...old muscle cars from the '60's NEEDED 100+ octane to run properly. If you could find it, this high octane gas would be a total WASTE for today's low compression engines. Cables are a little trickier. I consider that they are the tires of an audio system. And as any change of tires effects the handling of the car, so too will most cables effect the sound of an "audiophile system". The higher the performance of the audio system, the higher the degree of effect by the cables. Think of it! Many people actually use cables as a sort of tone control to correct deficiencies of their systems (whether they'll admit it or not!) Third, with that being said, I finally had a chance to audition Nordost Valhalla speaker cables against their own SPM cable. I don't know which is worse...the obscenely expensive price or the fact that the Valhallas ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY! Auditioning on a preamp/amp/speaker system of UNDER $20K the Valhalla's differences were NOT subtle! As a matter of fact going from the SPM to Valhalla then back to the SPM I just couldn't listen to the SPM any more! It's like playing a guitar with dead strings. As my dealer said, if you think of quality cables as an audio component instead of just wires, the price gets easier to justify. The Valhalla is now the standard AT ANY PRICE, and everyone else is just going to have to play catch up!