Originally Posted by
money4me247
I personally stand by the idea that once you can no longer personally reliably tell the difference in sound from a blind ABx comparison, you have gone way beyond the point of diminishing returns to the point where you are just throwing money into the fire pit. This can occur at different price points for different people, so there is really no real technical universal price limit. If you cannot reliably identify the sonic improvements in a blinded direct comparison, your additional spending has no actual tangible sonic benefit, though it may give you personal pleasure as many people shop for the sake of shopping. There is nothing wrong with that either.
If you purchase something because it makes you feel better or feel more connected to the music, that is totally fine as well. There are many factors that can allow you to enjoy music more... like when you are listening with your lover or when you have a yummy breakfast or are using the street drug ecstasy... there are a multitude of variables that trigger a positive emotional response to music unrelated to the actual sonic capabilities of your gear.
I am not advocating that you need to set a price limit or spend money a certain way. I would just like more personal endorsements and personal impressions to be rooted in something beyond "this is how I feel about my music today." I am personally more interested in tangible reproducible sonic differences over subjective emotional impressions, but I understand that other people here have different priorities.
There is confusion when subjective impressions and personal endorsements that get thrown around here as factual information without any method to verify that these results are indeed audibly reproducible. There are even persistent claims among veteran members of sonic differences between certain sampling rates (proven mathematically to be impossible above a certain point as a sampling rate double the frequency response ensures perfect reproduction)!!! There are so many myths, claims, and misconceptions in this hobby that it is extremely frustrating to deal with.
I just hope that this trend starts to change. When there is a claim of sonic differences between something, I would like to see the claim stated as a hypothesis that is independently verifiable by other members in an scientific fashion. I think exploration of what is causing the sonic change would be nice. Head-fi is supposed to be a forum of 'experts' and enthusiasts... not just a place where fans gather. I think more verifiable, reproducible information in this hobby would be good for everyone.
note: The idea that you can find audibly transparent gear at $200-$400 was simply the response to your mistaken assertion that I thought that my personal gear equated to audible transparency. And yes, it is true that diminishing returns kick in much earlier than that price bracket. You never get doubling of the sound quality for doubling of the price. I think the point for each person in the hobby is to find that personal point where they cannot appreciate a difference or find the difference to be not worthwhile. I strongly think that people are doing themselves a disservice not do a double-blinded experiment to remove expectation bias, which is a known confounding variable! This is especially true with an experience as subjective as sound.
