So, let's imagine you have been handed the reigns of absolute, unquestioning and perpetual power over everyone's household spending.
In the box entitled... "Maximum household spending permitted for hi-fi system" what figure would you recommend?
Marantz M-CR603 + AirPlay • Rega R3 loudspeakers • iPhone 5 32GB • iMac • Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n • Apple iPad Mini • Panasonic TX-L32D25B • Sony BDP-S390 • Ruark Audio R1 Deluxe • Humax HDR-Fox T2
But I'm not talking about "rubbish" sounding Hi-Fi ; rather it's why we can't just spend the minimum required to get a good (listenable, enjoyable) sound quality and leave it at that?
It's a commendable ethos, but how do you define "good" and who is the arbiter?
When the shortcomings don't stop you enjoying the music. Enough midrange detail, not harsh or mechanical. Is there a need for pin-drop detail or a soundstage that stretches off into infinity? I don't think it results in more enjoyment.
"So, let's imagine you have been handed the reigns of absolute, unquestioning and perpetual power over everyone's household spending."
I don't want it, and that's outside the point really
But okay then - maybe 1,500 all up? Probably less with the right components matched or second-hand gear.
Not everyone is made equal. We all have our personal preferences & choice. For some, constant upgrade is their source of enjoyment. You can never impose a limit on anything, be it Hi Fi or a house or a car or anything that money can (& can't) buy.
If it bothers me that someone else has an expensive Hi Fi, am I jealous? If not, why is it bothering me then?
We have long gone past living only with the essentials. 16% of the population is clinically obese; most of that 16% eat & drink more than necessary to maintain life. Will you then impose restrictions on that, considering hunger & poverty is rife in many parts of the world? Is 16% of the population morally wrong?
The most expensive house in the world is worth $2 billion & is in a country where poverty is still a big problem. But it also requires 800 staff to maintain it. In other words, it provides employment to the most number of people to maintain just one house. Even the Queen won't have so much staff. So if this house wasn't made, 800 people (& their families) would've been pushed to poverty. What's your view on this then? Is it morally right or justified to build such an expensive house?
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing