You know, you have bandied this statement about more than a few times, enough that I actually think you believe it. I now challenge you to define the “very high-end systems” that you can “beat” with a few thousand dollars of pro gear. You need to define the actual “very high-end systems” with a list of components and their total cost and then define your pro system with its components and total cost. And I’m assuming that we are not discussing a system that sits on top of a desk, but one that is representative of what most people in this hobby own. If your whole budget is a “few thousand dollars” and you are going to beat “many very high-end systems,” I would think your budget would be blown on the speakers alone.
I for one have never believed your assertion so now I’m calling your bluff and asking for some real world examples that would back up your boast.
Do we really want to bother with this, Mark? We'll just end up, as we always have, disagreeing over the criteria. I'll insist on the objective criteria that are available, ie: measurements and/or blind listening results. You'll insist that the measurements aren't comprehensive enough, or that the right things have not been measured, or that what we're looking at are not measurements but specifications (and on the "high-end" side, all of that will probably be true), or that there is something at work here that simply can't be measured.
I'll insist, again, on the objective criteria that is available. And I can find plenty of "high-end," by any definition, in vinyl, tubes and horns which will offer enough in noise and distortion alone to make a poor showing, objectively, against a Macbook, a Benchmark, a good pair of active monitors and a sub. You'll come back with dynamics, which won't go far because dynamics are a function of signal to noise, so high noise levels are going to destroy that argument objectively, so then you'll go to pressurizing the room which, of course begs the question "what room?" Which doesn't matter much anyway, because for a few thousand more I could bump up to midfield monitors which could pressurize your house, and still out-perform, by any
objective criteria, any system containing a turntable. You can't possibly win this one without crossing the line into opinion. And you're welcome to it, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Are there high end systems out there that can equal or exceed any pro monitoring system I can come up with? Probably, at a price. But that's not the question here. Let's ask that question again: Can I define a "high end system," even one made up of very well regarded components, that can be out-performed, by any objective criteria, by a really good pro monitoring system at a fraction of the cost? It wouldn't even be hard. All I have to do is start with the high-ends' darling; vinyl. It really doesn't matter what you put behind it.
Would the pro system only cost a
few thousand? OK, a bit of overstatement on my part. It would take
several thousand. But under $10K shouldn't be much of a challenge.
So I started this with "do you really want to go there?" but I think I already have. On the pro side I'll take a MacBook, a Benchmark and a pair of good, quiet monitors with well-integrated sub. <$10k. On the high end side, I'll pick anything that begins with a turntable. And it won't be at all hard to get into six figures.
None of this means that you don't like the high-end system better, or that you shouldn't. It just means that it is your preference, not something that has been shown, in any way that matters to anyone who doesn't share your opinion, to be objectively superior to a lot of much more accessible gear. Do those people who don't share your opinion matter? Well, when you look out there at the world of music lovers, there is the world, and then there's this little island over here, about the size of Bermuda, that is audiophiles. And they don't get to tell everybody else what's good; not without being asked to back that up. It doesn't work that way.
Enjoy.
Tim