JJJ,
I should have made it clear in my audio analogy that the comparison was not between whole systems of different quality and expense, but between exotic and expensive components such as amplifiers which, on paper, might all have differences, but which differences could be considered either inaudible to the human ear or completely masked by other imperfections of a far greater magnitude in the chain, such as the imperfections of loudspeaker and room acousticts.
The quality of an image or of the sound coming from a speaker is always dependent upon the weakest link in the chain. But then you wouldn't buy a £4000 amp and use a £200 Cd player. But also with audio certain combinations of kit work better together than other as they complement each other, which I explained above. You do not get the same thing in imaging. So the analogy falls down there a bit.
Plus you buy an expensive hi-fi to match your room's acoustics. A good hi-fi shop will usually let you test it in situ. A friend of mine altered a room to complement his hi-fi.
I've listened to expensive hi-fi and very expensive hi-fi. There can be a huge difference. Some people may not notice or care, just look at the popularity of mp3s. Worse sound than CD and more expensive to buy compared to full CDs. And no packaging, manufacturing or distribution costs either, yet people lap them up. No wonder Apple are so flush with money these days.
Also not all expensive things are the best. That's the case in any field. I've ridden £3000 bicycles that felt awful and £300 ones that felt great, but by and large the more you pay the better the bike. But not always. And if a bike doesn't fit you and your specific proportions and isn't set up correctly, it'll be crap, no matter what the price is.
In order to sell such components and persuade people to upgrade from a perfectly adequate amplifier to one costing perhaps 4x the price, it was necessary to bestow upon the equipment magical properties.
It was necessary for salesman and those in the audio industry to promulgate the notion that the scientific specifications don't tell the whole story; that there are great subtleties to be heard, extra 3-dimensionality etc that would flow on merely from the fact that the wiring might be made from oxygen-free copper in the more expensive amplifier, for example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just because some spurious sounding claims are made by some salesmen, doesn't mean some products aren't noticeably better. Cables can actually make a big difference. I've heard it. It's just like little details in sensor design can say affect noise performance in the shadows or Chromatic aberation....
Besides if you buy a more 4x expensive amp without listening to it you're an idiot.
Then there are plenty of 'idiots' around , look at how popular flat screen TVs are. Which are way inferior to CRTs.
As you brought up 'a perfectly adequate amplifier' A Canon IXUS is perfectly adequate camera. So why even buy a 5D let along say a P45? After all the claims about sensor sensitivity, well depth and Chromatic Aberation must be hype simplyto justify the 10x or 100x cost of the bigger cameras.
