It's quotes like these that made me start questioning this mythical $1000 barrier. I didn't mean to take anybody out of context, that's just how I read it.

I think the $1000 is just a generality arisen from the proximity to price of the 990. More important than the comparisons between $99 receivers, $1K and $5K pre/pros, is the fact that you can actually purchase a fully-outfitted pre/pro for around $1K nowadays. I remember when I first looked into separates, that stereo-only preamps went for $1500 or more, and HT models even higher.

Kind of strange that decent, entry level pre/pros have come down in price in recent years, and yet the top end receivers keep getting more expensive ($6K at last check). Well, perhaps not quite so strange as gratifying...

My intrepretation of the comments by BeethovenRocks and Cerebus matches sluggo's - we're dealing with generalities, and the nice round number of $1000 came about as a result of the 990's pricing (since we're in a 990 forum).

I like your comment about pre/pro pricing, sluggo - it is a pretty satisfying trend for the consumer.

What can I say? $1000 is about where I personally stopped being able to hear a difference. Its a completely subjective, Rule of thumb. The value of money is constantly changing as is the value of good (Is the 950 a $500 processor (used) , $700 (new) , $1000 (3 years ago) (what was the rate of inflation over the last 3 years?)
$1000 just seems to me to be about where you need to be to be guaranteed of getting into that "pretty good" system area. Are there devices below $1000 that might get you there... maybe. Is the 950 one of them. Probably.

All I can say definitively is that;
1) there is a Price/Performance Curve and in my experience this curve is NOT linear, and it is certainly NOT flat.
2) Separates in my experience sound better than integrated solutions
3) A device designed as a standalone Preamp will, in my experience, sound better than a Integrated Solution being used as a pre-amp.

If I had to guess as to why this may be true (in my experience), it would be the combination of Higher Noise components (amps, even if they are not driven, still amplify whatever noise is there, and transmit it to some degree back via the power supply or through induction) with Low voltage signal paths

I don't think $1000 is some sort of magic number and that the 990 is going to be worlds different from the 950, or maybe even a receiver at the same price level(If I buy a 990, it won't be because I think the sound is so much better than a 950) Sound differences (if any) in the 990 will be due to those factors I mentioned before (new design, new DACs etc)

Some people may be able to clearly hear the difference between a $1000 device and a $5000 device in a blind test. Having never done one, I can tell you right now, I can't. Consequently, I will never spend the money on a more expensive solution.

In response to the questions raised about my 1988 double blind CD player comparison, I would clarify that both players produced the "standard" output of 2.0 volts with a 0dB DFS test signal. They were measured with a high quality VTVM and the difference was only about 0.03V - far less than even 0.1dB. If there had been a substantial difference in level, it should have been easy to differentiate the CD players, and this was not the case. The point of the test was to determine the sensitivity of the double blind test with actual music in a case where significant differences actually existed. I believe that the results show how insensitive these tests can be, even with well-controlled methodologies and experienced listeners.

This conclusion is not a defense of "golden-eared" reviewers seeking to convince others of the superiority of one component over another, it is simply an illustration of how double blind testing is not very effective in revealing differences that may exist. Varying the test conditions and signals used in evaluations may provide better results in some circumstances, but it seems that the routine ABX methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

Over the years it has become clear to me that some electronic components are audibly superior to others, even given similar measured performance. This is even more true in the case of loudspeakers where measurement techniques are more variable and often yield complex data that is difficult to interpret. A thorough evaluation requires both listening and measuring. Comparisons between components are critical; however, double blind tests using routine methodology seems to add fairly little.

I have always considered myself to be a quasi-audiophile. I love good sound but will only pay for obvious differences. I am well aware that companies have a competitive price point in their products where they put forth their best effort. From that price point up you start getting diminished returns in their line. I remember hearing these 20k italian speakers, with leather and made out of who knows what exotic material. They were being fed by Krell amps and preamps. I was so excited to hear the top of the line in audio. Man was I dissapointed!!! I was never made so aware of the point of diminishing returns. My "crappy" system in my humble opinion sounding at least as good. Great link Gonk it was a very interesting read.

If the theory holds that a blind test does NOT work because you need time with a piece of equipment in a relaxed environment, that definitely sounds like a doable test. Hopefully someone tries it. Conceal the equipment in a generic box with only the cables exposed and a universal remote. Let the person have it for X amount of time in their home. Replace with box 2.

Just curious:

I do not understand why some people here are using the phrase "double-blind", which as most of you know means something very specific in experimental design.

A couple of you above are just using the word "blind" to describe these listening tests, which is perfectly understandable. But I wonder if those who are using the expression "double-blind" know what they are saying by that?

The description I've always heard for a true double-blind test is that neither the person being tested nor the person doing the switching know when unit A or unit B is active - that way the switcher can't reveal (inadvertently or otherwise) which is which to the test subject.

Exactly. I'm wondering if this is what everyone has meant when throwing around the expression "double-blind" here...

I think this will fuel the fire.. http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf