Entry level audio, just what is it?

[eljr]

What do you consider to be entry level audio? I think we all have different ideas about just what this means.

To me, entry level is Walmart type stuff. Pyle, low end Onkyo, Acoustic audio speakers, Fluance speakers.

-----------------------------

and then I question the idea that if one product from a mid tier brand is "entry level" does that make the entire brand an "entry level" brand?

For example, Pioneer offers a full system for $109. Does that make the band low end?

---------------------------

So, what brands are entry level? What pops into your mind?

 

[ev13wt]

2.1 computer speakers.
Anything except the stock earbuds

 

[Mister Pig]

Just because something makes noise, it really doesn't fall into the category of "entry level audio" equipment. The phrase itself has a connotation of quality of specialty that meets a minimum standard for sound reproduction.

Certain components have a reputation for being of good sound quality at a minimal price, and that becomes the threshold for entry into the hobby of audio reproduction. When talking about new equipment, it can run the gamut of things like

Dayton Audio Air Motion speakers
Topping chip amplifiers
Onkyo CD players
Dayton Titanic subwoofers
Andrew Jones designed Pioneer Speakers
Elac Speakers
Yamaha current production integrated amps
some of the various Ebay offerings on electronics like the Valabs electronics or Douk electronics.

Some folks also refer to this level of gear as Cheap and Cheerful Hifi.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[danrclem]

I think in vintage terms so I would say entry level would be a receiver for $100 or less, a pair of speakers for $100 or less, a turntable for $100 or less and a cheap CD player. If a person buys wisely this amount of money could actually buy a decent system by my standards anyway.

 

[Hyfi]

There are many brands that have both lofi and hifi offerings. It isn't just a price point, it is a level of performance.

Think about the All-in-One Rack systems that every mass manufacturer had in the 80s, that was Low Fi
Then look at gear in early 90s like B&K, Hafler and a few others. You could get decent sound and level of performance than above. I considered this Entry Level to High End.

Sony had Sony and ES, Onkyo Had Onkyo and Integra (later combined)

Today there is TEAC, which is low end, but also sell Very High End gear under the name of Esoteric

There are way too many variables but if you go out and listen to a bunch of stuff at varying levels of both performance, which sometimes relates to price, you will get a first hand understanding and answer to your question.

And 40 y/o recapped receivers are not High End in my book.

 

[Tim64]

This would be considered entry level tube gear but I like it better than any solid state gear I have owned in the past.

 

[Quadman2]

Depends basically on two factors really.


Depth of your pockets and the wishes on the sig other who may play a role in your intended aspirations. Do pay attention to the latter!

Just do your homework so you don't over pay for what you end up with.

Q

 

[eljr]

There are many brands that have both lofi and hifi offerings. It isn't just a price point, it is a level of performance.

Think about the All-in-One Rack systems that every mass manufacturer had in the 80s, that was Low Fi
Then look at gear in early 90s like B&K, Hafler and a few others. You could get decent sound and level of performance than above. I considered this Entry Level to High End.

Sony had Sony and ES, Onkyo Had Onkyo and Integra (later combined)

Today there is TEAC, which is low end, but also sell Very High End gear under the name of Esoteric

There are way too many variables but if you go out and listen to a bunch of stuff at varying levels of both performance, which sometimes relates to price, you will get a first hand understanding and answer to your question.

And 40 y/o recapped receivers are not High End in my book.

Great point.

I'll tell you what made me think about this subject and eventually start this thread.

I was told that a brand I do not consider "entry level" was indeed, "entry level."

Given as conclusive proof that it was entry level was the fact that they offered a all in one DAC, turner, pre amp and amp in one case for $399.

 

[Tim64]

Great point.

I'll tell you what made me think about this subject and eventually start this thread.

I was told that a brand I do not consider "entry level" was indeed, "entry level."

Given as conclusive proof that it was entry level was the fact that they offered a all in one DAC, turner, pre amp and amp in one case for $399.

Onkyo or Yamaha by any chance?. I would not be concerned about calling them entry level the two brands mentioned sound pretty dang good for the price. I would consider them mid-fi which these days sounds pretty good IMO.

 

[Mister Pig]

Great point.

I'll tell you what made me think about this subject and eventually start this thread.

I was told that a brand I do not consider "entry level" was indeed, "entry level."

Given as conclusive proof that it was entry level was the fact that they offered a all in one DAC, turner, pre amp and amp in one case for $399.

Eh its not that simple. These days audio companies diversify their offerings as much as possible. For instance PS Audio offers an integrated component such as that like the Sprout amplifier. And its $399. But as a whole, PS Audio is not considered an entry level company. One company that could be considered one is Vista Audio.But their products are excellent for their price point. So the idea we are discussing is a shifting one, with no inherent connotations of inferiority.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[ev13wt]

You gentlemen need to realize what todays "sound" is. What consumers expect. Count your friends. Count the hifi systems. I counted. Out of 20 households, only 2 had an actual hifi "system". One is a hipster, the other has a system I gifted him (he totally digs it!) and another said: "Yes, in the attic - do you want it?"



Today, "sound" is defined by earbuds, flat panel TV, soundbars, and bluetooth speakers. If they install a soundbar then THAT is hifi for them.

HiFi today is beats by dre. Well, thanks to the internet and forums, some kids are getting into "hifi" headphones. Active monitors instead of 2.1 PC speakers are "cool".

 

[sqlsavior]

Entry-level to me includes the notion that the consumer is concerned about sound quality, not just buying a mass market item to fulfill a role. Thus a home-theatre-in-a-box or a $39 disc player are not even entry-level, but a Topping chip amp or a Bose Acoustimass set is. The Topping buyer may well proceed deeper into the hobby, but the Bose buyer may be satisfied and never want more.

I know, confusing, even to me.

 

[Mister Pig]

You gentlemen need to realize what todays "sound" is. What consumers expect. Count your friends. Count the hifi systems. I counted. Out of 20 households, only 2 had an actual hifi "system". One is a hipster, the other has a system I gifted him (he totally digs it!) and another said: "Yes, in the attic - do you want it?"



Today, "sound" is defined by earbuds, flat panel TV, soundbars, and bluetooth speakers. If they install a soundbar then THAT is hifi for them.

HiFi today is beats by dre. Well, thanks to the internet and forums, some kids are getting into "hifi" headphones. Active monitors instead of 2.1 PC speakers are "cool".

People who you define with today's sound are not audio folks. They want modulated sound that resembles some variation of music. Today's level of quality of sound is not significantly different than what yesteryear offered for the typical family. The nature and size of the delivery system may have changed. Computer versus rack system, table top radio versus blue tooth speaker...but the intent, functionality, and sound quality level are not significantly different. Although the point could be made that the cheaper systems of today offer better sound quality than the cheapest systems of yesteryear, and there would be merit to that concept. Form has changed, but not the function.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[dodog]

I think in vintage terms so I would say entry level would be a receiver for $100 or less, a pair of speakers for $100 or less, a turntable for $100 or less and a cheap CD player. If a person buys wisely this amount of money could actually buy a decent system by my standards anyway.

So, given all the "scroe" threads, the person who buys a complete Leak stereo is in the same entry-level boat as the person who bought the Yorx?

 

[techguy0192]

I would respond but....we know how that will go.

 

[kfalls]

I believe the term is manufacturer-relative to its respective lines. An entry-level OPPO disc player would not be of the same quality as an entry-level Sony disc player. They normally have the least features and lesser build quality to reach a price point.

 

[woodj]

What do you consider to be entry level audio?

Means nothing. Back in the 60's/70's lots of Realistic stuff was considered entry level; Very much based on ego.

 

[eljr]

I would respond but....we know how that will go.

I'd love for you to respond. Honest.

It's fine to disagree. (still not sure why you got upset but I respected that you had and immediately adjusted)

Your thoughts are what promoted me ask these questions.

Listen to this, on another forum, a guy with Fluance Towers was claiming his speaks/system sounded every bit as good as a B&W 803 diamonds with McIntosh amps supplying the power. I am sure we both agree that this is ridiculous and measurable verifiable.

i'll even bet we agree on 7 out of 10 topics.

 

[Hyfi]

^^^^

His room may have been treated or the speakers setup differently. I heard the 803Ds with the McGiant Monos and it threw one of the biggest ad tallest soundstages I have ever heard.

The other thing could be his hearing is not 100% so "All Speakers Sound The Same" just like amps

The large Fluance Towers actually do sound decent

 

[eljr]

^^^^

His room may have been treated or the speakers setup differently. I heard the 803Ds with the McGiant Monos and it threw one of the biggest ad tallest soundstages I have ever heard.

The other thing could be his hearing is not 100% so "All Speakers Sound The Same" just like amps

The large Fluance Towers actually do sound decent

Indeed, that was a big part of the problem. he had heard the 803 D at a show and the Fluance at home. Then he insisted the Fluance sounded as good or better.

So he was basically denying the limitations of sensory memory and echoic memory.

One may have an opinion in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.