Where does the high end begin

I think in most respects this understanding of "high end" comes down to personal experience. There are certain aspects of construction, materials, and circuit design that can allude to a high performance component. Specifications? Plenty of mid tier electronics can provide specification numbers that say its a quality component. A comparison to real music? In some ways that works better as we know what an acoustic instrument should sound like and we can recognize it aurally. The better the illusion the more we can believe, and that is really what is happening in our hobby. There are very few instances where a person will know what a recording should sound like, and be able to make a comparison in close enough to real time so that aural memory does not fade too much. What this comes down to is how good is this sound you experience, and is it the best of one of the best facsimiles you have heard or can create, and yes ultimately afford.

In some ways much of this comes down to faith. You understand the intrinsic essence of what high end/high performance audio is and it matter to you. In some ways it mirrors what happens with this Jewish guy who could take steps on water...either you understand what it means to believe or nothing I say will ever convince you. High performance audio either matters to you or not, and its your choice.
 
Mister Pig said:
...and be able to make a comparison in close enough to real time so that aural memory does not fade too much
Click to expand...
It is my opinion, considered, reflected upon, and mildly researched, that the notion of aural memory being poor is nearly total BS. I believe the false notion is based upon research regarding sensory memory (shorter than short-term memory), but ignores the fact that long-term memory, as displayed in becoming familiar with a recording, and being able to notice when new sounds are heard while playing it, is simply grand. If this were not true, one could not hope to recognize a friend's voice over the phone. People who say that aural memory is poor *might* know what they're talking about, but they're not talking about the same thing I am.
 
sqlsavior said:
It is my opinion, considered, reflected upon, and mildly researched, that the notion of aural memory being poor is nearly total BS.................................If this were not true, one could not hope to recognize a friend's voice over the phone.
Click to expand...

Even an old friend that we have not talked to in years, maybe even decades.
 
I think some of my equipment is vintage high-end equipment but as long as I'm in a normal living space I doubt I'll achive high fidelity, the walls, carpet, chairs are all killing my sonics. On top of that I'm always listening to internet broadcasts and I'm getting used to crappy sound.

There was a facinating test given decades ago, I think I heard this on Paul Harvey during my delivery driver days listening to the radio all day. They played an early recording to an audience and the audience couldn't tell if it was live or a recording. They played the recording over the radio and it sounded just like a cliched 1930's recording with pops and cracks.
 
MuseChaser said:
Augmented or depressed compared to.... ? What they heard on another system? Through headphones? In what room?
Click to expand...

No..., compared to the truely random occurance of frequencies weighted to the desired "color" (i.e., white or pink).

It's just like having a "ruler flat" frequency response as a standard. Ruler flat compared to what? What they heard on another system? Nah.

BTW, it would seem that if a system were "ruler flat," it would also reproduce pink and white noise accurately as all frequencies are accounted for in the proper proportion with their frequency.
 
Last edited:
Mister Pig said:
I think in most respects this understanding of "high end" comes down to personal experience. There are certain aspects of construction, materials, and circuit design that can allude to a high performance component. Specifications? Plenty of mid tier electronics can provide specification numbers that say its a quality component. A comparison to real music? In some ways that works better as we know what an acoustic instrument should sound like and we can recognize it aurally. The better the illusion the more we can believe, and that is really what is happening in our hobby. There are very few instances where a person will know what a recording should sound like, and be able to make a comparison in close enough to real time so that aural memory does not fade too much. What this comes down to is how good is this sound you experience, and is it the best of one of the best facsimiles you have heard or can create, and yes ultimately afford.

In some ways much of this comes down to faith. You understand the intrinsic essence of what high end/high performance audio is and it matter to you. In some ways it mirrors what happens with this Jewish guy who could take steps on water...either you understand what it means to believe or nothing I say will ever convince you. High performance audio either matters to you or not, and its your choice.
Click to expand...

I agree, in some ways it comes down to experience and frame of reference. I used think it was crazy that folks spent six or even seven figures on audio. That it was some sort of expression of wealth and if I had that sort of money I'd never "waste" it on audio. A $5K, $10K, $20K system is just fine. Then I went out and listened to some real high end systems. Some at shows, some at dealers, and some at private homes.

Two of them have stuck out in my mind. Both were in dedicated and purpose built rooms. One was Krell and big Wilsons (some verion of the Maxx). The other was Focal Grand Utopias and Naim Statement stack. Both these systems offered a transcendent audio experience. I was capitvated by them and the incredible sound they produced. My point of view changed and I realized, if I ever have the means I would absolutely spend the dough to have something like them.
 
Last edited:
sqlsavior said:
C'mon Joe! You know I was describing upgrade experiences that nearly every AK'er has had, and the basis of the old saying: "Trust your ears". Not talking about EQing the sound to find one's preferences, although as Seinfeld says, there's nothing wrong with that...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot the Smilie. Here it is- :D

As one who uses a live music reference. For me there are only two paths. I either rely on an unamplified reference or set things to what I think is best. I've tried both ways. For the majority of what I listen to using a reference is miles ahead of just pleasing my ears. Sure, there are some rock/pop selections that sound dreadful. That has minimal effect on me as I'm not big on rock/pop. I should also add the blues, which I find mostly boring.:)

sqlsavior said:
Relative to the piece that you are accustomed to. IME, hearing more is a reliable indicator of greater accuracy, in a relative sense.
Click to expand...

Relative to what? To how you think something should sound or how you know something actually sounds? With an unamplified reference you have an absolute reference. With anything "concocted" in a studio, it's a crapshoot.:dunno:

prighello said:
I agree in some ways it comes down to experience and frame of reference. I used think it was crazy that folks spent six or even seven figures on audio. That it was some sort of expression of wealth and if I had that sort of money I'd never "waste" it on audio. A $5K, $10K, $20K system is just fine. Then I went out and listened to some real high end systems. Some at shows, some at dealers, and some at private homes.

Two of them have stuck out in my mind. Both were in dedicated and purpose built rooms. One was Krell and big Wilsons (some verion of the Maxx). The other was Focal Grand Utopias and Naim Statement stack. Both these systems offered a transcendent audio experience. I was capitvated by them and the incredible sound they producted. My point of view changed and I realized, if I ever have the means I would absolutely spend the dough to have something like them.
Click to expand...

It's incidents like you describe that made me a fan of high-end gear. If I could, I would unleash the wallet and buy some ultra high end gear. I'm certain it would blow me away as I have the most important thing already. That being a dedicated and acoustically treated room.

I've heard the really good stuff. IMO it's worth every cent being asked.
 
Nowadays, I think anything that has separate stereo speakers and has a frequency range extending outside that of a telephone is considered high end.

Seriously though, interesting question. I don't know if it's brand, price, performance, or all of it. I think the journey to high end is often characterized by the move to separate components, although there's nothing wrong at all with a capable receiver or integrated so maybe not. Maybe it begins at the point where one closely considers proper grounding and shielding, impedance matching, placement of the speakers in the room, etc. etc. Notice that doesn't necessarily involve price, but a close attention to getting everything to perform properly as opposed to just putting it together.

These are poor guesses, probably. It's harder for me to look at off-the-shelf brands and find the line because a lot of my stuff is DIY. I've just not paid close attention. Mine is high end to me!

Re: "Vintage"

This term always bugged me the way it's used (of all the things to be pissed off about, right?). "Vintage" refers to the particular year that a wine was bottled, ie: a 2022 vintage. Therefore, all things are "vintage" because they were all made in a particular year.

I like to simply say, "old," which could refer to anything not made anymore, or "antique" for things a century old, loosely. I still call a radio from 1933 "antique" even though it's a bit young for the official definition.

Posted from my 2016 vintage laptop.
 
JoeESP9 said:
.....

I've heard the really good stuff. IMO it's worth every cent being asked.
Click to expand...

There are so many variables to the "worth it" equation, and it's different for everyone. We all have to determine the importance of each of the following, rank them accordingly, and then decide the OVERALL importance of having a quality audio reproduction system in our home balanced against everything else in life we value and purchase with our money, time, and effort.

1. Sound quality
2. One's total net worth/income
3. Price tag of equipment
4. Amount of improvement gained for increased outlay of cash (see my previous graph.. ;) )
5. WAF/Acceptance or availability of dedicated listening room, treatments, intrusive/physically imposing gear.

.. and the list goes on. Once that list has been prioritized and one has decided that $100K is a comfortable amount spend without sacrificing more than wished elsewhere, AND one values the perhaps 1% - 5% increase in perceived quality gained by a 100% increase in expenditure, then to that person, it's worth every cent. Same with ANY dollar figure. All I'm postulating is that to a person with a $200 system, $2000 buys an INFINITELY better system... almost always, regardless of what gear is purchased. To a person with a $2000 system, a $4000 system may or may not yield noticeable improvement depending upon gear chosen, and even if chosen very wisely would certainly not yield the amount of improvement the $2k system did over the $200 system. However, if your net worth is such that the extra $2000 isn't real noticeable, it doesn't matter.. go for it. Add a zero to every figure, including net worth...and the equation doesn't change.

I'm not sure how much I have tied up in my systems. I've built most of my speakers except for the Magnepan 3.6Rs and MGIIIs. Most of them have decent drivers and quality (but not boutique) XO components, and the cabinets are extremely overbuilt... lots of time, and some money. Next to those, the most expensive single component I have is a VPI Scout turntable. Our casual listening/daily living room speakers are an Audio Concepts LV Sat/Sub system built from a kit. Used hybrid Van Alstine amp bought from Frank himself that he reconditioned, Hafler XL-280 I built, one of the beefier Onkyo receivers in a small homebrew theater, two B&K ST-140s, Adcom GFP-565, Hafler DH110, and Akitika PR102 preamps, a Thorens table, Sumiko BluePoint and BluePoint No.2 cartridges, Parts Connection's Assemblage DAC (assembled by my friend Gary Galo for a review he did many years ago), Audio Alchemy's Dac-in-the-box (with homebrewed power supply), and Cambridge DacMagic X/S. Digital sources (CD players, Raspberry Pi streamers) are very much average stuff. I have no idea how much dough I have wrapped up in all that stuff, but it's well under $10K over a long period of time, and probably closer to $5k.

Our main system (Akitika-Van Alstine-Maggies) in a pretty much perfect setting in a loft with a sloped ceiling and virtually nothing behind the Maggies is pretty breathtaking. My words, but also the words of pretty much anyone who's heard the system. I've heard, maybe on one or two occasions, systems that were as good or maybe a bit better in a few aspects, and I've heard, very recently in fact, a $100,000 system that didn't sound near as real or as involving. OK.. I'll say it... it simply didn't sound as good. I am definitely aware that better systems than mine exist... LOTS of them. For me, personally, where I am in life financially (comfortable, no worries for which I'm grateful), I can't imagine spending the kind of dough I'd need to spend to get a significantly better system, and it's certainly not because I don't value or appreciate great sound. My father (who is also a professional musician, in his 80s) already thinks I'm insane for the gear I DO have. I've found my personal sweet spot for diminishing returns.

Everyone's sweet spot will be different.

It's not about being a cheapskate either (although I admit I certainly have more than a streak of frugality incorporated in my being). When a big gain can be had for extra cash, the extra cash will be spent. I have more money invested in four channels of mic preamps and seven good mics in my recording gear than I do all of my home audio stuff combined. The differences THERE are mindboggling.

Just more thoughts. Not to be a broken record, but this really isn't about right or wrong, good or bad. Just sharing thoughts and perceptions. No value judgements at all.
 
On my bike at 16, the entire store was high end. A NAD? I could buy a few feet of non-lamp cord speaker cable. "High end" is your place in a group dialectic's perception. Back then, the word high end was a form of "lust over" rating.

It inflected eventually because I can basically afford whatever I want now, so nothing is really high end anymore. It's now a definition of what I used to consider high end but now won't bother to plug in. Is a Nait 1 high end anymore? I love mine.

My experience with people that adopt our hobby the right way is that high end began where they could stop affording it. It creates a desire for something strong enough that you work, save, and commit tons of time to it. My kid listens to my gear like the start trek replicator got it there. For us, it was a serious commitment to save for your first Linn, or god forbid a pair of KEF 102s. It helped frame us as individuals.

Group dialectics are weird this way: there is a dialectic out there on a crowd that doesn't post here, has no historical reference to the extent they have never played a CD. They matter. Why? Remember surround sound? A dialectic formed there, and turned our thing to crap for a long time.
 
Last edited:
JoeESP9 said:
Sorry, I forgot the Smilie. Here it is- :D


Relative to what? To how you think something should sound or how you know something actually sounds? With an unamplified reference you have an absolute reference. With anything "concocted" in a studio, it's a crapshoot.:dunno:
Click to expand...

The difficulty lies in "unamplified reference". As soon as it's recorded the components and environment become part of the sound. Microphones, amps, consoles, recording media, studio or hall etc all have their own sound and they remove the objective ability to discern whether it sounds right or not unless you're live monitoring the recording. I've also heard some great systems and lusted after them but I have never thought that a recording was the same as a live instrument.
The other factor is that I don't listen exclusively to acoustic instruments in a neutral environment. I like rock, jazz, blues and others that are either mainly electric instruments or at least have some electric instruments in the recordings. I can't say that I want a system that can't play The Who without drawing attention to the HiFi nature of the sound. Some music needs to have some rawness to sound right and many super systems miss the mark on this aspect.
It's all subjective even if you only look at specs. There can be several pieces of equipment that have the same specs and yet the buyer will make a choice based on personal preference.
Just my opinion.
 
kyle said:
The difficulty lies in "unamplified reference". As soon as it's recorded the components and environment become part of the sound. Microphones, amps, consoles, recording media, studio or hall etc all have their own sound and they remove the objective ability to discern whether it sounds right or not unless you're live monitoring the recording. I've also heard some great systems and lusted after them but I have never thought that a recording was the same as a live instrument.
The other factor is that I don't listen exclusively to acoustic instruments in a neutral environment. I like rock, jazz, blues and others that are either mainly electric instruments or at least have some electric instruments in the recordings. I can't say that I want a system that can't play The Who without drawing attention to the HiFi nature of the sound. Some music needs to have some rawness to sound right and many super systems miss the mark on this aspect.
It's all subjective even if you only look at specs. There can be several pieces of equipment that have the same specs and yet the buyer will make a choice based on personal preference.
Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Regardless to anything else, the less disappointment I have when coming home to my system from a concert the better I like it.

IME, the better my system sounds when reproducing an acoustic concert, the better it sounds on everything else. Unless acoustic music is your reference how do you know how "whatever" is supposed to sound? IOW, what is your reference?

IMO, there are two basic approaches to listening to music. You either want it to sound "good" to you or you want it to sound like that orchestra you just heard. I think you can guess where I pitch my tent.

The term high-fi is a shortening of, to reproduce with a high degree of fidelity. That leaves the question fidelity to what? What's your reference?
 
High End is that which only the wealthiest of people can afford, and even then, only for bragging rights (as it doesn't offer "better" anything commensurate with its price)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom