To me high end is all about price. A sculptured piece of engineering. But it doesn't necessarily mean high fidelity. And high fidelity, to me anyways, is what is important; a tool to bring the music alive. There are a great many pieces of gear and speakers that achieve this and not usually at the top price points. But it's nearly impossible to put a defining stamp on high fidelity as it is generally different for everyone. Of course, there is a general baseline that most people agree on, but beyond that, it's entirely personal. So high end to me is state of the art, envelope pushing gear at a price no object level, and while it probably does sound at least good, it doesn't guarantee greatness.
The way I see it is one must use MSRP to classify the units as it's the only way to list objectively. Then the classes (low, medium, high end) is relative to what is available in the market. Rating by SQ would be too subjective. Anyhoo....
From what I found so far (after more than 10 years being among audiophiles), the best definition of high-end is "not hi-fi".
I don't know if I can describe "high end" but I know it when I see it. It doesn't hold any interest for me. However, I do like hi-fi.
I have to say that most of what I am reading here is (somewhat lame) justification for the poster to be happy with what s/he has. That's certainly a good attitude to have, but it does nothing to help define "high-end", which was reasonably well-stated by the dictionary definition noted earlier in the thread. I understand that it is difficult in these days to actually go hear a well set-up high-end system in order to understand how much better it sounds than what most of us have in our listening rooms; dealers with this capability are much fewer in number than they were 20-30 yrs ago, and how does one go about finding a private system to listen to? Audio and audiophile societies can be one way to do this, but they aren't all that common either. Audio shows have been another, but typically only a minority of rooms are both high-end and well setup. The funniest comments are the ones which state that "hifi" (e.g., high fidelity) is easy to achieve. All I can say to that is no-way, no-how, and although my audiophile acquaintances aren't especially numerous I don't know any who would say hi-fi is achievable at the current state of the art, and some do own systems that are SOTA contenders in both sound and price, others are audio reviewers with access to a wide variety of components.
Lol...the line is different for all of us wackos...i went "backwards" to get a system that i love and don't feel the need to change
"I would say it's your ears (or more accurately, your auditory processing apparatus and your own personal values" I don't disagree with you here. Although I'm pretty sure it's my personal preferences more than my hearing ability. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking high-end gear. We do disagree on the definition of high fidelity. The dictionary version I'm using is: "the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original." As most of what we're listening to is electronically produced music, it's not difficult to reproduce. I will admit though, getting that sound in a listening room takes work, and it takes a proper room. I have an audio friend I met a few months before covid who has very ($3k digital cables) high-end gear. He's invited me over a few times, and each time I leave his home I am amazed at how non-hifi his setup sounds. His equipment is not the problem; obviously, it's his speaker positioning that's holding him back. If not for covid, I would've had him over for a listen. I'd love to get his opinion on my setup.
We have to be careful with our wishes because they might come true. Nothing to do with you, this is just a comment that comes to mind regarding speaker placement. I don't even know what you have. I remember seeing a video about Fremer's equipment posted here and seeing plenty of negative remarks about his speakers placement, they were incredible. Just seeing some of the stuff he had and considering the experience he has. I don't know how anybody could put a serious face while saying that his set up is terrible because the speakers were too close to the wall.
maybe cause anyone who's heard a very well treated room know that room treatment is the basis of high end. No room treatment= no high end.
High End in general is associated with prestige fact and thus it's subjective - it does not have to be associate with price but it generally is. Watches You can buy a watch that is made in Switzerland - the works are hand made by a Swiss watch maker - and not stamped out of an assembly line in China. The watch to a watch connoisseur holds more value and thus has more "prestige" in the mind of the owner. It may not tell the time any better than a $50 Timex or a Chinese branded watch that is made in a sweatshop. Nevertheless - people who are into watches aren't really buying them for their "time telling" ability but for their craftsmanship. Thus a Patek-Phillipe is High End and the clock in your smartphone that tells perfect time is not. In Hong Kong they have Lady Gaga and David Beckham and others as the face of Tudor watches (the more affordable Rolex) Cars This is fairly obvious - sort of. A luxury car or luxury version of a mainstream car - adds luxury features. So a fully loaded Subaru is "higher end" than the entry level model. It has maybe a bigger engine, more features, nicer infotainment screen, leather seats etc. Or you buy a Mercedes - which will have more luxury, quieter, more power, better quality leather etc. And of course there are the detractors to the above two. "Why would you spend $10,000 on a watch that tells worse time than a $50 Timex? Why would you buy a Mercedes or BMW when a Toyota is far more reliable for doing the job it is supposed to do - get you from A to B without being in the shop 3 times as often and costing you 10 times to fix? Audio Well right off - Audio Sound Quality is more subjective. And to a degree, if you think about, what most people on this forum can be regarded as High End. Consider that there are a limited number of car brands and the higher end lines. Hyundai has Genesis, Toyota has Lexus, Honda has Acura etc and the Germans - BMW, Audi, Mercedes. These are the High End lines. In audio, anything that is not mainstream - not a household name could be views as "boutique" or "high end" because you are choosing some sort of specialized product not found in Best Buy. This is not to say audiophiles are not like watch guys or car guys. Big, heavy, and expensive some will view as "High End". There is still a huge anti-Chinese made sentiment I see on forums so those people will not view it as High End no matter how good or well built it is. Now price does come into these things. In almost every case - the most expensive speaker from B&W, Magnepan, Quad, Audio Note, Harbeth, ProAc, Revel, PSB, Paradigm, Totem, Reference 3a, Vandersteen, MBL etc etc and etc sounds better than the cheapest model. The best version of the Toyota is the best version of the Toyota - not the cheapest one. There are clearly better Rolex watches than the cheapest model.
Top quality in the components ability to reproduce music, voice, image (TV) and top quality in build; enclosure, knobs, switches, power supplies, wiring, sound isolation, input devices etc. Price does not necessarily have to play into this but typically to produce components in which all aspect are top quality then the cost is usually at the upper tier. A speakers enclosure's build and materials, cross overs, binding posts, feet etc. all play into its ability to be top quality and reproduce music and voice to the highest degree. If this criteria, which is subjective to ones hearing, exposure, knowledge, and taste is met then it might qualify as high-end.
From the manufacturer perspective. Something that has been built as cost no object/no or little compromise, top notch engineering and ends up "objectively" sounding better than 95 % of other stuff out there.
If anyone thinks I said or think their system “sucks” or is “lofi” you were inferring things I did not mean or write. A good system is just that, and it is the ear of the beholder that matters. All I am saying is that if you think your (or anyone’s) system can’t be significantly “better” by spending more money for better components you are kidding yourself. As far as “high fidelity” in music, just try to have any audio system indistinguishably reproduce the sound of even a couple of brass instruments, much less a brass band. A string quartet or a piano trio would be somewhat less of a challenge but is still beyond the capabilities of any existing stereo system.
That is correct. The term "High End" was invented by Harry Pearson. And it had nothing to do with money, except that it suggested components that were designed to have the goal of aiming towards the highest quality of sound, measured by how close it came to the sound of (unamplified) acoustic instruments playing in an acoustic space. In other words, distinctly not "mid-fi," which meant simple mass manufacturing, like cars coming off an assembly line.
Not that - "cost no object/no or little compromise, top notch engineering". High-end is made to appeal to target buyers' group as "best of breed". It does not always need to be really best on engineering side, or sound "objectively" at top 5%. But subjectively (again for target audience) - yes, it should. Like was mentioned above about watches: buyers of high-end audio value uniqueness, amount of manual labor involved. But these two qualities are not necessary translate into "objectively" best sound. And they do not need to be. That is why high-end is not hi-fi.
There are indeed different ways to determine high end. To me all that matters is sq and reliability. These days relative modest priced gear can sound really good, but it's not always build to last or it's less reliable. High prices are no guaranty though.....But if an expensive brand is broken customer service, at least most of the time, will fix it. It's my experience that quality and reliability does have it's price in the end, but this doesn't mean it takes a second mortgage.
I remember that thread also. If I commented, I hope I said something like, he'd get even better sound with that stuff if it were setup properly in a proper room. Last night I was listening to Cassandra Wilson, and I wasn't just hearing her voice between the speakers, I was hearing her physical presence in front of me. As I'm sure @rbbert would agree, when you hear a human voice in front of you, you hear a physical presence, not just sound. When hearing a properly recorded human voice, on a proper setup, that physical presence should also hear/feel that presence. I heard that last night. If I move my speakers back to where they are two feet from the the wall, the image collapses and voices are flat in the soundstage. Now I've never actually heard Cassandra Wilson standing in front of me singing so I can't say I was hearing a perfect replica of her voice. What I can say I was hearing though, was what sounded like a human being singing about 10 or 12 feet in front of me, and I assume it was Cassandra. When I visit my friend and listen to his Magico speakers tucked back in the corners of his listening room, I hear zero image depth; voices are flat within the plane of the speakers. Maybe he likes it that way, but I know if he worked a bit on setup, he'd hear what those speakers are capable of. Hell, I'd like to hear what they're capable of. BTW, my equipment is listed in my profile.
