What is your definition of 'High End' audio?

[Billfort]

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions.

I would like to propose the following:

"High end components were designed with the goal of reproducing the sound of live, unamplified music in the home. Recreation of the soundstage and fidelity through the midrange frequencies have the highest priority. High end components can be vintage or current and price is not a consideration, only fidelity to the music."

Please offer potential additions/deletions/elaborations.....

I Like it, but would change the middle bit too:

Recreation of the soundstage and dynamics of the original performance across a wide frequency range are a priority.

I guess I just find wide-band performance and dynamics to be something a little tough to get right in most rooms and an area where some 'high-end' systems really seem to stand out.

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

I Like it, but would change the middle bit too:

Recreation of the soundstage and dynamics of the original performance across a wide frequency range are a priority.

I guess I just find wide-band performance and dynamics to be something a little tough to get right in most rooms and an area where some 'high-end' systems really seem to stand out.

I like your suggestion regarding dynamics a lot! :thmbsp:

Wideband reproduction is certainly desirable. By placing the focus on the midrange, where most of the music resides, can we accommodate a wider variety of equipment that may not be perfect, but still bring you enough of the ideal to be considered 'high end'?

Is this a reasonable compromise or is it too unwieldy?

"High end components are designed with the goal of reproducing the sound of live, unamplified music in the home. Recreation of the soundstage and dynamics of the original performance across a wide frequency range are a priority with midrange fidelity having the highest priority. High end components can be vintage or current and price is not a consideration, only fidelity to the music."

 

[Billfort]

Sure, reasonable compromise.

 

[Guest124]

I'm building it...

 

[Dave_72]

Sound that is produced between, behind, and around the speakers, where you can't tell the sound is coming from the speakers whatsoever. Anything else is dual mono, imo. Of course this is dependent on the room and recording(s) as much as the system. Also, the music must approximate the sound of real instruments and reproduce the frequencies of said instruments. In addition, the emotion of the music must be conveyed. Finally, there should be very little to no limit on dynamics. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment.

 

[unfairlane]

Products that leaves no audible signature

 

[Wasatch]

Transparent comes to mind. As to the money part, I believe there are different levels of high-end audio gear as well.

 

[stereofanboy]

Hope that this is the correct forum for this discussion.

What is your definition of 'High End' audio?

Equipment cost?

Reproduction of the live concert experience?

Total fidelity to the source material, warts and all?

Where is the dividing line between 'pleasant to listen to' and 'reference quality'?

Finally, is there a 'best' path to the 'high end' (new vs vintage)?

The descriptor "High End" as applied to audio as well as to many other consumer products refers to price and also a certain amount of snob appeal. Of course, high prices carry their own snob appeal, but other things can come into play such as looks, performance, popularity among the well heeled, etc.

"High End" was likely coined by and is certainly perpetuated by people trying to sell things. People whose success depends upon an honest appraisal of human nature in general and an intuitive appraisal of their mark in particular.

A good performance, well recorded can erase the dividing line so that it is possible to find a reference quality system pleasant sounding as well as accurate. A poor recording will bring the line back.

One path to the high end would include intelligence, ambition, perception, a strong work ethic, and a certain amount of luck. Being the sole heir of the person with all of the above qualities might be a better path to the high end.

.

 

[scuba]

Anything I can't afford.

 

[Njoy-Music]

I've modified my ideas about high end so much over the years it's hard to keep it stable. For many years it was something I couldn't afford but loved auditioning in the local stores. Lately it's been getting more settled in to that area where high end has to be able to produce the dynamics, full range and accurate timbre of music. As good as some systems and rooms are at reproducing the midrange, it's still a limited view. Like looking through a hole in a fence instead of no fence at all. Most musical performances don't live in one range but rather flirt with the limits of our hearing. There are harmonics in a live performance that make it what it is but can kill that reproduction in a room that has it's own issues that conflict with it. As an aside I often get more than a little po'd at Mr. Fremer because he knows he has a bad listening room. knows it needs room correction, yet feels he "remembers" the limits well enough to be accurate in his assessments of the sound of equipment being tested. Then proceeds to denigrate those who believe they have good audio memories of how things sound. Moving on I like the definition except for that midrange limit. Whether that's where most music resides or not it irrelevant IMHO. High end should be pushing the limits of what can be done in a home listening environment. Like the Cutting Edge title here implies, cost being no factor, it's exploring the current boundaries of what can be done in our homes given a room capable of housing it.

 

[Pio1980]

I've modified my ideas about high end so much over the years it's hard to keep it stable. For many years it was something I couldn't afford but loved auditioning in the local stores. Lately it's been getting more settled in to that area where high end has to be able to produce the dynamics, full range and accurate timbre of music. As good as some systems and rooms are at reproducing the midrange, it's still a limited view. Like looking through a hole in a fence instead of no fence at all. Most musical performances don't live in one range but rather flirt with the limits of our hearing. There are harmonics in a live performance that make it what it is but can kill that reproduction in a room that has it's own issues that conflict with it. As an aside I often get more than a little po'd at Mr. Fremer because he knows he has a bad listening room. knows it needs room correction, yet feels he "remembers" the limits well enough to be accurate in his assessments of the sound of equipment being tested. Then proceeds to denigrate those who believe they have good audio memories of how things sound. Moving on I like the definition except for that midrange limit. Whether that's where most music resides or not it irrelevant IMHO. High end should be pushing the limits of what can be done in a home listening environment. Like the Cutting Edge title here implies, cost being no factor, it's exploring the current boundaries of what can be done in our homes given a room capable of housing it.

At this point, a dedicated well sorted out auditioning studio is essential. Something few of us can achieve.

 

[Njoy-Music]

Pio: I agree with that! At best we try to come close and still live there.

 

[Brindabella]

I look at hi-end from a couple of different perspectives - I am building a collection of electronics and speakers representative of the mid - 1970's to mid 80's. This was the period in my life when audio aspirations significantly contributed to my formative years - So I now chase what was never financially attainable to me then. High end to me is Celestion Ditton 66 with a Kenwood KA8100 or Yamaha NS1000m with a Hitachi HA7500mkII or Sansui AU1100 for example. In the eighties JBL L96 or Kef 107.2 married with Kenwood C2 & M2 maybe. To me that represents classic high end - that's not say there was not even higher end than that, but that's what I aspired too in my youth - so it is hi end to me.

Then the mid 80's came and with every new release it seemed to me the deign, sound and production values were being eroded and I gradually lost interest. It was not until the second part of the nineties did 'I feel' there seemed to be a resurgence from brands I knew and loved like Denon and Yamaha, etc releasing products that inspired me from a construction, design and sound perspective - there appeared to me to be some life being breathed into 2 channel at this time. In 1999, I finally bought my first new gear since 83 and leading the charge was a Denon PMA 1500 for $1500 and Jamo D590 for $3000 - that was more than a months pay back then and I considered that middle to hi-er end.

Then the new millennium came and in 2004 on a whim I bought a pair of B&W804's for $4500ish dollars. But since then I have become both disillusioned and confused about the state of the audio market and lost where the high end marker line started. I struggle to reconcile what hi end really means - for example my B&W 804 in 2004 cost $4500; today B&W 804 will set you back $24,599, and I have heard them and they are an improvement - not $20,000 worth of improvement in my opinion. In 2004 the 804's cost just under a months pay, in 2016 the 804's cost over 4 months pay. What changed in 14 years - yep I get the cost of product, cost of R&D, cost of design, cost materials sure are relevant examples, but $20,000!

This is not a personal issue of high end audio is unjustifiably expensive to me so therefore it unreasonable to spend or indulge that type of expensive. I owned several furniture stores in total encompassing 2500sqm or 27000ft and I traveled the world to buy and then sell furniture I could never afford to buy myself even at cost or justifying it accidentally falling of the back of the truck. Without any hint of resentment I understand their are people with way deeper pockets than my own. The issue is in 2016 the audio industry has evolved into something I am struggling to recognize/reconcile.

If I had the income would I indulge on pair of JBL L250 or Everest, maybe a pair of B&W801 or any other speaker that took my audio senses on a journey to nirvana - yep I think I would because audio and music appreciation is in my DNA and would have no problem justifying the expense. My point, I have kinda lost the plot to what high end means anymore but I sure can still appreciate/respect a nice well thought out hifi (mine or someone else's) at any budget that has been put together with love - that's hi end enough for me.

Rob

.

 

[vinyl1]

Due to my contacts in the audio world, I am able to listen to the very top-end equipment. I'm talking about the kind of stuff where each component costs $40-80K.

It is very, very good, but sometimes it is a little too analytic for my taste. It will take apart a studio rock record into its component tracks, and you don't really want to hear it that way. If you only listen to 50s jazz and classical recorded with two mikes, it really sounds wonderful.

People with anything like a normal income would have to be a little off the deep end to put together a $300K system. I'm aware that there are some people like that, but I'm not one of them. I remember at being at one of the Stereophile shows in early the early 2000s, and one of the sales reps in a room told me he had some naive friends over to listen to his system. They really liked it, but then he had to confess that the system cost more than his house!

 

[sqlsavior]

The last post is definitely referring to the $$$ perspective of a definition. But the description of the sound produced prompts a comment on our definition. I was just listening to Elton John's 'Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player' tonight, at a low level one could easily converse over. I could hear the crickets outside, and as 'Blues for baby and me' came on, our dog Raina began lapping at her water dish in the kitchen, a very noisy process, but I was blissed out being aurally tuned into everything, from the music, to whatever squeaks my wiggling shoes were adding at the threshold of audibility. The music wasn't "un-amplified", but I've seldom had a sense of hearing more of it. And it was in great contrast to my experience at my first rock concert.

In my last year of high school in 1976 I took the bus downtown in Tucson to see Elton John, and it remains the best sound I've ever heard at a rock concert, but so LOUD (like ears ringing for hours afterward loud) yet so clear. Although in an auditorium, I was maybe 75 feet from the stage, and Elton was maybe about thumb-at-arm's-length size, over there, but sonically his head was 50 feet tall, spread between the two 30' x 30' banks of speakers suspended above us, toed-in and angled down, exactly like a giant stereo. In a funny backwards sense, I've never heard a rock concert that sounded more like an album of mine (Elton John's Greatest Hits, of course!) since then. Whichever bands had trouble making their live concerts sound like their albums, his was not one of them. The only system I've ever heard that could really duplicate that sonically was the corner horns I built two years later. And I'm certainly glad that our existing definition would include Klipschorns, for example, because I certainly consider them high end.

Anyway, not in the interest of argument, but to keep the discussion going, I'll offer an alternative, SQ-based definition, with due respect for the existing one.

"High-end audio playback systems allow one to hear most everything on a recording, or otherwise convey the recorded music with maximum fidelity to its timbres, rhythms, and dynamics, without regard to price, age, or technology."

 

[Kingshead]

Hope that this is the correct forum for this discussion.

What is your definition of 'High End' audio?

Equipment cost?

Reproduction of the live concert experience?

Total fidelity to the source material, warts and all?

Where is the dividing line between 'pleasant to listen to' and 'reference quality'?

Finally, is there a 'best' path to the 'high end' (new vs vintage)?

The system at the top of the stairs.

 

[vinyl1]

I look at hi-end from a couple of different perspectives - I am building a collection of electronics and speakers representative of the mid - 1970's to mid 80's. This was the period in my life when audio aspirations significantly contributed to my formative years - So I now chase what was never financially attainable to me then. High end to me is Celestion Ditton 66 with a Kenwood KA8100 or Yamaha NS1000m with a Hitachi HA7500mkII or Sansui AU1100 for example. In the eighties JBL L96 or Kef 107.2 married with Kenwood C2 & M2 maybe. To me that represents classic high end - that's not say there was not even higher end than that, but that's what I aspired too in my youth - so it is hi end to me.

Then the mid 80's came and with every new release it seemed to me the deign, sound and production values were being eroded and I gradually lost interest. It was not until the second part of the nineties did 'I feel' there seemed to be a resurgence from brands I knew and loved like Denon and Yamaha, etc releasing products that inspired me from a construction, design and sound perspective - there appeared to me to be some life being breathed into 2 channel at this time. In 1999, I finally bought my first new gear since 83 and leading the charge was a Denon PMA 1500 for $1500 and Jamo D590 for $3000 - that was more than a months pay back then and I considered that middle to hi-er end.

Then the new millennium came and in 2004 on a whim I bought a pair of B&W804's for $4500ish dollars. But since then I have become both disillusioned and confused about the state of the audio market and lost where the high end marker line started. I struggle to reconcile what hi end really means - for example my B&W 804 in 2004 cost $4500; today B&W 804 will set you back $24,599, and I have heard them and they are an improvement - not $20,000 worth of improvement in my opinion. In 2004 the 804's cost just under a months pay, in 2016 the 804's cost over 4 months pay. What changed in 14 years - yep I get the cost of product, cost of R&D, cost of design, cost materials sure are relevant examples, but $20,000!

This is not a personal issue of high end audio is unjustifiably expensive to me so therefore it unreasonable to spend or indulge that type of expensive. I owned several furniture stores in total encompassing 2500sqm or 27000ft and I traveled the world to buy and then sell furniture I could never afford to buy myself even at cost or justifying it accidentally falling of the back of the truck. Without any hint of resentment I understand their are people with way deeper pockets than my own. The issue is in 2016 the audio industry has evolved into something I am struggling to recognize/reconcile.

If I had the income would I indulge on pair of JBL L250 or Everest, maybe a pair of B&W801 or any other speaker that took my audio senses on a journey to nirvana - yep I think I would because audio and music appreciation is in my DNA and would have no problem justifying the expense. My point, I have kinda lost the plot to what high end means anymore but I sure can still appreciate/respect a nice well thought out hifi (mine or someone else's) at any budget that has been put together with love - that's hi end enough for me.

Rob

.

That is a most illuminating post.

What is most interesting nowadays is how far the less expensive equipment has advanced. If you are willing to spend $20-30K list price, you will have a system that sounds better than anything you could buy 30 years ago. So who cares if the cutting edge has rocketed into the stratosphere?

There is also such a large amount of used and vintage equipment on the market, nearly anyone can put together a respectable system over a period of time. Looking on some equipment sites, I see you could pick up a nice pair of B&W 804s for $2000-3000. The same thing could be said for good late-model preamps and amps, and high-end cables and interconnects. A lot of this stuff was so well-made it will last for decades.

 

[theophile]

Use what the pros use:

 

[Kingshead]

 

[Pio1980]

Forget it, sounds like ass.