What constitutes 'High-end'?

[Buckle-meister]

Dear all,

I am interested in what people think constitutes a 'High-end' audio component. I'd like to think that high-end was a measure of the quality with which a component reproduced sound, but tend to think that most, myself included, associate it with exorbitant prices. We all have different budgets to consider when we consider purchasing audio components, so I'd imagine that the definition of high-end is different for each of us. If that is true though, at what price does an amp, reciever, CD player or speakers etc become high end?

So, philisophers, wisemen and laymen alike, what's the answer? Let's have your honest opinions, without any answers like 'if you have to ask the price, it's high-end'.

Regards

 

[hifiman]

For me "high-end" is just about anything above the budget mass-market electronics. I used to think the ultra expensive stuff was my goal in life, but as I get older I see most of those products as just plain silly.

 

[Buckle-meister]

For me "high-end" is just about anything above the budget mass-market electronics. I used to think the ultra expensive stuff was my goal in life, but as I get older I see most of those products as just plain silly.

Wow. For me, high-end is waaaaaay more expensive than that. I think of a high-end CD player being maybe $4500 and up. My Z9 is (I think) regarded as a high-end AV amp, yet I tend to think of a separate processor with separate amps costing (combined) perhaps in excess of $9000 as high-end.

I heard a pair of $23400 speakers today. These I would definitely consider high-end. I'd probably consider speakers above about $18000 high-end.

But then, I don't know for sure. Maybe I'm way of base. Hence the thread!

Anyone else?

Regards

 

[BMXTRIX]

I don't believe in high-end. It's a myth that is too typically associated with money.

By the $$$ being the determining factor, that would make a long list of exotic cables high-end, with most people in the know just considering them a waste of money.

To me a quality product becomes high-end at any price point if it meets the needs of the consumer and gives them top quality for their dollar. If all you have is $1,000.00 to spend on your theater, then what you get for that money should be the best value possible. The best sound within a given price range... the best value. That's high-end to me.

To me a lot of high dollar equipment that I have worked with is extremely finicky, completely non-versatile, and outright fails far to often. It's like paying for a Mercedes and finding a Yugo engine inside. Makes no sense at all.

Give me a $5,000 complete home theater setup, then drop a nice touchpanel remote into it and compare it to a $25,000 home theater with a pile of remotes on the table and the average person may think that the place with the one touch operation is the real 'high-end' one.

Just give me the best that I can for my money and leave the high-end stuff to the 'audiophiles'.

 

[hifiman]

Give me a $5,000 complete home theater setup, then drop a nice touchpanel remote into it and compare it to a $25,000 home theater with a pile of remotes on the table and the average person may think that the place with the one touch operation is the real 'high-end' one.

Just give me the best that I can for my money and leave the high-end stuff to the 'audiophiles'.

I very much agree. Over the years I've spent a lot of money on upgrading. At times I had so many pieces of equipment that were ultimately too complicated for anyone to operate but me. I've often been the early adopter only to find that some technology never stood a chance and my money was wasted. A careful shopper who has spent time studying the best choices will likely find themselves with a system that will greatly outperform what most people have without spending a small fortune.

 

[RMK!]

High End?

Well to use numbers, I have spent about $12K on Audio in the last 9 months. The retail value of these components is >$20K and I consider this system midrange and not high end. We have to use some unit of measure to define these terms and cost seems logical. I am happy (for the time being) with my system but upgrades are inevitable. I might eventually get there but that is not the goal. Having fun with this hobby is, regardless of price.

 

[AverageJoe]

To me, "high end" is what an expert would buy to get the absolute best performance if money was no object. But, that may not be the highest priced component out there. For example: to most of the people in this forum, Bose will never be High End no matter how much it costs - and a diy cable that costs $10 to make could be considered high end.
There is not a component in my system that I would consider "high end" (well, except maybe the cables) even though it does what I want it to do within the limits of my budget.
But that gives me something to work for

 

[racquetman]

High end to me is simply any company's highest price offering. This is invariably the product with the best components and the least amount of compromise in the design. When a design engineer is given a product to design where price is no object, then this defines the high end.

I rarely think a company's high end offering is worth the money. I just think the point of diminishing returns has long since kicked in.

Therefore, I take the term "high end" literally - highest quality and highest price point. Hopefully the most expensive product in a line gives you the highest performance .

 

[Vancouver]

I would say high end would be taking into consideration the average people spend on a system then anything above that would be considered high end.

to us (the enthusiasts) the average would be much higher thefore "high end" would follow suit. Be honest though, the average person thinks Sony, bose etc is good equipment. Most people shop at London drugs, Future shop, best buy etc and 95% of the equipment they sell is not high quality.

I think the average person wouldnt not consider spending 15k on a system, and would think 100k is rediculas.

I bet my monthly drinking budget is worth more then the "average" system.

 

[WmAx]

Dear all,

I am interested in what people think constitutes a 'High-end' audio component. I'd like to think that high-end was a measure of the quality with which a component reproduced sound, but tend to think that most, myself included, associate it with exorbitant prices.

Well, I think that to be hi-end, it should reflect performance, but that is in an ideal world...

The only components which seem to really benefit from investing more money[and even this is limited to a certain extent, and is not a rule, especially if you build yourself from a proven solid design, or are able to originate a good design yourself] are speakers and room acoustics. The rest of the stuff[sources, amps, etc.], with modern technology, is functionally ideal at low to moderate cost. More money with these things tends to buy better cosmetics and physical build quality, not actual functional performance increase of audible relevance.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

Well, I think that to be hi-end, it should reflect performance, but that is in an ideal world...

The only components which seem to really benefit from investing more money[and even this is limited to a certain extent, and is not a rule, especially if you build yourself from a proven solid design, or are able to originate a good design yourself] are speakers and room acoustics. The rest of the stuff[sources, amps, etc.], with modern technology, is functionally ideal at low to moderate cost. More money with these things tends to buy better cosmetics and physical build quality, not actual functional performance increase of audible relevance.

-Chris

.....there it is.....

 

[Rowdy S13]

Id like to think High End is the most expensive stuff out there. But after looking for such equipment I dont think that is true anymore. Take HK for example thre equipment is highly priced and is missing lots of features of lesser componets. And there regared by many to be High End. This isnt to say that its bad equipment at all but why spend the money to be behind. As far as Ive seen this is usually true for High End equipment they have supposedly focused so much on quality that they forgot features. The thing with super expensive equipment is how manny people can notice a difference over a nicer say Denon reciever? I think that its more or less a waste of money Id rather not strive to spend 30000 on one componet.

Sean

 

[Khellandros66]

Basing the value off the price tag is just plain BS... 90% of the mags do that. That is not the consensus here. Here members try to get a better understanding of what sounds good to themselves...

I love what my Yamaha and Definitive sound like but that doesn't mean I have to push my opinions on others. Sure its certainly not the most expensive system on the planet but its what I can afford and its what I am happy with (bites lips about wanting Pioneer VSX-74TXi).

The persuit of visual and audio greatness is the search for the combintion of different equipment that just clicks with you and makes you go I LOVE THIS..

~Bob

 

[furrycute]

My definition of the high end is a brand's flagship product.


Of course this definition has aboslutely nothing to do with whether I'll be purchasing that "high end." For my own music enjoyment, I would consider purchasing a high end product that is at the 75% percentile of a brand's product line.

 

[hifiman]

This thread's gettin' interesting.

 

[MDS]

I see two definitions for 'high end".
1. High end of the price spectrum.
2. High end features, reliability, and performance.

Equipment that meets the high end price criteria does not always meet the high end features, reliability, and performance criteria and in the instances where they do, you have to ask yourself if the exponential increase in price is really worth the investment.

Given that technology changes so quickly, receivers and pre/pros are obsolete rather quickly in terms of support for the latest and greatest codecs and features. Speakers and separate amps last a whole lot longer but still the prices for some of them are just unbelievable to me.

I want the best adherence standards, reasonable build quality and longevity, and at a price that I (arbitrarily) deem reasonable. That happens to be in the $1000ish range for receivers and about 3 times that for speakers (5.1). There is plenty of equipment in that range that measures well and performs well and could be reasonably considered 'high end' as it is quite a bit better than the low priced stuff at the big box stores and in many cases substantially similar to the higher priced equipment.

I like Vancouver's definition of high end as just that little bit more than the average consumer's gear and I think most of the things we talk about here fall into that range.

 

[Tomorrow]

High END

Wulll l l l l,

I Googled the web and came up with some VERY interesting high end pictures. The missus said I better not post 'em here, tho'. They were, however, the epitomy of high ends.

 

[AverageJoe]

Wulll l l l l,

I Googled the web and came up with some VERY interesting high end pictures. The missus said I better not post 'em here, tho'. They were, however, the epitomy of high ends.

You've got a dirty mind.
...Wait a minute... if I understood the double entendre, I guess I'VE got a dirty mind!

 

[Buckle-meister]

Bear in mind I'm merely asking questions here. Not having a go at people.

The persuit of visual and audio greatness is the search for the combintion of different equipment that just clicks with you and makes you go I LOVE THIS..

I absolutely agree, but having upgraded twice now, I found that I went 'I LOVE THIS (originally), then I REALLY REALLY LOVE THIS (1st upgrade), then OHHHHHH!!!' (present upgrade )

Upgradeitus is a separate issue, and I'm not really wanting to discuss it here, but I personally think my definition of the price of high-end components has increased with my own increasingly expensive components. Sort of like a carrot dangling in front of my nose if you will.

As an example, if someone had told me when I bought my original hi-fi that I'd eventually have one worth x-amount, I'd be incredulous, and would absolutely have considered it to be high-end. Now that I have it though, my definition has moved forward too.

My definition of the high end is a brand's flagship product.

This would then mean that the $23400 pair of speakers I heard were not high-end, since B&W 800D's are only B&W's second top of the range speakers (the flagship Nautilus comes in at a heart-attack price of $63000 )

Are you sure those $23400 pair of speakers are not high-end?!

Regards

 

[shokhead]

Linn,Nad,Rotel,Rega,Essex and up. Stuff you dont see at BB,CC and GG.