Discussion Of What Is "High End"

[progo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Given that the purpose of a high end system is to reproduce music with the fewest compromises, rather than define exactly what gear is high end, it might be easier to put some constraints around what isn't. That is to say, perhaps a principle approach rather than a $ or a subjective assessment approach --snip--

Wow, I totally agree with these principles, let them be examples.
I think they form pretty well the idea of high end: chasing the true experience, money no object.

 

[Kees]

I propose to declare Patrick82 High-End "Hors Concours".

 

[digger945]

FordGTlover,
You've done it again, Bravo!
You are well on your way to yet another STICKY.
Would it be too forward to say,"If you have to ask how much, you don't belong here."
Pure, money-no-object audio perfection.

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger945 /img/forum/go_quote.gif FordGTlover, You've done it again, Bravo! You are well on your way to yet another STICKY. Would it be too forward to say,"If you have to ask how much, you don't belong here." Pure, money-no-object audio perfection.

I agree FordGTlover. Good post.

 

[Cool_Torpedo]

IMHO equating high end to cost-no-object (CNO) is misleading. I think that high-end audio is all about the results, which are conditioned by too many factors to comment into a single post. You can get high-end results spending a sensible amount of money, while spending a crazy sum on CNO devices doesn't guarantee a good result.
In fact I've listened to more poor sounding CNO systems set up by wealthy people with very poor judgment and lacking a high-end purpose, than to poor sounding sensibly priced systems but set up by knowledgeable and result-oriented people.

I think that High-end is a matter of goals, purposes, objectives and an attitude more than a devices' brand, size, weight, looks or cost issue.

Rgrds

 

[digger945]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO equating high end to cost-no-object (CNO) is misleading. I think that high-end audio is all about the results, which are conditioned by too many factors to comment into a single post. You can get high-end results spending a sensible amount of money, while spending a crazy sum on CNO devices doesn't guarantee a good result. In fact I've listened to more poor sounding CNO systems set up by wealthy people with very poor judgment and lacking a high-end purpose, than to poor sounding sensibly priced systems but set up by knowledgeable and result-oriented people. I think that High-end is a matter of goals, purposes, objectives and an attitude more than a devices' brand, size, weight, looks or cost issue. Rgrds

Perhaps "money is not in the equation" would be more fitting.
I agree with your whole statement above, in that it is not about showing off or bragging, but the ultimate pursuit of reproducing audio in such a manner that it comes as close as possible to "taking you there", no matter what the system, style, or environment.
I realize that this statement makes it "personal", but thats exactly what it is to me, personal.

 

[jp11801]

I would echo fordgtlover's post regarding what is high end.


We are all going to have to adpot more forgiveing stance in this forum as it relates to moderation if this is to work. This is going to be a learn as the mods go to a great extent. There will probably be alot of judgement calls that are made that some of us may not agree with. We are all pretty passionate about this stuff but lets remember that this forum is an attempt to cull out the best of the best to keep it from getting lost in the din of the other forums. I hope we as a group can check some of the passion/ego about gear and rally around this forum.

 

[digger945]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with you 100%, Happy Camper. We're going to give this forum a go, and I intend to make it stick. I have a Luxman P-1 headphone amplifier on hand (which I definitely feel is appropriate for discussion in this forum), but I know not everyone wishes to discuss a $2400.00 headphone amp--and I want those that do (like me) to have a place where it's easy to find discussion of such equipment. As this sub-forum grows, we can break it out into various segments of high-end audio, but I think that's quite a while off. Consistent with your point, Happy Camper, on most days I drive an old four-cylinder mini SUV, but it doesn't mean I don't like to read Car And Driver from time to time. I've been shopping for a camera recently--with a budget in mind--and, in doing my research and reading, I found the information on the higher-end stuff (read: beyond my camera budget) very helpful to understanding the market offerings and value-for-the-dollar as a whole. It was the high-end headphone audio discussion that really defined this community's start. Naturally, we all want to find the best performance for the buck, but experiencing and understanding those items that might constitute the outer envelope of performance can help one to understand what kind of value he's actually getting regardless of what he's spending.

Exactly, thank you Jude.
I will not be posting in any of these discussions, but I am really interested in reading them, so let the big boys talk about the big toys already. I don't really care what it costs, I just want to know what others think about it.
Looking forward to the good discussion,
Scott

 

[tfarney]

I can't remember at this point who it was that hoped for the participation of musicians and recording pros, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I know many of both and not an audiophile among them. The simple truth is, they listen for different things, for different reasons, and you will find very few with any interest in high-end audiophile equipment.

While I agree with Cool Torepedo's definition, I think fordgtlover's is probably more practical. There is no point in a separate forum under Cool's definition.

Really, I think the simplest definition is the one about no compromises in design and execution. The problem there is that the rapid advance of digital audio will continue to make so much of it irrelevant. In a pure digital amp design (and yes, I understand there are no such headphone amp designs...yet), is the lack of audiophile capacitors, resistors, wire, transformers, etc. indicative of compromises seeking bang for the buck? Or is it because the design itself makes them irrelevant? And to that point, a $500 iMac, playing lossless files from RAM, with error correction ensuring a bit perfect match to the file on the hard drive (and, therefore, to the original CD), has zero stability issues, zero moving parts. It makes all the effort, expense and lack of compromise in high-end transports pointless. It is, by all definitions but cost, higher end than the most expensive mechanical transport.

This won't be easy. I'll listen in, but won't participate much. I don't really fit the profile.

Tim

 

[Pars]

I would agree with fordgtlover's definition, though I am not sure about point 5, as I would think that a true hi-end system should be audibly superior even to a skeptic. The most important point however is performance is key and should be the one and only criteria used to judge or gate.

 

[pabbi1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Principle 8 High-end audio can include DIY. Whether it be cables, DACs or Amps (even headphones), there are many DIYers whose primary goal is the pursuit of the best quality audio. Just because a product has a brand name doesn't make it any better - remember, the focus is on the ability to reproduce the best quality audio not how fancy it looks.

x³

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pars /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would agree with fordgtlover's definition, though I am not sure about point 5, as I would think that a true hi-end system should be audibly superior even to a skeptic. The most important point however is performance is key and should be the one and only criteria used to judge or gate.

Problem is that skeptics often don't listen.

What is a high end forum without Senior 'High End' Mcmanus?

 

[Jingo Lingo]

Quote:

I can't remember at this point who it was that hoped for the participation of musicians and recording pros, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I know many of both and not an audiophile among them. The simple truth is, they listen for different things, for different reasons, and you will find very few with any interest in high-end audiophile equipment. While I agree with Cool Torepedo's definition, I think fordgtlover's is probably more practical. There is no point in a separate forum under Cool's definition. Really, I think the simplest definition is the one about no compromises in design and execution. The problem there is that the rapid advance of digital audio will continue to make so much of it irrelevant. In a pure digital amp design (and yes, I understand there are no such headphone amp designs...yet), is the lack of audiophile capacitors, resistors, wire, transformers, etc. indicative of compromises seeking bang for the buck? Or is it because the design itself makes them irrelevant? And to that point, a $500 iMac, playing lossless files from RAM, with error correction ensuring a bit perfect match to the file on the hard drive (and, therefore, to the original CD), has zero stability issues, zero moving parts. It makes all the effort, expense and lack of compromise in high-end transports pointless. It is, by all definitions but cost, higher end than the most expensive mechanical transport. This won't be easy. I'll listen in, but won't participate much. I don't really fit the profile. Tim

Excellent post Tim. I agree totally, It must be considered that music reproduction is bettered from advances in technology which are changing constantly.

 

[Akabeth]

I'm not sure what high-end audio is yet... but I do know that I've got [size=xx-small]very[/size] very [size=small]very[/size] long ways to go to get there.

As means of generalization, I think people have a tendency to associate high-end [in anything really], as 'over-achieving', 'valuable', and 'exclusive'.

 

[selfdivider]

Here's my take on it. I don't think cost-no-object is a necessarily a good criterion by which we judge what's high-end or not, but it's equally foolish to believe that it is unrelated to cost. I also think when we see some system, most of us, by some unspoken consensus, know if it's high-end or not. It might sound great to the person, but it might not meet that general consensus.

Also, when I saw that there was finally a high-end forum at head-fi, I was excited because I thought it was going to be non-headphone related. Don't get me wrong, some headphones are excellent tranducers & I love them, but there has always been a forum for headphone systems in head-fi! I thought the express purpose of this high-end forum was for speaker-based system. I think headphones can definitely be a part of a high-end system, no doubt, but personally speaking, I can't see the headphone-only system without quality speakers as properly high-end. I have heard Stax, AKGs, Senns, Beyers, all of them, but still, no headphones can viscerally move 'air' like proper speakers can, approximating the experience of live music. Again, this isn't to say that they're not excellent tranducers; in many other ways, they perform better than loudspeakers. But I don't think I'm the only person who believes that a proper high-end system should fundamentally be loudspeakers-based. As I mentioned, there are topics regarding high-end headphone systems already in the headphones forum, so I don't see why this forum is yet another place for the same exact discussions. Kinda defeats the purpose of creating a new forum, if you ask me. My 2 cents.

 

[malldian]

The purpose? If you ask me its part of the dark bellied, underhanded, smoke filled room..'ed conspiracy driven by the producers to create more illusion ridden incentives to purchase their supposed "high-end" products.

"Well if I get this, I can talk about it in Summit-fi!!"

If you don't believe me, look it up!