What Is "High End" Audio?

mini-me

jaxwired wrote: »

Of course it's condescending. Unless people just mean "mid-price" when they say "mid-fi". But they don't, they typically mean mid-performance. How they hell do they know? They don't. They are generallly just using the term based on the price of the equipment.

Would you call a $1400 amp mid-fi? Many people would. Stereophile calls it Class A and the peer of a 100k amp. There's just no need for the term. I can understand the term "budget gear" because that is clearly based on price and most people agree that price does not necessarily correlate with performance. So nothing to take offense to there. But "mid-fi" clearly says your gear is second rate. And that's an big judgement to make with so many variables involved in a purely subjective topic like sound quality. What's the point?

Don't forget you can buy "USED" Hi-Fi gears for the cost of "NEW" Mid-Fi gears. But of coz, there are certain risks come with Used gears but still worth considering.

Why would anyone be offended when they are told the truth that their gear is Mid-Fi? The term Mid-Fi is not based on Cost Only! It's based on how it sounds + Cost Objective!

adabro

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Prior to purchasing the Pass Laboratories X0.2 preamp ($10,000). I owned a Pass Labs X1 preamp. Nelson Pass straight out told me through email that "the X0.2 costs twice as much but it is not twice as good". After comparing the X0.2 to the X1 in my two channel system, I agreed that the X0.2 was not twice as good as the X1, but it was good enough that I couldn't go back to the X1.

I would love to hear the things you have heard..

jaxwired

mini-me wrote: »

Why would anyone be offended when they are told the truth that their gear is Mid-Fi? The term Mid-Fi is not based on Cost Only! It's based on how it sounds + Cost Objective!

This is ridiculous. It's offensive because it's based purely on a subjective opinon. When someone says certain gear is mid-fi, that's not a fact, that's an opinion for pete's sake! Any chance the owner might not think their gear is second rate? Ummm...welll....then it's offensive....

It would be different if sound quality wasn't subjective and gear was truly objectively classified as low, mid, and high end. But that is not the case. Who exactly get's to decide what gear makes it into high end and what gear is relegated to mid-fi? I'd like to meet the king to put in a good word...

DarqueKnight

jaxwired wrote: »

I don't know if you put any stock in stereophile, but I think it's relevant that their class A recommended components often have wildly varied prices. For instance they have a 100k integrated amp immediately preceeding a $1400 amp on their list this year.

I don't quite understand why people try to pin audio down to absolutes, but they can make allowances for variation in performance in other classes of merchandise.

Some people see the $100k amp and the $1400 amp rated as "Stereophile Class A" and think some shenanigans are going on. The reasoning being "how can the $1400 amp realistically be in the same league as the $100K amp"?

For one thing, Stereophile's rating system never says, or even implies that all "Class A" components are comparable in quality or performance. There are many PRICE categories within each class. Therefore, the $1400 amp is compared to other amps near the $1400 price point and the $100 amp is compared to other amps near the $100K price point.

Another thing: not everything reviewed in Stereophile is "high end" gear, although everything is, or claims to be, high performance. If you have been reading Stereophile for a while, you should have noticed that they seem to "rejoice" and "celebrate" whenever they find a modestly priced component that has performance characteristics close to a much more expensive piece.

heiney9

So there is no such thing as low-fi, mid-fi, high-fi? That seems ridiculous. So it's all just audio gear regardless if it costs $100 or $10,000.

Sterophile's "class" system of A, B, C, D is exactly the same as low, mid, high. Sure some will interpret it to be solely based on price, but anyone seriously in this hobby will not interpret those words as based solely on $$$.

With regard to Stereophile I don't see too many $200 cdp's with a class A rating or too many $10,000 amps with a class D rating. So what's the difference?

heiney9

jaxwired wrote: »

Who exactly get's to decide what gear makes it into high end and what gear is relegated to mid-fi? I'd like to meet the king to put in a good word...

The industry over the past 25-30 years, that's who.

H9

jaxwired

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I don't quite understand why people try to pin audio down to absolutes, but they can make allowances for variation in performance in other classes of merchandise.

Some people see the $100k amp and the $1400 amp rated as "Stereophile Class A" and think some shenanigans are going on. .

I don't think there are shenanigans at all. I think what any reasonable logical thinker would think, that price and performance are only loosely correlated and that with careful purchasing one can assemble a very high end performing system for far less than the most expensive offerings.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

For one thing, Stereophile's rating system never says, or even implies that all "Class A" components are comparable in quality or performance. There are many PRICE categories within each class. Therefore, the $1400 amp is compared to other amps near the $1400 price point and the $100 amp is compared to other amps near the $100K price point.
.

This is just plain untrue. Stereophile clearly explains their class A rating and it is purely based on performance, NOT performance within it's price category. That's just incorrect. They ARE in fact saying the $1400 amp is in the same league as the 100k amp. That's exactly what they are saying. And yes, they take joy in finding a product that performs as well as more costly equipment. Who wouldn't. That's a great find and worthy of excitement.

treitz3

Zero wrote: »

If lifelike performance is the ultimate attainable goal of a high end system, than wouldn’t it go to reason that a system worthy of the ‘high end’ designation be capable of mimicking the fatigue that inherently occurs within the instruments that make up the music we listen to?

It does.

jaxwired

heiney9 wrote: »

With regard to Stereophile I don't see too many $200 cdp's with a class A rating or too many $10,000 amps with a class D rating. So what's the difference?

Regarding the $200 cdp, I agree. Regarding the 10k amps, I disagree. Tons of expensive gear is not even on their recommended list. All the gear not on the list, not worth the money in the opinion of stereophile and there's lots and lots of gear not on the list.

pearsall001

heiney9 wrote: »

mmmmmm......so Phil you think I need to climb down? I assume this is directed at me since I'm the only one really debating here.

H9

Not quite...but you're getting warm. Interesting responses in this thread though.

heiney9

jaxwired wrote: »

The great thing about high end audio is that it is possible to assemble a system that is every bit as jaw dropping as a super expensive system for a fraction of the price. And I'm talking every bit, not almost, or pretty close. Once you get past entry level gear, 2 channel equipment shows only a marginal relationship between cost and performance.

But a cost conscious well informed savy shopper that is patient and willing to go through multiple iterations of gear swapping can assemble the classic giant killer system for not so giant expense and that is definately NOT "mid-fi".

jaxwired wrote: »

I don't think there are shenanigans at all. I think what any reasonable logical thinker would think, that price and performance are only loosely correlated and that with careful purchasing one can assemble a very high end performing system for far less than the most expensive offerings.

To me these two statements aren't saying the same thing. The bold parts are sort of contradictory. Once you say, Every bit as good, giant killer, then you soften it to say very high performing.

H9

heiney9

jaxwired wrote: »

Regarding the $200 cdp, I agree. Regarding the 10k amps, I disagree. Tons of expensive gear is not even on their recommended list. All the gear not on the list, not worth the money in the opinion of stereophile and there's lots and lots of gear not on the list.

They couldn't possibly test, evaluate, write about every piece of gear in existence. Think of it as the library not having every book ever written. Since when is Stereophile the singular, for profit, publication that can give gear recommendations? Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it's not any good. That was a ridiculous statement, IMO.

jaxwired

"every bit as good" is subjective and not quantifiable. So I probably should have stated it differently. But I do stand by the spirit of my post which is: because cost and performance are not even close to perfectly correlated that a savy audiophile can exploit that fact to build a system that performs at levels typically associated with much more expensive gear.

nooshinjohn

...settles in with a frosty adult beverage and some cold Meat-lover's pizza:p...

treitz3

Let me just throw this out there before I go to bed......

When I stopped reading reviews and depending on write ups? That was the best decision I ever made. At that point I had to start trusting my ears. Low-Fi, Mid-Fi, Hi-Fi? .....Well, non of that mattered. I just trusted my ears. Since that time, I have enjoyed the best audio journey of my life.

Excuse my French, but fu(k reviews. My ears are the best review available. My rig proves it.

george daniel

To me a high end system just takes me out of the physical room the i am in,and it's just me and the musicans,, my on personal show if you please,, a high end system seems to transcend it's environment,or physical linitations,,it's almost like a drug of sorts which offeres an intimate relationship between the participant and the system.

mini-me

jaxwired wrote: »

This is ridiculous. It's offensive because it's based purely on a subjective opinon. When someone says certain gear is mid-fi, that's not a fact, that's an opinion for pete's sake! Any chance the owner might not think their gear is second rate? Ummm...welll....then it's offensive....

It would be different if sound quality wasn't subjective and gear was truly objectively classified as low, mid, and high end. But that is not the case. Who exactly get's to decide what gear makes it into high end and what gear is relegated to mid-fi? I'd like to meet the king to put in a good word...

Do you drive Toyota? It's 2nd Class coz I drive Lexus! Nah...I am just making example of what is high end (luxury) and what is economy means.

If you can't hear a difference in different gears, why bother discussing in this thread? It's obviously out of your ability to hear and know what is subjective and what is reality. You may do a lot of good to yourself by using TV speakers for movies and using portable mp3 players for hi-fi listening.

Face

Stereophile's Class list is far from gospel. I've tried some of their Class A components and walked away disappointed.

mini-me

jaxwired wrote: »

"because cost and performance are not even close to perfectly correlated that a savy audiophile can exploit that fact to build a system that performs at levels typically associated with much more expensive gear.

Are you saying this from your own experiences or just parroting what you've read from people in other forums?

nooshinjohn

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Conclusion

High price does not necessarily mean high end. A high price can easily be assigned to anything.

High quality materials does not necessarily mean high end. High quality materials in an unreliable, poorly constructed item is a failure waiting to happen.

High performance does not necessarily mean high end. Something can have textbook perfect performance and be unlifelike and unpleasant to the senses.

High quality construction does not necessarily mean high end. Something that is well constructed of the finest materials can cause great misery if the basic design is flawed...like an attractive and expensive pair of shoes made of the finest quality leather using the best construction techniques, yet the basic design did not consider the anatomical characteristics of the human foot.

Thoughtful design resulting in reliable and lifelike high performance is the essence of high end audio.

I agree with all of the above. Bottom line is that High-End Audiophile gear and lifelike sound is what YOUR senses tell you it is. Once you find it for yourself, just kick back and enjoy the music!;)

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

mmmmmm......so Phil you think I need to climb down? I assume this is directed at me since I'm the only one really debating here.

H9

Edited as I see Phil responded.

DarqueKnight

jaxwired wrote: »

This is just plain untrue. Stereophile clearly explains their class A rating and it is purely based on performance, NOT performance within it's price category. That's just incorrect. They ARE in fact saying the $1400 amp is in the same league as the 100k amp. That's exactly what they are saying.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

MANSKITO

No trying to rock the boat but i see all this talk about subjectivity, there are documented and scientific approaches that can be put into place that remove subjectivity. Even something like the personal opinion and how it relates to sound can be in effect "averaged out", if some one is willing to devote the time and resources to do so.

While we could never know EXACTLY how a product performs(due to fundamental laws set forth by physics), if there is a large enough delta in performance so as to be measurable by the human ear at least 51+% of the time(and there generally is)The Scientific method can and more importantly SHOULD be used and crown a new performance king at any price point.

While a certain group might always say that you could never measure sound and the feelings it inspires, I say nay, WE CAN IN FACT DO BOTH. I think as a general rule of thumb audiophiles give to much credit to subjectivity and tend to view the subjective fact as more valuable in deciding which piece of audio gear is best, when there is a objective reality out there.

Subjectivity can never be completely removed, but we should only deal with it as much as we have too. And IMO we are dealing with MUCH more then we have too.

What I am saying is we can in fact (and should) scientifically say that one piece of gear is better then the other. There is no reason to let subjective opinion rule the roost so to speak.

heiney9

^^ you are totally out of touch with this hobby.

MANSKITO

heiney9 wrote: »

^^ you are totally out of touch with this hobby.

You think so? Even though I have a deep love for music, sound and trying to get the best of it? Just because i have a deep love and respect of The Scientific method dose not mean that i can not be an audiophile. You in fact owe everything (should say almost everything) to science and its methods including this hobby.

cnh

It's actually pretty simple...Hi-fi Audio is that little Devil inside all of us that is always whispering, "You're system could be BETTER!" Much Better!!!" And you just can't shut him/her up! So you're always thinking about the next upgrade and your wallet HATES YOU!! And, as for your wife..she thinks you're insane! She'd love to get a box full of Stereophile mags and crown with with it!

cnh

DarqueKnight

Zero wrote: »

That said, I do not concur with your observations regarding the topic of listening fatigue. I am curious to know why you feel that listening fatigue is a trademark that should be factored into deciding whether or not an individual component or system befits the ‘high end’ designation. Moreover, I am also interested to know how you reached this conclusion as it relates to stated lifelike sound reproduction.

As I moved to higher and higher quality gear, I noticed that I listened more and more. I recall that, when I had an Adcom based two channel system, I would run the system for a couple, or at most, a few hours at a time, then I would abruptly turn it off because I was "tired" of listening to it. This was true whether I was sitting for a critical listening session or doing something in another room and had the two channel system supplying background music.

My perception of time changes when the current two channel is running. This is true whether I am sitting for a critical listening session or doing something in another room and the two channel system is supplying background music. Hours long listening sessions apparently seem to last for a few minutes. This is particularly true when listening to well recorded vinyl. If I am doing something that requires mental concentration, I can't have music playing in the background on the two channel system because, inevitably, I am going to hear something that draws me into the living room to listen. If I want background music while working at home, I play it on my computer or the home theater system.

Zero wrote: »

My day to day experiences suggest that naturally occurring sounds can be inherently fatiguing, particularly when they occur within a close proximity to ones person. Sounds such as a parrot screeching, a dog barking, or a human being speaking loudly, are all fine examples of sources that can produce fatigue beyond mere mental aggravation. The same thing can also be applied to unamplified instruments. Nearly all brass instruments, drum sets, bag pipes, and pipe organs, have the capacity to quickly induce listening fatigue, particularly if the listener/audience is within close proximity of the source.

There is no information loss causing this fatigue. It is merely the result of either aggravating sonic tones or intense sound pressure levels. Why should hi-fi be any different? If lifelike performance is the ultimate attainable goal of a high end system, than wouldn’t it go to reason that a system worthy of the ‘high end’ designation be capable of mimicking the fatigue that inherently occurs within the instruments that make up the music we listen to?

Well, when I said "lifelike" performance, my assumption was that the listener would not be reproducing sounds they found unpleasant.;):)

I have spent hours listening to live music performed by competant musicians and never experienced the slightest bit if fatigue. At the end of the listening session I either felt satisfied or wanted more. This is the typical response for any sensory stimulus we find pleasant.

Unless one is a ****, a home audio system, which is a home entertainment system, should only be producing sounds that the listener finds pleasant and producing those sounds at a level the listener finds comfortable. Therefore, on my two channel system, I am only listening to my favorite music at a comfortable listening volume. Even on CD's and SACD's that have musical selections I don't like, I just program my SACD player to skip them. Of course, with CD's, I can just make a compilation recording of tracks from my favorite CD's.

There is a difference between aggravation and fatigue. Fatigue connotes a condition of physical and/or mental tiredness brought on by over exertion. The overexertion in this case being the brain being taxed by the inaccuracies in reproduced music. Aggravation connotes a condition of making an unfavorable condition worse. Aggravation (for me) in an audio sense would be listening to music I didn't like on a low quality audio system (Ipods and such).

The only time I was ever "aggravated" by my former two channel system was when I was listening to a new LP or CD and a musical selection was playing that I just didn't like. I was frequently fatigued by that system, even by listening to my favorite music, simply due to the resolution limitations of the former system.

I may be more sensitive to listening fatigue due to being a saxophone player and due to my frequent attendance at and participation in, live music events. My brain has more exposure to the "real thing". This is one reason why some musicians won't invest in a "real nice" stereo system because they think they all suck. Another reason is a lot of them have impaired hearing due to prior abuse and they wouldn't be able to appreciate such a system.

nooshinjohn

MANSKITO wrote: »

Subjectivity can never be completely removed, but we should only deal with it as much as we have too. And IMO we are dealing with MUCH more then we have too..

The shape, content and sensitivity of everyone's ears are different. This is a scientific and measurable fact. Because of this everything we hear is subjective.

MANSKITO wrote: »

What I am saying is we can in fact (and should) scientifically say that one piece of gear is better then the other. There is no reason to let subjective opinion rule the roost so to speak.

Because everyone hears different things in different ways, subjectivity is here to stay. I may hear the Beatles as the greatest rock band ever. I might even be able to statistically prove such a claim, but even with every single fact and statistic on my side, my claim falls apart as soon as one person comes to the conclusion that I am full of ****.

Subjectivity is a fact of life in audio. What is perfect for some will inevitably sound like crap to another.

PSOVLSK

george daniel wrote: »

To me a high end system just takes me out of the physical room the i am in,and it's just me and the musicans,, my on personal show if you please,, a high end system seems to transcend it's environment,or physical linitations,,it's almost like a drug of sorts which offeres an intimate relationship between the participant and the system.

Love the description George. Though my system is far from high-end, this is kind of the way I feel when I turn on some tunes after everyone else in the house has gone to bed. Just me and my music.

MANSKITO

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The shape, content and sensitivity of everyone's ears are different. because of this everything we hear is subjective.

Because everyone hears different things in different ways, subjectivity is here to stay. I may hear the Beatles as the greatest rock band ever. I might even be able to statistically prove such a claim, but even with every single fact and statistic on my side, my claim falls apart as soon as one person comes to the conclusion that I am full of ****.

Subjectivity is a fact of life in audio. What is perfect for some will inevitably sound like crap to another.

I under stand fully that people are different in almost in every conceivable way and so dose science (understand that point), I again say there well documented methods that can be put into place to remove subjectivity to a certain degree.

There will always be data outliers that we CAN NOT PREDICT chaos theory tells us that but there is an over all order that one can measure and more importantly average.

My point was that even though subjectivity dose in fact play a part, I think most give it more credit then it is due. Thats sloppy thinking to say that just because something DOSE exist and we can not remove it completely means we can not have significant impact on it.

Your claim if it is logically based in objectively reality, dose not fall apart if some one "comes to the conclusion that I am full of ****" that is in fact the true power of science and why I love and respect it so deeply.

I think you are ignoring the fact that there is a objective reality for everything (again should say everything that is relevant to my recording of AC/DC and my ability to play it back lol) we do, or think we do.

I understand that there will always be people that will disagree with the findings of an objective study of the reproduction of sound but it would give a VERY good base line for the majority of people. (even though a certain % would still say object A is better then object B based on there subjective differences in hearing or any other relevant difference)