| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
what is considered high end audio?
I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time
is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Thank you Mike Mueller -- |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote:
I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Cost is not the issue. Kal -- |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? "This newsgroup" is not exactly of one mind on the subject. "High end" itself is just a marketing term, reasonably applied to (and, of course, by) any manufacturer which markets its gear 1) predominantly on the basis of claimed superior sound, and 2) typically through other-than-mass-market channels. I believe the term was coined by G. Gordon Holt--unless it was Harry Pearson. In either case, he was marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. A better question, to my mind, would be, what's an audiophile, and how good does a system have to be to satisfy one? An audiophile is someone who cares about how recorded music sounds--as opposed to a music lover, who is interested in the music and not terribly concerned about things like accuracy of reproduction or realistic imaging. By that definition, you can be an audiophile with a $500 system, assuming you've chosen that system for its sound. bob -- |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Cost is not the issue. Kal Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). Some of the expensive loudspeakers and amplifiers would also drop out as they are beautiful cosmetically, but poor sonically (Bolzano-Villetri, Zingali and Unison for example.) We could have an interesting debate about such products like Halcro amplifiers, which, whilst measuring superbly, are ludicrously priced. I have always thought that an engineer is that person that can do for 50pence what any damn fool can do for £1, meaning that well engineered products achieve superb performance without necessarily being expensive. The cult of the expensive is not confined to hi-fi. Why do people buy Rolex watches when any quartz watch at £ 1.99 will be more accurate in time-keeping. It's obviously nothing to do with the Rolex watch being used for timekeeping, it's pride of ownership, status symbol, having something expensive, a whole raft of emotional reasons not very far removed from some hi-fi products that some people buy because they can, even though equivalent or better performance could be had for much less money. S. -- |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
In article ,
mike writes: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? From the guidelines: 2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this newsgroup operates is a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; or c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about a) or b). Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a given component may be considered 'high-end'. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator -- |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Cost is not the issue. While price and cost or not that critical, there aren't many serious speakers or serious amplifiers to drive them at the $500 end of the spectrum. Kal Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). Some of the expensive loudspeakers and amplifiers would also drop out as they are beautiful cosmetically, but poor sonically (Bolzano-Villetri, Zingali and Unison for example.) We could have an interesting debate about such products like Halcro amplifiers, which, whilst measuring superbly, are ludicrously priced. I have always thought that an engineer is that person that can do for 50pence what any damn fool can do for £1, meaning that well engineered products achieve superb performance without necessarily being expensive. The cult of the expensive is not confined to hi-fi. Why do people buy Rolex watches when any quartz watch at £ 1.99 will be more accurate in time-keeping. It's obviously nothing to do with the Rolex watch being used for timekeeping, it's pride of ownership, status symbol, having something expensive, a whole raft of emotional reasons not very far removed from some hi-fi products that some people buy because they can, even though equivalent or better performance could be had for much less money. That's altogether nuts. A Timex is really not that much more than a battery in a case, and the issue is not about telling time. I own a Rolex and several Timexes and in fact a Rolex is quite inexpensive in the realm of high end watches. -- |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
"bob" wrote in message
... mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? "This newsgroup" is not exactly of one mind on the subject. "High end" itself is just a marketing term, reasonably applied to (and, of course, by) any manufacturer which markets its gear 1) predominantly on the basis of claimed superior sound, and 2) typically through other-than-mass-market channels. I believe the term was coined by G. Gordon Holt--unless it was Harry Pearson. In either case, he was marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. Let's get your facts straight. Both Stereophile and The Abs!ute Sound refused to accept advertising for years, in order to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. They emerged specifically because the popular press audio mags did seem beholden to advertisers and were of the "everything sounds as good as everything else" persuasion. This at a time when even today's objectivists admit there was substantial differences between equipment. A better question, to my mind, would be, what's an audiophile, and how good does a system have to be to satisfy one? An audiophile is someone who cares about how recorded music sounds--as opposed to a music lover, who is interested in the music and not terribly concerned about things like accuracy of reproduction or realistic imaging. By that definition, you can be an audiophile with a $500 system, assuming you've chosen that system for its sound. True, assuming he can assemble a system for $500 that sounds like unamplified acoustic music when playing same. But that's not the question he asked. He asked what price range this group generally accepted as the beginning of the "high end".... the focus is on equipment, not on listening habits. Kal is right that cost isn't necessarily the defining factor...nor has it ever been. In the very first issues of The Abso!ute Sound Harry Pearson defined the high end as consisting of manufacturers who put sound fidelity ahead of marketing gimmicks, gee-gaws, and mass merchandising spiffs. Actually, the rec.audio.high-end definition of the purpose of the group pretty much assumes this same perspective....what is important is not so much the price as it is the priorities in the development of the equipment. Where reasonable fascimile to the real thing can be achieved at a modest price point, so much the better. And if a manufacturer wants to define their mission as an all-out assault on the state-of-the-art, price-be-damned, more power to them as well. Let's take an example I can talk about. Back in the early eighties, I auditioned preamps in both low and high price ranges. At that time, I couldn't find a mass-market preamp, including HK, that sounded like music. The Dynacos sounded good and beyond that it was slim pickin's. I ended up buying a dealer-demo ARC SP6B because it stood head and shoulders above most other preamps of its era in "realism" when playing the kind of music I mostly listen to. Fast forward to 2002. Multichannel. I want to replace the SP6B with six matched channels, and I can't afford to buy two more of same (and in any case they do not have a remote control to gang volume changes). So I start looking again...some mass market stuff continues to sound like s**t, but the mid-90's Onkyo preamps, while somewhat colored, actually beats the 6B on transparency and soundstaging, while not sounding quite so "real" overall. NAD is in the the running. And Arcam. In other words, one has to pick and choose at the low end but at least some become an acceptable trade-off. But a few (unnamed) would still not make the grade as "audiophile" in the sense that they simply interfere too much with realistic reproduction...their manufacturers either have other goals or are simply incompetent in reaching for realism. No before everybody jumps in, I believe the same is true for some expensive gear. There was some in the early eighties, and there is some today, that I wouldn't have in my system. But in general, the really good expensive stuff is still somewhat better (e.g. more "realistic" or if you like, leading more easily to a "suspension of disbelief") than the best of the entry-level "high end". But the entry-level high-end stuff wipes some of the mass-market stuff and is faithful to music, and that is enough to qualify it as "high-end". (Now for an admission...I'd still rather we called it "high fidelity" and got rid of all this controversy. Nobody ever questioned whether Dynaco or Eico were "high-fidelity" in intent or achievement.) -- |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
On 18 Jun 2006 17:51:22 GMT, "bob" wrote:
I believe the term was coined by G. Gordon Holt--unless it was Harry Pearson. In either case, he was marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. Holt invented the concept but Pearson coined the phrase. Kal -- |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
On 18 Jun 2006 19:10:55 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote: Kalman Rubinson wrote: Cost is not the issue. While price and cost or not that critical, there aren't many serious speakers or serious amplifiers to drive them at the $500 end of the spectrum. Sure. The same can be said of high-performance products in many fields, but not all. Kal -- |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
It is entirely a marketing invented phrase and is said to refer to the
"high-enough-price" spread so as to deliver some form of subjective experience, as agreed upon in the hifi press and among friends. It has little reality otherwise and fails to stand up to much poking around in, as relating to anything in the real world. -- |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Serge Auckland wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my ti= me is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Cost is not the issue. Kal Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). That makes absolutely no sense. There are many SETs and vinyl playback devices that completely meet your criteria. Why would you assume that no SETs or LP playback equipment do not "aim first and foremost at audio quality, then build quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics?" We could have an interesting debate about such products like Halcro amplifiers, which, whilst measuring superbly, are ludicrously priced. What is wrong with the prices of Halcros? Do you believe that they have a higher profit margin than most other gear? have always thought that an engineer is that person that can do for 50pence what any damn fool can do for =A31, Well who has managed to build amps with the same build quality and performance for half the price? meaning that well engineered products achieve superb performance without necessarily being expensive. Superb performance is highly subjective. So long as we live in a free society we are free to decide what reference we use to gauge excellence of performance. The cult of the expensive is not confined to hi-fi. Why do people buy Rolex watches when any quartz watch at =A3 1.99 will be more accurate in time-keeping. It's obviously nothing to do with the Rolex watch being used for timekeeping, it's pride of ownership, status symbol, having something expensive, a whole raft of emotional reasons not very far removed from some hi-fi products that some people buy because they can, even though equivalent or better performance could be had for much less money. Did you buy a Rolex for these reasons? Scott -- |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
bob wrote:
mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? "This newsgroup" is not exactly of one mind on the subject. "High end" itself is just a marketing term, reasonably applied to (and, of course, by) any manufacturer which markets its gear 1) predominantly on the basis of claimed superior sound, and 2) typically through other-than-mass-market channels. I believe the term was coined by G. Gordon Holt--unless it was Harry Pearson. In either case, he was marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. It was Harry Pearson and he was not marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. He was editing a magazine that served to review such gear. A better question, to my mind, would be, what's an audiophile, http://reference.aol.com/dictionary?...pbtn=3DLook+Up Main Entry: au=B7dio=B7phile Function: noun Pronunciation: 'o -de-O-"fil : a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction and how good does a system have to be to satisfy one? That would asume that audiophiles are of a singular mind on the subject. I don't believe this is true. An audiophile is someone who cares about how recorded music sounds--as opposed to a music lover, who is interested in the music and not terribly concerned about things like accuracy of reproduction or realistic imaging. You are creating a false dichotomy. One can be a music loer and still care about things like "accuracy of reproduction or realistic imaging." By that definition, you can be an audiophile with a $500 system, assuming you've chosen that system for its sound. Actualy you can be an audiophile by the correct definition as I posted with a 500 dollar system. There is nothing in the definition that sets a minimum price level for an audiophile's system. You just have to be an enthusiast. Scott -- |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
|
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
|
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? "This newsgroup" is not exactly of one mind on the subject. "High end" itself is just a marketing term, reasonably applied to (and, of course, by) any manufacturer which markets its gear 1) predominantly on the basis of claimed superior sound, and 2) typically through other-than-mass-market channels. I believe the term was coined by G. Gordon Holt--unless it was Harry Pearson. In either case, he was marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. Let's get your facts straight. Both Stereophile and The Abs!ute Sound refused to accept advertising for years, in order to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. Fair point, given the history. BTW, "served to market" is not and was not meant to be pejorative. Any magazine which takes advertising "serves to market" the goods advertised therein, as a simple matter of capitalism. And I don't think you'd disagree that one of the aims of Holt and Pearson, even before they began to take advertising, was to promote a particular market segment. Nuthin' wrong with that, even to good liberals like us, Harry. (BTW, liked your letter in the Times!) They emerged specifically because the popular press audio mags did seem beholden to advertisers and were of the "everything sounds as good as everything else" persuasion. This at a time when even today's objectivists admit there was substantial differences between equipment. A better question, to my mind, would be, what's an audiophile, and how good does a system have to be to satisfy one? An audiophile is someone who cares about how recorded music sounds--as opposed to a music lover, who is interested in the music and not terribly concerned about things like accuracy of reproduction or realistic imaging. By that definition, you can be an audiophile with a $500 system, assuming you've chosen that system for its sound. True, assuming he can assemble a system for $500 that sounds like unamplified acoustic music when playing same. But that's not the question he asked. Which is why I began the paragraph with the words, "A better question, to my mind, would be..." Also, note that I haven't adopted your definition of the goal, i.e., "sounds like unamplified acoustic music when playing same." That is certainly A goal for many audiophiles, but it doesn't have to be THE goal for every audiophile. I think an audiophile can pursue any sound he likes, realistic or not. What makes him an audiophile is that he is pursuing *a sound*, and not just listening to music. He asked what price range this group generally accepted as the beginning of the "high end".... the focus is on equipment, not on listening habits. Which, IMHO, is a big part of what is wrong with "the high end" as reflected in both the audio press and the Internet forums--it is too much about the equipment, and not enough about the listening. Kal is right that cost isn't necessarily the defining factor...nor has it ever been. In the very first issues of The Abso!ute Sound Harry Pearson defined the high end as consisting of manufacturers who put sound fidelity ahead of marketing gimmicks, gee-gaws, and mass merchandising spiffs. That's actually not far from my definition above: "any manufacturer which markets its gear 1) predominantly on the basis of claimed superior sound, and 2) typically through other-than-mass-market channels." See, we're bridging the gap here! snip (Now for an admission...I'd still rather we called it "high fidelity" and got rid of all this controversy. Nobody ever questioned whether Dynaco or Eico were "high-fidelity" in intent or achievement.) Amen to that! bob -- |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 22:12:26 GMT, wrote: It was Harry Pearson and he was not marketing a magazine that served to market said gear. He was editing a magazine that served to review such gear. That's amusing. HP may have been editing a magazine that served to review such gear but, in effect, that same publication did serve those who were marketing such gear. I don't know why you find my comments amusing. Certainly positive reviews can help marketers market a product but that isn't the *purpose* of reviews. The purpose is to help the consumer. I suspect those who recieved less than positive reviews ( they were many back in the day) didn't feel so well serviced by TAS in their marketing efforts. Scott -- |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). Very good observation about vinyl, and that agrees with my attitude: Moderately good turntables and cartridges are good enough because the vinyl records themselves, especially if worn, are not all that good. No need to strengthen a link in the chain that is not the weakest link. Anyhow, today's moderately good turntables and cartridges are not bad at all by the standards of 1970! -- |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
MC wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). Very good observation about vinyl, and that agrees with my attitude: Moderately good turntables and cartridges are good enough because the vinyl records themselves, especially if worn, are not all that good. No need to strengthen a link in the chain that is not the weakest link. Anyhow, today's moderately good turntables and cartridges are not bad at all by the standards of 1970! It may agree with your attitude but I don't think it reflects reality at all. There are substantial gaines with high end rigs over anything available in 1970. *Any* record will benifit substantially from such an upgrade. It never ceases to amaze me that people who wish to dismiss vinyl cite examples that have nothing to do with the true capacities of the medium. Scott -- |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Thank you Mike Mueller Interestingly, no one really addressed my question in black and white. I will start again. I am classically trained. I played the violin and in many orchestras for 15 years. I still play occasionally. I have a friend who has been a recording engineer for 20 years. He himself played in many rock and jazz bands,he manufactures a very high end tubed microphone, and has allowed me to sit in on many a recording session. What this means is I know what an instrument should sound like in large halls, chamber music, studio's and live jazz venues. When I was 16 years old I bought my first system. A marantz 1060 console amp and a 105b tuner. Pretty good stuff in the early 70's I could not afford speakers. I learned how to build speakers. That is how I became a cabinetmaker/furniture maker. As my speakers became better, I upgraded equipment. I began with a luxman Intergrated. A year later, I went to a Luxman MO2 power amp, CO2 preamp(great mm/mc phono stage still) and TO2 tuner. Very good lower end Audiophile equipment.This was before they were bought by Alpine. Speakers continued to develope. Something was missing. Well it's on to tube equipment. I started with 2 St-70's. Moved on to 2 MK3's and stayed there for 5 years. Pre-amps were a Dynaco Pas 3, than a Heathkit SP2 ( dual mono pre-amps in a single box) than a Fisher 300cx. Final I settled on an Audio Research Sp9. Something was still not right. I upgraded CD players and settled on a Rega Jupiter. I upgraded Turntables and cartridges. Luxman turntable, Philips 313 quartz with a Gardo Gold, MMF- with first the stock Cartridge, then the Grado Gold,then a Shure V15mx. Final have settled on a Rega 5 with the shure cartridge and the power supply upgrade. I added a Tascam 32 1/4" 2 track to save friends vinyl albums. Amps finally have gone to the Prima Luna Mono tube amps. Sometimes I use KT88's( base punch)some times EL34's (seimens are really sweet) Speakers are always evolving. This summers project are Avalon Ceramic Clones. I already have the ceramic drivers. All this leads to one thing. How real does the music sound. Rock is for the most part studio mixed.( try dire staits brother in arms in 200gram vinyl,Wow) So I listen for is instruments sounding real. Jazz is another thing. Many recording are live in studio or at some venue. So they are more complicated. Again, how real does the instruments sound. How do voices sound. I listen for enjoyment. At times I will get chills. Test you system with Duke Ellingtons 3 suites CD. If it is really good, you can actually hear 3 or 4 tiers of musicians with you eye's closed. Sunday I had Dish Network over installing equipment. The tech kept looking over my gear. His idea of good sound was of coarse an IPOD. His only commnet was, "it sounds like the band is here in your living room" Tha sums up what high end is to me. Equipment that can reproduce music that sounds real. Price wise, I do not think you can reach a level of real music reproduction until you move on to more expensive equipment. So again, aside from mid-fi gear I see mentioned daily, What constitues high end to the people in this group. Thank you Mike Mueller -- |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
MC wrote:
Moderately good turntables and cartridges are good enough because the vinyl records themselves, especially if worn, are not all that good. No need to strengthen a link in the chain that is not the weakest link. I don't usually come to the defense of the vinylphiles, but I will in this case. Every little bit helps, and if vinyl reproduction that's slightly better in any dimension provides a more satisfying sound to someone, more power to him, I say. Four-figure vinyl rigs make a lot more sense to me than four-figure digital disk players. Anyhow, today's moderately good turntables and cartridges are not bad at all by the standards of 1970! In 1970 I was a kid listening to cassettes on a little mono "tape recorder." But I'll take your word for it. bob -- |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
|
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
"bob" wrote in message
... MC wrote: Moderately good turntables and cartridges are good enough because the vinyl records themselves, especially if worn, are not all that good. No need to strengthen a link in the chain that is not the weakest link. I don't usually come to the defense of the vinylphiles, but I will in this case. Every little bit helps, and if vinyl reproduction that's slightly better in any dimension provides a more satisfying sound to someone, more power to him, I say. Four-figure vinyl rigs make a lot more sense to me than four-figure digital disk players. Agreed! I overstated my point. Certainly, with vinyl reproduction, there are lots of analog components that *can* differ substantially between cheap and expensive models. With digital, there is much less room for variation. Anyhow, today's moderately good turntables and cartridges are not bad at all by the standards of 1970! In 1970 I was a kid listening to cassettes on a little mono "tape recorder." But I'll take your word for it. I'm not that old either... I've been looking at old magazines. Although, admittedly, I did have a stereo in 1970... a rather primitive one with lots of hum. -- |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: The cult of the expensive is not confined to hi-fi. Why do people buy Rolex watches when any quartz watch at £ 1.99 will be more accurate in time-keeping. It's obviously nothing to do with the Rolex watch being used for timekeeping, it's pride of ownership, status symbol, having something expensive, a whole raft of emotional reasons not very far removed from some hi-fi products that some people buy because they can, even though equivalent or better performance could be had for much less money. Rolex builds a very fine crafted time piece. No $1.99 quartz watch will ever compare. A rolex will last a hundred years. Your $1.99 quartz watch will last a few months. Before Citizen came out with their line of Dive Watches, many divers used Roles watches. They have a timing ring and are good down to 200 plus feet. When I first learned to dive, a few of my instructors had Rolex watches. It isn't a money thing. It's a quality thing. They work and under water your life depends on that. I've seen cheap, quartz dive watches crap out all the time. I still have a gold Omega given to me at age 13. Every year it is serviced and cleaned($30.00) and 45 years later its still running and is a nice conversation piece. I also have a 45 year old Chronograph with Hour, second, month, date, day, and Moon dial. No $1.99 quart can ever replicated the craftmenship that went into making that watch. Good watches are pieces of art in them selves. The same holds true for well crafted audio equipment. I'd rather look at a Zebra or burlwood louspeaker with 20 layers of hand rubbed lacquer instead of a mass produced, black painted piece of MDF. I guess it boiles down to class. And no, money does not buy class. You either have it or you don't Mike Mueller I agree with your views on class, and, incidentally, on watches. I too have a number of classic watches which I admire for their craftsmanship and their beauty, but not as practical timepieces. (I don't dive) Your comments about good-looking loudspeakers as opposed to mass-produced pieces of MDF is also in accordance with my views, but, in this case we are both admiring the craftsmanship, the finish, the looks. We are separating hi-fi equipment into two functions, the aesthetic and the practical, i.e. its sound reproducing abilities . If you are saying for something to be "high-end" it needs to have both functions, that is a valid point of view. My concern is that so much of what is sold as high-end, sacrifices the latter for the former. S. -- |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike writes:
mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Thank you Mike Mueller Interestingly, no one really addressed my question in black and white. Well, no. That's because there is no black-and-white answer: there is a continuum between high-end audio and the rest of the market. Black-and-white thinking does no-one any good. I will start again. I am classically trained. [ ... ] All this leads to one thing. How real does the music sound. Rock is for the most part studio mixed.( try dire staits brother in arms in 200gram vinyl,Wow) So I listen for is instruments sounding real. Jazz is another thing. Many recording are live in studio or at some venue. So they are more complicated. Again, how real does the instruments sound. How do voices sound. I listen for enjoyment. At times I will get chills. Test you system with Duke Ellingtons 3 suites CD. If it is really good, you can actually hear 3 or 4 tiers of musicians with you eye's closed. You won't find much disagreement there. Sunday I had Dish Network over installing equipment. The tech kept looking over my gear. His idea of good sound was of coarse an IPOD. His only commnet was, "it sounds like the band is here in your living room" Tha sums up what high end is to me. Equipment that can reproduce music that sounds real. Or there. Price wise, I do not think you can reach a level of real music reproduction until you move on to more expensive equipment. Or there, probably. The real issue is whether the "more expensive equipment" that is best for listening to music is necessarily the very expensive kind made by boutique outfits. Some people here suspect that's sometimes more to do with jewellery than sound quality. There is more than one approach to high-end. Compare and contrast: * Cary 805 SET amp + hand-built custom horn speakers. * Quad 99 amp + 989 speakers. * ATC SCM150 active speakers. Now, all of these are certainly expensive, and they're *totally* different. They're all what might fall into the "high end audio" marketing category. So again, aside from mid-fi gear I see mentioned daily, What constitues high end to the people in this group. I have no way to know what "mid-fi" gear you're talking about. What I do know for sure is that arguing about what does or does not constitute high-end is not likely to be productive. It makes far more sense to discuss what *sounds* good, and that is a rather different matter. Arguing about a cut-off price for "high end" is silly. It might lead to the absurd situation where a breakthrough low-cost product would be off-limits for discussion. Andrew. -- |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
The same holds true for well crafted audio equipment. I'd rather look at a Zebra or burlwood louspeaker with 20 layers of hand rubbed lacquer instead of a mass produced, black painted piece of MDF. I guess it boiles down to class. And no, money does not buy class. You either have it or you don't Well, now we know what constitutes the high end to YOU. bob -- |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
Sunday I had Dish Network over installing equipment. The tech kept looking over my gear. His idea of good sound was of coarse an IPOD. His only commnet was, "it sounds like the band is here in your living room" Tha sums up what high end is to me. Equipment that can reproduce music that sounds real. Price wise, I do not think you can reach a level of real music reproduction until you move on to more expensive equipment. So again, aside from mid-fi gear I see mentioned daily, What constitues high end to the people in this group. Thank you Mike Mueller Basically, you're unhappy that no one gave you the answer *you wanted* to your question . Some people equate 'high end' with 'high price' (though a glance and the actual performance of some high priced high-end gear in the bench test sections of Stereophile et al. shows us that that equation is not ironclad) . Some do not. I'm sure in the end the only correct answer is ''high end' gear is gear that makes home audio sound good to me'. Like Duke said, if it sounds good, it is good. That includes gear you might call 'mid fi'. Deal with it. -- |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
|
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Serge Auckland wrote:
The same argument goes for SETs. Why would I want to buy an inferior amplifier that cost more than much better performing units? Because it sounds better to you--or at least to anyone who buys one. There's no law that says we all have to prefer technically superior reproduction. bob -- |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Cost is not the issue. Kal Indeed. My personal view is that anything is "high-end" that aims first and foremost at audio quality, then equally build-quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics. In my view this makes QUAD high end, whilst eliminates all and every single-ended triode amplifier regardless of price, all vinyl reproducers (although I would accept a separate category for vinyl reproducers on the basis that it doesn't matter how good the reproducer is, the limitation is still the poor quality of the vinyl medium itself). That makes absolutely no sense. There are many SETs and vinyl playback devices that completely meet your criteria. Why would you assume that no SETs or LP playback equipment do not "aim first and foremost at audio quality, then build quality, reliability and usability, and then cosmetics?" We could have an interesting debate about such products like Halcro amplifiers, which, whilst measuring superbly, are ludicrously priced. What is wrong with the prices of Halcros? Do you believe that they have a higher profit margin than most other gear? have always thought that an engineer is that person that can do for 50pence what any damn fool can do for ?1, Well who has managed to build amps with the same build quality and performance for half the price? meaning that well engineered products achieve superb performance without necessarily being expensive. Superb performance is highly subjective. So long as we live in a free society we are free to decide what reference we use to gauge excellence of performance. The cult of the expensive is not confined to hi-fi. Why do people buy Rolex watches when any quartz watch at ? 1.99 will be more accurate in time-keeping. It's obviously nothing to do with the Rolex watch being used for timekeeping, it's pride of ownership, status symbol, having something expensive, a whole raft of emotional reasons not very far removed from some hi-fi products that some people buy because they can, even though equivalent or better performance could be had for much less money. Did you buy a Rolex for these reasons? Scott No, I don't own a Rolex, I have a Junghans radio controlled watch that keeps atomic accuracy, at a fraction of the cost. Why would I want an expensive watch that wasn't as accurate as even a cheap quartz? The same argument goes for SETs. Why would I want to buy an inferior amplifier that cost more than much better performing units? Because it would show you have *class*. ___ -S Still not bloggin'. -- |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
mike wrote:
I know I've answered a few posts over the last year, but most of my time is spent just reading. What I have noticed is that most posts are about mid-fi equipment. What is considered high end to this newsgroup? $500.00 systems or $5,000.00 dollar systems? Thank you Mike Mueller -- YIKES! I have deliberately not posted to this until now. A few comments: Fly-poop on the right. Pepper on the left. Much of what has transpired here seems to have been an exercise in separating the co-mingled aforementioned items. Rolex Watches: After the first couple of hundred dollars, the rest is eyewash and the ability to state "I wear a Rolex". If that has value to someone, then it is a perfectly valid reason to purchase a Rolex. "Looks" are far down the list from and after performance, build-quality, longevity, ergonomics and efficiency, also in about that order. Bluntly, 16 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer vs. better caps and controls, or transformer(s) is a no-brainer. This is and remains my opinion, not to be taken as dictum. Most cost differences are sonically invisible. That is, they make _NO_ difference by any meaningful human-based test. With the specific statement that I am not even remotely referring to "published specifications" but only to those things that may be consistently discerned via true blind testing, even by 'interested parties'. Vinyl has as much validity as a source as any other. That it has inherent difficulties and that it no more resembles its original source than any given OTA analog FM broadcast is entirely irrelevant. Very damned little recorded music as-reproduced is much better than the first cousin of the original playing of it. So, TTs & cartridges, like Rolex Watches reach a point where the differences amount to the eyewash... already stated as a perfectly valid option for a buyer. Cutting to the chase: High-end is what _YOU_ feel to be that system that does not leave you niggling for something better. Period. Or those systems, if you like (as I do) to experiment with different technologies. As one of the shortest posts stated so well: Cost has nothing to do with it. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
wrote in message ...
mike wrote: ... snip Cutting to the chase: High-end is what _YOU_ feel to be that system that does not leave you niggling for something better. Period. Or those systems, if you like (as I do) to experiment with different technologies. As one of the shortest posts stated so well: Cost has nothing to do with it. Sorry, Peter, but I must respectfully disagree. Do you not recall that awhile back I pointed out that your equipment, inflated by the CPI to todays prices, would put your system into five figures. That is hardly chump-change. And that despite the fact that you've had the advantage of the test of time to buy only pieces that represent something of a "best buy" from their day. As an example, Dynaco Stereo 70 from the mid-sixties is the pretty much the equivalent in price of a VTL ST-85 today. Ditto for Eico, Scott, Fisher, Sherwood. So, you bought used.....good for you. But that doesn't mean they were inexpensive pieces. -- |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... mike wrote: .. snip Cutting to the chase: High-end is what _YOU_ feel to be that system that does not leave you niggling for something better. Period. Or those systems, if you like (as I do) to experiment with different technologies. As one of the shortest posts stated so well: Cost has nothing to do with it. Sorry, Peter, but I must respectfully disagree. Do you not recall that awhile back I pointed out that your equipment, inflated by the CPI to todays prices, would put your system into five figures. That is hardly chump-change. And that despite the fact that you've had the advantage of the test of time to buy only pieces that represent something of a "best buy" from their day. As an example, Dynaco Stereo 70 from the mid-sixties is the pretty much the equivalent in price of a VTL ST-85 today. Ditto for Eico, Scott, Fisher, Sherwood. So, you bought used.....good for you. But that doesn't mean they were inexpensive pieces. Harry: I have been buying "used" and trading, and dumpster-diving for over 30 years now, going back to a Rabco SL-8E arm pulled out of a dumpster in 1973, well used but in the original box, complete with a decent (for the time) Shure cartridge, an M91E. I also payed $30 for my first pair of speakers, a pair of KLH Model 22s, then $40 for a pair of NIB AR4x, that same year. As I was working even when in college, that was not a great deal of money. But I learned early on that having Laphroig tastes with a Night Train wallet would require some creative thinking and some willingness to learn. I found out early on that a certain type of person would reject anything once it failed once. I also learned that this same sort of person would spend-the-earth for the latest wrinkle in their chosen vice. So, a little befriending of some of the better audio shops in this area got me 'first dibs' on all sorts of stuff that came in the door for trade. Usually with very minor defects... if any. Usually at prices a tiny fraction of 'new' as most of these shops saw such trades as necessary evils, wanting no parts of repairing, reselling and *RE WARRANTING* these items. Stating that the Revox A720 for which I paid a couple of hundred bucks, then had serviced for half-again more was an 'expensive' piece when-new is absolutely true. Or the complete Scott system (based on the LK150) that I traded a radio for, or the complete Dynaco system similarly acquired. But it is entirely not relevant to this discussion. What I have done and continue to do is within the capacity of any patient, able-minded individual. eBay makes it even easier. Not to go on too much, but I have a sniping program that I have set up over the years. It searches eBay every day, and those items that meet the parameters I have set in are presented to me a couple of times per week for 'approval'. Sometimes I will get 50+ possibles per week, sometimes none for weeks. I average something under 2% success for snipes set. But those are _REAL_ bargains. Add to this a reputation in the area, at least two radio swaps per year, a plethora of local fleas and garage sales, that Dynaco, Acrosound, Hafler, Fisher, Sylvania, RCA, Heil, and a number of others had factories within 50 miles of where I sit, and my cup runneth over. No, I do not have a Krell amp, or a Mark Levinson... Nor do I own a Rolex (in fact, I own only one watch, a keywind fusee pocket-watch). It is a matter of taste, time, inclination and opportunity. The nice thing about a hobby is that it is open-ended. Maybe one day that Krell will be sitting at the curb because a couple of fuses blew... Exactly the way I got my first Dynaco FM-3 tuner and almost a year later from the same curb a Rabco ST-7 with a slipped (not missing or broken) belt. There is also a great deal of satisfaction in taking something that is not working, and bringing it back to life to not only work, but work well and work reliably. The best part of the hobby after the listening. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote: wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: Loads snipped The same argument goes for SETs. Why would I want to buy an inferior amplifier that cost more than much better performing units? How do you know they are audibly inferior? Have you ever compared one on a suitable system to an amp you consider to be "superior?" And by compare I mean listenng and picking a preference based on sound. Scott I certainly have, and I've never heard one I could listen to for any time. A SS or PPUL valve amplifier will beat a SET any time. S -- |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 18 Jun 2006 15:07:22 GMT, mike wrote: Loads snipped The same argument goes for SETs. Why would I want to buy an inferior amplifier that cost more than much better performing units? How do you know they are audibly inferior? Have you ever compared one on a suitable system to an amp you consider to be "superior?" And by compare I mean listenng and picking a preference based on sound. Scott I certainly have, Well that's good to know. At least you gave em a try. and I've never heard one I could listen to for any time. A SS or PPUL valve amplifier will beat a SET any time. That's an interesting statement. How many have you listened to and with which speakers? Personally I tried a WAVAC amp with my old Martin Logans but in comparison to my ARC D-115 they were substantially inferior. No surprise there really. OTOH I have heard the WAVAC 100 watt amps with some very pricey horn speakers and they I didn't hear any problems that I could pin on the amp. I didn't get to compare it with other amps on that system though. Scott -- |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
|
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Vinyl Rules! wrote:
When I listen to this el cheapo system in the guest bedroom I question just how much real engineering progress has been made since the 1970's in audio equipment design and how much more sophisticated the marketing is for so-called "high end" audio. Well, CD players at least have improved a lot since then. :-) Speakers certainly have as well, though that doesn't mean that every current speaker will sound better (to you) than every old speaker. And while amps may not be much better at the state-of-the-art level, I suspect there's more consistent quality at the budget level. bob -- |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
wrote:
wrote: That's an interesting statement. How many have you listened to and with which speakers? Scott: That he did make an absolute statement does give you the edgewise you need for yours. However, had he added the codicil: "All other things being equal", it is likely that his statement would be inarguable from any rational point of view. Preferences are indeed inarguable from any rational point of view. but I am not trying to argue with his preferences just better understand them. SET systems are unique in that they do not concern themselves with most of the parameters "normally" taken into account when assembling a system. They appeal to certain types of individuals for any of various reasons, possibly those same sorts of people who drove Jaguars when they were equipped with SU side-draft carburetors and Lucas electrics. Not a rational vehicle by any measure, however much desired. But just as that Jaguar has its place in the automotive pantheon, so do SET-based systems. That they consume vast quantities of time, energy and cash from their misguided adherents... who then must foray into so-called "full-range, single-driver horn speakers" in order to accomodate the very real limitations of SET is another mark of irrationality... that Jaguar driver with two identical cars so that one could be in the shop at all times. De gustibus non est disputandum. There are those that eat (and presumably enjoy) tripe (animal stomach lining), sauerkraut (rotten cabbage), and lutefisk (rotten fish soaked in lye). Such is the power of SET. This may come as a surprise to you but there are any number of audiophiles using SETs with multiple driver speakers. Scott -- |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote: That's an interesting statement. How many have you listened to and with which speakers? Scott: That he did make an absolute statement does give you the edgewise you need for yours. However, had he added the codicil: "All other things being equal", it is likely that his statement would be inarguable from any rational point of view. Preferences are indeed inarguable from any rational point of view. but I am not trying to argue with his preferences just better understand them. SET systems are unique in that they do not concern themselves with most of the parameters "normally" taken into account when assembling a system. They appeal to certain types of individuals for any of various reasons, possibly those same sorts of people who drove Jaguars when they were equipped with SU side-draft carburetors and Lucas electrics. Not a rational vehicle by any measure, however much desired. But just as that Jaguar has its place in the automotive pantheon, so do SET-based systems. That they consume vast quantities of time, energy and cash from their misguided adherents... who then must foray into so-called "full-range, single-driver horn speakers" in order to accomodate the very real limitations of SET is another mark of irrationality... that Jaguar driver with two identical cars so that one could be in the shop at all times. De gustibus non est disputandum. There are those that eat (and presumably enjoy) tripe (animal stomach lining), sauerkraut (rotten cabbage), and lutefisk (rotten fish soaked in lye). Such is the power of SET. This may come as a surprise to you but there are any number of audiophiles using SETs with multiple driver speakers. Especially Klipsch horns and their 50's brethren. -- |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
what is considered high end audio?
Harry Lavo wrote:
Especially Klipsch horns and their 50's brethren. You are absolutely right. I should have added: Or spend thousands of dollars and acres of real-estate to have multiple-driver systems... It is funny, when certain choices are made, certain problems are created. And each time one of those is solved, other ones crop up. If there were a universally agree-upon solution to Audio, then this NG simply would not exist. Writing for myself, I take the brute-force approach to amplification. Given that speakers are (IMO) the weakest link in any system and should be the place where one starts rather than ends in the acquisition process, having "Lots-O-Watts" (and presumably very clean ones) removes one restriction from the choice of speakers available. I also prefer to have speakers capable of visceral bass if that bass is in the original signal, an additional complication. And at the risk of repetition, I would state categorically that after a certain minimum level of quality is reached with amplification, the actual discernable differences in sound as prices increase are minimal, if not negligble all other things being equal. Not so at all with speakers. By "differences", again to repeat, I mean those things that may be reliably and repeatably detected through blind testing, even by interested parties. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
