Dick Pierce wrote:
IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of
the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his
arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was
in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second,
just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine
is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible,
uninformed pish-posh around.

rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is
entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance.
We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the
Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything.


So does that mean you agree with the definition of High End here or not? The
above definition seems to fit well with the points posted in the
rec.audio.high-end FAQs.

(Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you
want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and
manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the
sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has
nothing
at all to do with specs.

Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations"

Perhaps, but that's still High End audio, like it or not.

that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the
likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with
reality.

Just the sound.

Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything.

So High End is about snobbery? I think you could put forth a better definition
than that, Dick. (Your tone makes it sound like you might have been excluded
from the club...)
Regards,
Mike