Following the suggestion of moderator David E. Bath:
__________________________________________________ ____

If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story,
then we might as well pack it in. Most of the mass market electronics
have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Which does beg the
question: what is so high end about high end?

A good subject for a thread IMHO.
__________________________________________________ ____

Now 'high end' as defined here on RAHE is not high end as
thought of by most of the public. The 'high end' commonly
attributed to magazines like Stereophile and TAS. So I am
not speaking about the 'high end' related to those publications.
I am referring to the 'high end' of RAHE. Something I think
would more properly and honestly be called simply high
fidelity. I also think RAHE would more honestly be called
rec.audio.high.fidelity.

What is 'high end', what is not?

Dennis

"Dennis Moore"
wrote
What is 'high end', what is not?


Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here. (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. Just the sound. Today, the list would be much longer,
but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
reciever qualify? Probably not.
Regards,
Mike

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:22:18 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

"Dennis Moore"
wrote
What is 'high end', what is not?


Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here. (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.

A useful definition, with which I concur completely. I also like his
definition of 'The Absolute Sound' reference as being that of a live
acoustic performance in a concert hall.

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. Just the sound.

Um, actually, you can't have 'high end' sound as defined above,
without good specs. This is not of course a commutative statement!

Today, the list would be much longer,
but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
reciever qualify? Probably not.

Would several other 'mainstream' brands qualify? Definitely. As
defined by Harry, 'high end' qualification has nothing to do with
'designer labels'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Mkuller wrote:
"Dennis Moore"
wrote
What is 'high end', what is not?


Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here.

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.

(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"
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.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

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

Mkuller wrote:
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.

My impression of "high-end" is based on experiences with so-called
high-end equipment and the taste of audiophiles in general. "High-end",
as I percive it, is to emulate a "live" music event, regardsless of what
recording techniques have been used on the music that is reproduced, and
make this as pleasant as possible for the listener.

This is probably the opposite of a "monitor" sound, where you can hear
every detail that's actually on the record. A "monitor" sound will
unfortunately reveal that the majority of LP's and CD's sounds really
really bad.....

Stig Erik Tangen