|
|
Post by John on Aug 6, 2018 7:05:00 GMT
In the Allo Katana dac section a question was raised "what does high end mean". I thought it might be good to carry on the debate on a separate thread.
Is it about cost. A fancy case. Sound quality or a combination of these. Should equipment like the Caiman Seg and Allo One player be taken seriously. I certainly do.
For myself I have to admit that most of my set up would not be considered high end by most. But I heard only a few high end systems that match it in terms of scale dynamics and soundstage and heard a few that I find deeply coloured and even uninspiring. I remember visiting one guy £100000 plus system and just being shocked how bland it was (he does not post here).
I like most people want the best sound I can get within the budget I can afford so in my case I use a combination of pro gear, small specialist manufacturers that offer quality within a price I can afford, modifications to existing equipment, vintage equipment and DIY.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 6, 2018 7:41:54 GMT
It's about attaining a level of sound quality that allows deep insight into the music or realistic reproduction of acoustic instruments or whatever your particular bag is.
I have heard superb inexpensive systems (especially with those small Elac speakers) and unlistenable six-figure systems in my time.
High end sound has very little to do with price.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Aug 6, 2018 8:28:01 GMT
"High end " hifi is different things to different people.
a) Sound quality.
b) Price.
c) Presentation / casework / elite brands.
-- or all 3.
Even those who agree with me that it is all about sound quality will differ as to which components are high end because they are interested in different musics and even if the music is the same, different aspects of the musical presentation. I tend to focus at the quiet end of the dynamic spectrum while others are looking out for maximum impact - the two approaches take you to very different equipment solutions and musical presentations.
I agree with Martin that high end sound has little to do with price -- my current and favourite DAC retails at £90, my current and favourite speakers now retail at £25k.
I remain very pleased with both purchases and consider them both to be high end!
You just have to look at the contents of the annual Munich High End Show to realise how many people's thought processes work - it seems to focus as much on physical presentation as sound quality. We all look at these things differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 6, 2018 8:41:44 GMT
my current and favourite DAC retails at £90, my current and favourite speakers now retail at £25k. Very similarly, my current DAC (modified Beresford Caiman SEG) cost £250 and my current speakers (Usher Be-20) retail north of £20k. Both are very definitely high end in sound. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Aug 6, 2018 8:56:44 GMT
In my view it's performance at whatever cost. In the DAC world think the 4 box DCS at £66.7K, that is high end both technical, visually and audibly.
Too many items are called High End when they are clearly nowhere near.
Have you been to Munich John ?
Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 9:36:44 GMT
In my view it's performance at whatever cost. In the DAC world think the 4 box DCS at £66.7K, that is high end both technical, visually and audibly. Too many items are called High End when they are clearly nowhere near. Dave Hi Dave You have illustrated a point in question there, the DCS maybe all those things, but it sure as hell doesn't deliver a engaging performance by any stretch of the imagination. least not forget the number of cables required to actually make it work, I know of at least three owners who have spent virtuallty the cost of that again on the cables for that digital stack Quite a few more dac's above that price point and well above it to! Are they any good only the individual who is using them can tell you that. In the old days high end was a term for expensive and exclusive usually in a very well made and good looking box it also give the impression that one was of more social standing than other possibly  I feel what the posters are trying to get across the have a very decent sound for a far more realistic outlay, no they equipment doesn't have all of the latest bells and whistles, however they are really involving systems unlike the above which just paints a very well defined and resolved imitation of the musical performance imho |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 6, 2018 9:40:29 GMT
...I could add to that any number of Magico speakers, Constellation amplifiers and other equipment that looks fab, costs the earth but leaves me unmoved.
Somebody's idea of high end, clearly. Not mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Aug 6, 2018 9:41:25 GMT
I feel what the posters are trying to get across the have a very decent sound for a far more realistic outlay,
Agreed, but then it would be called good value for money not High End. Otherwise what would you call High End ?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 6, 2018 9:47:43 GMT
It's an argument, Dave, and it comes back to: is high end relating to the target market, appearance and cost? Or is it just about the sound quality?
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Aug 6, 2018 10:01:02 GMT
It's what I said above and illustrated; and by what the ordinary man in the street would perceive after having visited Munich ! 
You can't just reassign values and words  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 6, 2018 10:05:04 GMT
I am totally okay with my system not being seen as High End, perhaps we need a.New term for value based systems that meet the aspirations of their owners and outperform many systems costing X times more
I not been to Munich much as I like a fancy box, just no point as could never afford it.
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Aug 6, 2018 12:13:04 GMT
Here’s my take on 'high-end'.
It is a concept that has been developed by marketeers and magazines; I would define it broadly as the following -
‘the pursuit of the best sound without compromise'
The problem is that it is only a concept and doesn’t represent a truth, indeed it is far from it. It has been developed so that when you pay x thousands of pounds for your bling, you feel that you have bought into an exclusive club and have bought ’state of the art’. And with much ‘high-end’ gear, much of the cost goes towards appearance and not enough towards sound. That is why it is possible to buy better sounding gear for a lot less money. Of course not all ‘high end’ gear falls into this category - there are plenty of serious designers trying to make the very best at a given price point, but there seem to be just as many that appear to be little more than ‘acoustic jewellers’ and masters of bling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 12:15:56 GMT
To me, expense and what things sound like are two very different things. A lot of people, myself included up until relatively recently, believe that the more you spend, the better it MUST be.
What I have found is that once you move away from the dominating brands, you start to find other brands which provide equal or in a lot of case better sound for a lot less money.
To give an example, my current Cambridge Audio CXC/Beresford Caiman SEG combo easily outshines my previous Streamer and CD player (Naim NDX and CDX2) for around 8 times less outlay, so it can be done.
Part of this is absolutely because you end up paying for the brand name and reputation, rather than the components used inside the equipment.
For me, as long as it sounds good, cost is almost irrelevant, as long as it is within the budget I can afford.
The other thing is that companies like the ones Martin mentions above, make wonderfully pretty equipment, with measurements which are top bar, but just sound soulless and what I would describe as hifi with no musicality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Aug 6, 2018 13:03:46 GMT
Merriam Webster defines "high end" as "of superior quality or sophistication and usually high in price."
Dictionary.com gives the definition "being the most expensive and technically sophisticated:"
Cambridge Dictionary dot com says "intended for people who want very good quality products and who do not mind how much they cost - wanting very good quality products, and willing to pay a lot of money for them."
The common theme seems to indicate that quality and price are inextricably linked when talking about "high end."
High Quality + High Price = High End.
Shit Quality + High price, however = Expensive Shit.
Low Price + High Quality = The Dog's Bollox.
Of course, you then need to define "high price" and "low price" because what's a high price to one person may be chicken feed to another. What's a bargain for one person may still be way out of their price range for another. It's all subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 6, 2018 13:22:41 GMT
Shit Quality + High price, however = Expensive Shit. Low Price + High Quality = The Dog's Bollox. I like those definitions and will adopt them forthwith! |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Aug 6, 2018 13:46:09 GMT
It is all subjective, though.
One person's high quality is another person's unlistenable shite.
One person's shit quality is another's unattainable dream.
It all depends.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Aug 6, 2018 13:49:11 GMT
Reformatted it order of desirability YMMV ?
The Dog's Bollocks = Ultra high Quality + Low Price
High End = Ultra high Quality + High Price
Shit Stuff = Low Quality + Low price
Expensive Shit = Low Quality + High price
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 15:15:57 GMT
It is all subjective, though. One person's high quality is another person's unlistenable shite. One person's shit quality is another's unattainable dream. It all depends. A very accurate observation Jerry  |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 7, 2018 19:01:27 GMT
In the Allo Katana dac section a question was raised "what does high end mean". For me it normally means expensive, snob value, often overrated and not necessarily the best sound quality. Personally its something I would try to avoid even if I had the money.
But at the end of the day if it makes you happy . . . . |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 7, 2018 23:01:16 GMT
For me, it's a nasty American phrase that was conceived principally to describe nasty and principally, American products.
(And a fair proportion of my kit comes from the other side of the Atlantic).
|
|
