Trying to define 'The High End'

[The Grand Wazoo]

This is a conundrum that I've been chewing over for some time.
'The High End' is a term that appears to have drifted over the Atlantic and is now used commonly in our circle of activity.

But what does it actually mean with reference to hi-fi?
For some people it seems to denote a high standard of performance and for others (perhaps more commonly) it seems to be more related to the very high price of some equipment.

A quick whiz round the web reveals some definitions:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/high--end

adjective
denoting the most expensive of a range of products:
high-end computers


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/high-end

Higher in price and of better quality than most others
1: upscale <high–end boutiques>
2: of superior quality or sophistication and usually high in price <high–end cameras>

First Known Use of HIGH-END: 1977

Synonyms: exclusive, high-end, upmarket

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

high-end (hnd)
adj. Informal
1. Appealing to sophisticated and discerning customers: a high-end department store; high-end video equipment.
2. Sophisticated and discerning: books targeted to the high-end consumer.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English


high-end
adj
(Electronics) (prenominal) (esp of computers, electronic equipment, etc.) of the greatest power or sophistication


Webster's College Dictionary


high′-end′
adj.
being the most expensive and technically sophisticated: high-end computer equipment.


It would seem, therefore, that the dictionaries have a similar difficulty with tweezing the concept of price away from that of ability.

My own feeling is that it's entirely a matter of perspective. High End audio gear to someone whose sole source of music is a £50 mp3 player would probably be viewed as rather mundane kit to the likes of the average AoS member. However, in the hi-fi fraternity, the high end might be something that those people don't have an inkling even exists.
So it's probably really just what we used to call 'hi-fi'!


Any thoughts?

[Barry]

As you say Chris, the expression "the high end" is an Americanism without any real meaning. Like a lot of Americanisms, it is now fashionable "new-speak", and sadly their appearance is becoming more and more prevalent in the UK.

I, for one, refuse to use the expression.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I just wonder what other people take it to mean Barry.
Is there a vague level of performance or price that people tend to think of as a minimum to qualify for the term? You may not like it as a description or label, but surely it must say something to you when others use it.

[Barry]

In audio circles it vaguely means something of high quality - better than "entry level" (what a patronising expression!) but not "state of the art".

As regards prices, well I suppose it means >£500 for the cartridge, >£1,000 for the arm, >£1,000 for the turntable, >£750 for the CDP, >£2,000 for the amplifier and >£2,000 for a pair of speakers. Say ~ £10,000 in total for the system (including the interconnects!).

[chelsea]

I'am guessing for most B&O would be seen as hi end.

[Audio Al]

My thoughts are

High cost / High price makes equipment sound expensive

Take out price / cost then replace with end make it sound upmarket without referring to cost

In the opposite direction you have low end , in reality this means low cost / cheap , company's wont describe products as cheap and low cost

One example is Tesco who market the low end / cheap as Tesco's Value

I think its all a play on words

In reality we all buy what we can afford and are happy to pay for subject to you personal wealth

[John]

For me its a marketing tool to create asperation for potential buyers

[The Outcast]

Some very interesting views here. Especially the one about the marketing tool. I do have to agree with that to a degree. Though, it is all rather like class distinction and can be catagorised by said irritating and patronising phrases like entry level, budget, mif fi, high end, esoteric et al. I have lost count of the occasions when i have listened to wildly expensive and over engineered hifi equipment and been totally un-moved by the experience. On the other hand i have been totall moved by some less expensive equipment which just got on with playing music. So for me the definition of high end is more to do with a sonic performance and the joy factor.
However, there are those amongst us who's perception of high end to be vastly more expensive with five globes and a damned sight better than yours type philosophy or tossers i like to call them. I have been one of them and hopefully seen the error of my ways.
I have previously owned some very expensive kit though it was only ever high end in the afore mentioned phrase expensive. I wonder how many of us have super expensive systems that don't get used in favour of a second system with less expensive componants and sounds great? I knew of a gentleman many years ago who had massive and expensive Musical Fidelity pre and power amps who used to use a Sugden intergrated most of the time in the same system as it sounded great and no doubt used a lot less electricity. The high end as a concept is rather like formula one isn't it? The definition is intrigueing as it is down to individual perception and circumstances ie interlect and financial standing.

With regards to Americanisms i do have to agree. I hate it, it infests our language at many levels in the same way that many young white youth's speak with a Jamaican twang. I would gas them in a heartbeat.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Interesting thoughts.
I'm not really concerned with the marketing side of things because salesmen and marketing departments will always use whatever words they can to make something appear to be better than it is in order to make the sale. What I find more interesting is the use of the term by 'us'.

I think Barry's definition:

In audio circles it vaguely means something of high quality - better than "entry level" but not "state of the art".
.....would be pretty much what my thoughts are. His price formula is interesting and something I want to get to later in the thread but first I wonder if that's what other people have in mind?

And Hesketh, that comment about gassing people because you don't like the way they speak (whether they put it on or not) is a bit much, don't you think?

[losenotaminute]

I think there are several attributes that are required to make something high-end, they would apply to many types of consumer goods:

Function - hifi has to deliver hi fidelity sound, obvious really :)
Form - I want kit that looks the part, I'm put off by stuff in cheap plastic cases or where no attention has been paid to visual design
Quality - you can tell if something is high-end by looking at the build quality - components, manufacturing, quality of finish etc.

High end doesn't have to be expensive but often in life you get what pay for, there are of course exceptions that prove the rule.

There are a few manufacturers which I think are not high end, despite being expensive. Bang & Olufsen is the obvious example. Some of their kit does pass WRT form and quality, especially vintage B&O, but a lot of the current products seem to sacrifice function for aesthetics.

Another case in point would be Rolex watches. For myself they are too prevalent. But they do fulfil the three criteria I have set out above. Do I need another criteria, requiring that to be high-end something shouldn't be bought by footballers and people without any sense of style or culture? I think I might be snob :D

Lawrence

[John]

Understand where you coming from Chris but it then suggest this might be the only path to good sounds. I am more intersed in how we get the best out of audio without having to spend crazy money and for me their are a number of ways to achieve that

[realysm42]

I think high end by itself is meaningless.

Its need the words performance/cost after it to have real context (to the person saying it at least).

For example, a diamond caked iPod is still mediocre performance at best but will cost a lot (high end cost).

Certain manufacturers boxes of tricks might look very matter of fact but the performance is excellent (how one classifies performance is not something I'm willing to go into here).

In George Orwell's booklet 'Politics and English language' he mentions the poor state of modern Language, how its full of generalisations that mean we don't have to think too hard about what we say (I only just discovered when this was written, I thought it was a commentary on the last decade :lol:).

[The Grand Wazoo]

Those are valuable points Lawrence.
That thing about exclusivity is odd isn't it? For Rolex, it's great to sell a load of pricey schmutter, but for some Rolex owners, it must seem like hordes of chavs being allowed to get into the members enclosure at Ascot! We can't have that old chap.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Understand where you coming from Chris but it then suggest this might be the only path to good sounds.
No John, I'm the last person to suggest that chucking money at it is the only way to get an excellent sound from gear. I'd like to discuss quality for the moment and then talk about prices of things later


I am more intersed in how we get the best out of audio without having to spend crazy money and for me their are a number of ways to achieve that
Yep, me too.

[John]

Define quality then Chris. Is it cost based, sound based, looks based or how long it will last or a combination of these factors.
For instance I think something like the Bantam Gold or Bushmaster is a quality product but not high end!
I also think the best system I heard has been high end. But heard systems at a 10th of the price that give it a close run

[loo]

High end is an American retail business target sector label that has become a phrase used primarily by Manufacturers and press to denote products of Quality .
As others have said in reality it means nothing more than top of our range . Audio is not the only afflicted area ,just go shopping in harrods everything is high end even the £50 a tube toothpaste:mental:, is it better? decide for yourselves:)

[Joe]

It would seem, therefore, that the dictionaries have a similar difficulty with tweezing the concept of price away from that of ability.

My own feeling is that it's entirely a matter of perspective. High End audio gear to someone whose sole source of music is a £50 mp3 player would probably be viewed as rather mundane kit to the likes of the average AoS member. However, in the hi-fi fraternity, the high end might be something that those people don't have an inkling even exists.
So it's probably really just what we used to call 'hi-fi'!


Any thoughts?

I agree that high end really just means hifi, which is probably why hifi manufacturers and the hifi press are constantly coming up with new terms, such as 'flagship' and 'statement product' for stuff that costs way in excess of most people could (or would want to) afford; speakers costing £50,000 and more, for example. These are often no more than a way for someone with lots of money to show just how much money they've got; the old 'mug's eyeful' in other words, as the link between price and performance is irrelevant above a certain level.

And those of us who can't afford them quite like reading about them, if only for the unintended humour of a £50,000 speaker being referred to by the likes of Roy Gregory as 'something of a bargain'.

[John]

.
And those of us who can't afford them quite like reading about them, if only for the unintended humour of a £50,000 speaker being referred to by the likes of Roy Gregory as 'something of a bargain'.
Lol

[loo]

I would say though that we are actually quite lucky as the hifi industry seems to be full of enthusiastic individuals that have most likely been inspired by the wool pulling tactics of the big manufacturers and press to go and do it themselves . Hence the hifi world is full of great small companies making what is simply the best product they can produce with little thought to marketing labels, people who seem to have a real pride in their customers enjoyment of their product (lots of them post on here) try buying a car from a company with that ethos:)
Paul

[John]

Well said Paul I would agree with that

[Yomanze]

Bose is high-end...

[bobbasrah]

High end, bespoke, and all the other fancy terms which imply exclusivity are generally deployed by those concerned with boosting egos...

[f1eng]

I don't like the term either but take it to mean the most extremely expensive kit, some of which is perhaps state of the art some of which is just for extracting cash.

Sadly in this hobby it is assumed that dearer = better which is certainly not necessarily true, but is pretty convincing to a lot of enthusiasts.

[Yomanze]

I don't like the term either but take it to mean the most extremely expensive kit, some of which is perhaps state of the art some of which is just for extracting cash.

Sadly in this hobby it is assumed that dearer = better which is certainly not necessarily true, but is pretty convincing to a lot of enthusiasts.

So true, I'd rather listen to a pair of Royd Sapphires that retailed around £200 in the 90s than something like the B&W 802D at £11.5k, the former just sounding faster, more exciting and more musically convincing compared the the dry, clinical and slower B&W...

[Effem]

The original meaning of "high end" was used to define exceptional performance with a commensurate price tag.

It has though been recently redefined by Ebay vendors who now try to flog any old crap from Amstrad upwards, much used these days in the same vein as "rare", "vintage" and "sort after" (SIC) :lol:

[Andrew B]

I just thought it meant anything imported by "Absolute Sounds" :lol:

[Barry]

I just thought it meant anything imported by "Absolute Sounds" :lol:

:rofl:

[rubber duck]

I just thought it meant anything imported by "Absolute Sounds" :lol:

Actually it has more to do with The Absolute Sound and Harry Pearson. I suggest reading early copies of TAS (especially before the mid 1980s) to get some idea what this Americanism refers to. Even then it didn't mean high price.

[Barry]

Actually it has more to do with The Absolute Sound and Harry Pearson. I suggest reading early copies of TAS (especially before the mid 1980s) to get some idea what this Americanism refers to. Even then it didn't mean high price.

I used to have the first thirty or so issues of The Absolute Sound. I don't remember seeing any definition of "the high end" there. Neil (Dalek Supreme D L) has all copies now, so perhaps he could have a look?

Certainly, TAS discussed the upper end of audio scene with a fresh, challenging and questioning approach. For example they eschewed the, then, accepted standard of the Shure V15, in favour of the Ortofon SL15 and Decca cartridges. Sadly though the views expressed in TAS often came across as arrogant, with disparaging and reductive expressions such as "efforts" used to describe a designer's product. Harry Pearson might have had a way with words, but his opinions seemed to be taken as unquestionable; such was the hegemony of TAS.

[Andrew B]

I seem to remember TAS being "High End" itself. Although rarely seen here, I remember it being sealed on WH Smith's shelves and carrying a big price premium because of the import prices! Pity I was too skint to indulge back on the day.

I got a handful of issues a while ago but I gave them to a mate to make room.

[MartinT]

Making allowances for Harry Pearson's elitist style, he actually had a lot of good things to say about music reproduction and tapped into a lexicon that allowed you to understand the sounds he was trying to describe.

Anyway, he owned a set of Infinity IRS V speakers, so the man had exceptional taste.

[The Grand Wazoo]

All good stuff chaps!
Now then, I think Barry's definition is a good one and it's certainly the one that is most aligned with my thoughts:


In audio circles it vaguely means something of high quality - better than "entry level" (what a patronising expression!) but not "state of the art".


Let's pick it apart a little.
Starting at the beginning, let's think about a hypothetical person getting into hi-fi for the first time.

Our hero wants to buy a basic system and he aspires to something better eventually, so this is just a stepping stone.
Where would he go to buy his shiny new system? Probably somewhere like Sevenoaks perhaps, as they're pretty prevalent on the high street. The basic separates CD system at a place like that might be something like this:

Source: Yamaha CD-S300 - £199
Amp: Yamaha A-S300 - £199
Speakers: Q Acoustics 2010i - £125

Total Price: £523



If our hero wants to play some records he can have a Pro-Ject Elemental for £149 - the Yamaha amp has a phono stage.
That makes a vinyl system £473

So the basic (at new prices) single source system costs about £500 and this, by Barry's definition is not 'High End' - it's at least a couple of big steps below that level. However, I expect it might be good enough for many people and I don't think anyone on AoS would deny that it would qualify as a hi-fi system.

When I started looking at buying new seperates, a basic system from Sevenoaks was a little different - but not much. From the one I have to hand, the October 1990 Sevenoaks advert (a bit later than my time, but still the same sort of stuff and prices) shows the following:

System of the month - £279.95
Dual CS-503
NAD 3020i
Wharfedale Diamond/JPW Minim/Goodmans Maxim/Gale GS210 (choose your favourite flavour)

You could have a Philips CD610 for £139.95 as a second source.

I know this isn't 'The High End', but I'm trying to establish a benchmark here.
My question is, do we think that the 1990 system would sound better than the 2013 one or not? Has the performance attainable from this part of the market improved since then? Because the price of getting yourself a hi-fi system doesn't seem to have increased very much at all.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Using a price calculator like Measuring Worth (http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php) we can find out what the £279.95 that a 1990 system cost is worth today:

Using the retail price index it's £539.00

So, astonishingly, comparing this with today's equivalent system, we can see that the price of a simple system has stayed almost exactly the same over the years - £16 difference!

But what has happened to the performance during that time?

[The Grand Wazoo]

Well, I'm going to carry on noodling away on this thread for a bit, even if no-one else is interested!

In the magazine I got the prices of the 1990 budget system from, there's an article where the author put together what he considered to be a system on the lower threshold of 'the high end' - the cheapest he could do it for was £3,000. The criteria for that system was that it had to be a two source one with a CD player, turntable with MC cartridge, preamp, mono power amps and planar speakers. I wonder what today's equivalent of that lot would cost?

He also noted that, at the time, the most expensive system he could notionally put together would cost £150,000. Now that's a lot of money now & it was a lot of money then, but we know, don't we, that someone could easily lose that lot on cables nowadays if they felt sufficiently motivated.

So, there's no denying (as I noted in the posts above) although the price of a basic system has remained identical, at the other end of the scale the prices have soared. I mean rocketed.
But has the performance moved on commensurately with the size of the investment?

[AlfaGTV]

To me it would seem obvious that in the entry level you would get a lot more sound quality today, than in 1990.
But it is also quite obvious that the "high end" has become extremely high price-wise!
And perhaps that is a good thing in some ways;
The cost of refining the technology of sound reproduction has not become less, and the big bills products take a major hit of development costs. That means that entry level hifi, as well as mid-fi benefits from trickled down technology and knowledge.
That means also that if you were to make the same comparison for Mid-Fi today and in 1990, it would be obvious that you get a lot of audio quality for the same in todays currency!

However, it's always diffcult to compare, as most of us have fond memories of the products we would have liked to own in 1990 (or any year for that matter)
Personally, i have aquired a Luxman L-560, an absolute dream machine from my youth, and i would call it high end in its heyday.
Compared to todays products, yes very good, but not top notch. (at its used price its a stonkin' bargaing though)

so, high end to me is something thats desireable, and hard to attain... (due to cost, availability, space or whatever)

Regards //Mike

[The Grand Wazoo]

I'm not so sure about the budget system being better - some things like cabinets, boxes, transformers and others are all necessary but can't really be made significantly cheaper. Has the technology and engineering advanced quicker than the rate that the value of money has changed? Well, maybe for CD players (possibly) but I really doubt it in the case of amps and speakers.

[Joe]

At least the cables on the 1990 system will have burned in by now!

Seriously though, it's an unanswerable question, unless you have access to a time machine. I doubt anyone's audio memory stretches back 23 years.

The 'really high-end' stuff is akin to the property market in London, as in 'if you need to know the price, you can't afford it'. It has zero relevance to either the rest of the hifi market or to any mere mortal.

[AlfaGTV]

At least the cables on the 1990 system will have burned in by now!
:D Most likely!


Seriously though, it's an unanswerable question, unless you have access to a time machine. I doubt anyone's audio memory stretches back 23 years.
No, that's not what im implying! I am comparing an almost 30 year old amplifier in very good condition, to my more recent main system. Not taking into account the cost! (If i did that i would be ashamed for having spent so much on the newer stuff :/ )



The 'really high-end' stuff is akin to the property market in London, as in 'if you need to know the price, you can't afford it'. It has zero relevance to either the rest of the hifi market or to any mere mortal.
Here i simply disagree, i believe the knowledge and technology invested in mucho expensive hi end audio components trickles down to affordable components.

[AlfaGTV]

I'm not so sure about the budget system being better - some things like cabinets, boxes, transformers and others are all necessary but can't really be made significantly cheaper. Has the technology and engineering advanced quicker than the rate that the value of money has changed? Well, maybe for CD players (possibly) but I really doubt it in the case of amps and speakers.

You do have a point here GW, but then we have to take into account the option to buy chinese products where there are some really high value amps and also speakers.

Sorry bout the off topic, but couldn't this be an interesting challenge? Put together the best audio system at £500!
Vintage or new doesn't matter, second hand is of course higher value, but at greater risk.

[MartinT]

Could we go back to first principles with 'Hi-Fi', itself short for 'High Fidelity'? Fidelity to what? It must be the original sound of a performance, otherwise the phrase is meaningless. So we're talking about a system of components that reproduces a sound closely approaching the original sound of the performance. Taking that a step further, the 'High End' (which I'm fairly certain was devised by Harry Pearson of TAS) would be any system with very high fidelity to the original sound. If you were to try to measure such fidelity, you would need an example of live performance with which to compare; sorry studio or entirely 'laboratory' created music! This is where I agree with Stereophile magazine which uses live recordings frequently in their product reviews. I think it's appropriate and will ensure that the system is transparent, detailed, dynamic and all the other parameters that we associate with High End equipment.

I did all that without mentioning price, which means I don't believe High End is in any but the loosest way aligned with price. Someone earlier mentioned the diamond encrusted basic Nokia phone, a good example of price not aligning with performance. You could go the other extreme and pick up a true High End bargain in the used market without spending thousands.

So I think High End is a statement of quality not associated with cost except that it tends to be (though not always) the more expensive end of the market that most exhibits those qualities. The assembly of the system from well matched components can make or break its quality too: one mismatch and the fidelity will suffer. That's why it's a 'system' after all.

[petrat]

If I may be allowed to consider this from a marketer's perspective, then I suppose that for the general public, 'the high end' is a market segment comprising people who seek to own what is perceived as the best of everything. They are brand-conscious, and fill their houses with 'valued' products. They get satisfaction knowing they have bought 'the best'. They may not be super-rich, but they will spend to/beyond their limit to acquire their object of desire. When buying sound systems, I guess they will often buy the best B&O or Bose, or for the few who are 'into' stereos it'd be top of the range Linn, Naim, McIntosh, Rowland etc ... stuff that looks the part ... and has the price tag. If you buy into that perspective, product performance has to be good, but maybe not wholly exceptional, as it is the brand they buy into. They know that top brand + top price = top sound. They won't undertake much product comparison pre-purchase, but will look for third-part affirmation post purchase.

On the other hand, IMO the hifi hobbyist high end is a strange place where the brand catalogue has been defined by self-proclaimed 'opinion leaders' like Harry P / TAS in the States and maybe certain writers, mags and importers here. IMO it is about price, scarcity and exclusivity. It's the collector looking for that 'ultimate' piece .. the pride of ownership. They are looking for guidance and affirmation from their peer-group of hobbyists. For instance, they will seek out a forum of like-minded individuals, who share the same values and beliefs as they do, and seek affirmation there ... :)

[MartinT]

I don't think the general public have any concept of Hi-Fi High End. They may think that Bose and B&O are at the top echelon of Hi-Fi, but that is only because they don't know the market at all well. No more than I would know what the best super-high quality carbon frame bicycle is because I don't understand cycling.

I don't agree that High End can be defined in marketing terminology. It's an absolute statement of sound quality.

[John]

I am not sure about the absolute statement of sound quality I certainly think its aspirational but really great quality sounds are not always due to high end products but sometimes sensitive matching and careful research. For instance the only bit of equipment I own that might be considered high end is my TT although I would see it a more bespoke product. The resolution I get would challenge most high end systems and its up that even more with the new DAC
I totally agree most people on the outside would consider B&O as high end

[MartinT]

I think you might be confusing my 'absolute statement of quality' with pricing/market position, John, which is what I am arguing against.

I'll counter with a product I think may not be seen as high end because it doesn't have the price ticket or cachet: the Beresford Bushmaster Mk. II DAC. However, I think it is very much high end and certainly competes performance-wise in that sector.

[John]

Ahhh sorry Martin get were you coming from

[The Grand Wazoo]

I think you're spot on Martin - it's about performance but it's been appropriated by some as a justification for ambitious price tags.

[Floyddroid]

Hi end = loadsa money.