Why "High end" exist?

[mhardy6647]

Love the caravan electrical connector!
What is it, a tube-based welding gear?

100% vacuum tube free - that's one of the better (or at least bigger, heavier, and 'spensiver) Boulder Amplifier products.

Home - Boulder Amplifiers

The official website of Boulder Amplifiers. Manufacturing and engineering world-class audio components for the last 35 years.

boulderamp.com

"Sound that Transcends Time" -- I guess that means no jitter problems?


EDIT: I must add that I don't know if the one I posted a photo above earlier is mono or stereo (i.e., one might need two of them per Veyron in the garage).
The current flagship (3050) is a monoblock.

PS it also, apparently, operates in Class A to its "full rated output".

 

[analogonly]

Part of the expensive end is due to people wanting to advance field but without scale. Some of this trickles down. The more impressive achievement is advancing the field from the low cost end.

 

[lashto]

i do understand that there is couple sucessfull high end companies and that main reason for them being succesfull is a status symbol, not just the sound. but there is hundreeds of small companies that make "high end" products from tens, to hundreeds of thousands of dollars and being a no name is not a status symbol either.

There is a great podcast with Aleksandar Radisavljevic, founder of Raal, company that makes ribbon tweeters and headphones. unfortunatelly its in Serbian language, but i think he has great explanation. he said:

reason for so many high end companies and products is because they dont make money and pay bills by making speakers. usually 2 or 3 middle aged man who had succesfull career get sick of paying for high end gear, and then they decide to make it. and main reason is because they want publicity, they want to be featured in magazines and take pictures, but nobody is buying that stuff. and when they make high end speakers main goal is what exotic and expensive to put in it (drivers and crossover components) and how speaker finish and design to look expensive. not too many of them have good sound, with some exceptions, and more the product is expensive, more chance for mistake in design and sound.

the very simple answer that won't satisfy anyone: because someone is paying for it

And maybe you should clarify if your question is about high-end-scams or true-high-end.
Yes, the true kind still exists. E.g. companies like Benchmark & Kef have prices & devices which are quite high-end IMO. Also very good.
Even in the ridiculosly-high-end space, where speakers/amps/etc may cost $200K, there are some very good devices. Their "why" may be quite different than the "why" of $50K cables.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I think the small company high end product is common. I've played guitar since high school. There are many boutique guitar brands. They're generally ephemeral but the quality of some is outstanding. A little over 20 years ago I got a big tax refund and bought a new guitar. I still have it. It was made by a luthier who is still in business making Selmer type--i. e. Django Reinhardt-- guitars. Mine is a small body flat top. It's a very pretty guitar with interesting inlay and purfling. It has an unusual combination of woods that give it a Gibsony tone on the bright side. It works nicely for acoustic blues. I happened to get a good deal on it, I doubt I would have paid full retail. The point is, it has a unique interesting tone and it's pretty. It's a good instrument. At the time I could have bought a Martin or Gibson in that price range but this one appealed to me.

 

[WillBrink]

i do understand what you are saying. and i do understand that some people are willing and happy to pay for some famous brand like Wilson, or Magico, Dan Dagustino or couple more famous brands in that class. but when you go to big audio expo, there is hundreeds of brands that you never heard off.

And maybe they don't sell, and or, they only need to sell a few units per year to stay in biz, and or, other possible variables to it.

 

[MattHooper]

This something I wrote in a previous, similar thread…

Post in thread 'How people choose very expensive High-End speakers?'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...xpensive-high-end-speakers.52520/post-1896106

The decision to buy “high end” has little to do with actual value, quality, or performance, no matter how one tries to justify that it actually does.

Well, I disagree but you don’t seem too open to discussion on the subject.

 

[Ordin Aryguy]

Well, I disagree but you don’t seem too open to discussion on the subject.

Not necessarily true. Generally I like to believe I’m open minded and always willing to listen to an alternate opinion.

In the context of this thread, what is it about uber expensive audio gear that justifies the 100x, or in some cases 1000x price premium over ”normal” gear?

Is there something about a Boulder, D’Agostino, Levinson, Pass, or similar amplifier that justifies the massive price differential over a Benchmark? Or for that matter, over one of the new Fosi amps that have recently measured among the top tier of amplifiers?

How about Oswald Mill Imperial speakers, or maybe Focal Grand Utopia’s. Beautiful, intriguing visually, but do they perform better “that” much better than any number of sub-$5k speakers that are proven performers in very sense of the word?

A Toyota Camary is a proven performer. It gets the groceries, hauls the kids soccer, gets mom and dad to work, and does so efficiently and incredibly reliably. Any of those tasks would sink a Bugatti Veyron, yet there’s still a market for the Veyron, as there also is for Oswald Mill, D’Agostino, Boulder, and others. We just can’t pretend that the price premium somehow makes that product better in any way.

 

[Jim Taylor]

the very simple answer that won't satisfy anyone: because someone is paying for it

That answer satisfies me ... perfectly!

Jim

 

[kemmler3D]

Why does boutique high-end audio exist?

I wrote a much longer post to answer this. Bottom line: There are two types of people who sustain companies that make overpriced, badly designed gear.

One wants to be fooled. They don't want science/measurements, they want magic. They don't like being told magic isn't real, but they easily believe that magic is real, and very expensive.

The other type wants more agency in their musical experience than they are actually capable of. They can't actually DIY a good design and they probably aren't musicians, either. They still want to create something. They don't want to be told which speaker is the best. They want to accomplish something by figuring it out for themselves. They don't want the story of their perfecting their system to be over*. Increasingly expensive and obscure products provide good fodder for this type of quest.

This is why "audiophilia" is referred to as a hobby. Because improving the system is seen as an ongoing and even productive activity.

If you want to put it harshly, these products exist because of misplaced faith, and/or ego.

The audio "press" supports this by only publishing good reviews and never holding manufacturers accountable for their claims. Oh, cryo-treatment improves the cables' sound? Sure it does! Print it. They buy ad space from us.

I look down more on the magical thinkers more than the questers. But that's my own bias.

*You can find a few folks on here who are "recovered" from this type of activity. I am not sure if my description would ring true to them... it's just a harshly worded version of my observations on this front.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Not necessarily true. Generally I like to believe I’m open minded and always willing to listen to an alternate opinion.

In the context of this thread, what is it about uber expensive audio gear that justifies the 100x, or in some cases 1000x price premium over ”normal” gear?

The justification is a matter of belief. If one believes there is no audible difference then I would say there is no justification. Not for those price differences.

But if you believe they do make a difference, a big difference then that is the justification.

How about Oswald Mill Imperial speakers, or maybe Focal Grand Utopia’s. Beautiful, intriguing visually, but do they perform better “that” much better than any number of sub-$5k speakers that are proven performers in very sense of the word?

In the case of the Focals I am going to say yes. They will do things that nothing at $5K and less can do. Not saying they are a bargain or the best.

A Toyota Camary is a proven performer. It gets the groceries, hauls the kids soccer, gets mom and dad to work, and does so efficiently and incredibly reliably. Any of those tasks would sink a Bugatti Veyron, yet there’s still a market for the Veyron,

Are you really equating Toyotas and Bugattis? You are jumping the shark here. Bugattis are not for picking up groceries

as there also is for Oswald Mill, D’Agostino, Boulder, and others. We just can’t pretend that the price premium somehow makes that product better in any way.

I agree. But the audiophiles buying them don’t agree. And that’s why they buy them

 

[pderousse]

It is amusing to watch people attempt to rationalize the irrational. Isn't every product featured on audio websites 'high end' for most people in the world?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

One wants to be fooled. They don't want science/measurements, they want magic.

This is where armchair psychoanalysis fails and becomes ridicule. Having been there I can assure you they don’t *want* to be fooled.

They don't like being told magic isn't real, but they easily believe that magic is real, and very expensive.

Sorry but this is a gross mischaracterization and just more ridicule.

The other type wants more agency in their musical experience than they are actually capable of. They can't actually DIY a good design and they probably aren't musicians, either. They still want to create something. They don't want to be told which speaker is the best. They want to accomplish something by figuring it out for themselves. They don't want the story of their perfecting their system to be over*. Increasingly expensive and obscure products provide good fodder for this type of quest.

No.

This is why "audiophilia" is referred to as a hobby. Because improving the system is seen as an ongoing and even productive activity.

That’s true. Since when is improving one’s system not a productive activity for an audiophile?

If you want to put it harshly, these products exist because of misplaced faith, and/or ego.

Ego definitely comes into play. But it isn’t faith. It is the unfortunate reality that humans simply aren’t as reliable and analytical and as perceptive as most people assume they are. Most people think they are reliable witnesses/judges of what they see, hear, taste and smell. Most people don’t know Jack about psychoacoustics. And if you don’t know about that you are going to draw erroneous conclusions and do so with a lot of conviction. *That’s* the problem. It’s not that audiophiles want to be fooled or want to believe in magic. It’s because we are fooled naturally and convincingly by our casual experience with audio.

But then the ego does take over when the denial of psychoacoustic effects comes into play.

I look down more on the magical thinkers more than the questers. But that's my own bias.

And that’s where this ends up. Each side looking down on the other.

And I get it. There just comes that point where the utter disdain for science becomes cause for looking down at some audiophiles.

But that is no reason to misrepresent their motives. They just can’t accept the power of psychoacoustics

*You can find a few folks on here who are "recovered" from this type of activity. I am not sure if my description would ring true to them... it's just a harshly worded version of my observations on this front.

As a recovered one it’s not a matter of harshness. It’s just getting it so fundamentally wrong when it comes to why some audiophiles believe what they believe.

And when you tell someone they want to be fooled and they want to believe in magic you just proved them right in their minds. Because they do know *that much* is not true.

 

[MattHooper]

It is amusing to watch people attempt to rationalize the irrational. Isn't every product featured on audio websites 'high end' for most people in the world?

I’m not sure of your point. Would you say that most of the products members here are evaluating or purchasing amounts to irrational behavior?

 

[pderousse]

My point is that in a world in which half live on less than $2 per day according to the UN, it is kind of rich for anyone in the Topping crowd to be throwing stones at the Boulder/Bugatti bunch for being irrational mystical thinkers. I'm sure the wealthy have their reasons for spending their money and characterizing them does not get you any closer to the truth. Most here come off as middle class, educated. However, I think that people living day to day would find it strange to read of people praising a $200 DAC that is ‘objectively’ superior to DACs many times that price. I'm certain someone coming from a world where that kind of outlay represents a full season of labor on a banana farm would find such thinking wasteful and irrational. Understand that I am not throwing stones at anyone here, but just suggesting some perspective and tolerance. People have their money, and they spend it. It’s theirs.

 

[Vacceo]

It is amusing to watch people attempt to rationalize the irrational. Isn't every product featured on audio websites 'high end' for most people in the world?

It is highly rational. It's one of the many aspects of what Baudrillard called diferential consumption.

 

[gwing]

Baudrillard would be another one of those folks spouting ideas without proper scientific measurements?

 

[Vacceo]

Baudrillard would be another one of those folks spouting ideas without proper scientific measurements?

Like all philosophers since Thales, yes.

 

[pderousse]

It is highly rational. It's one of the many aspects of what Baudrillard called diferential consumption.

Seems we agree? But for the uninitiated, it might help to explain what he meant by "differential consumption."

 

[pderousse]

Like all philosophers since Thales, yes.

Both had evidence, just not evidence accepted by one possessing a superior perspective perhaps.

 

[Vacceo]

Seems we agree? But for the uninitiated, it might help to explain what he meant by "differential consumption."

We do, indeed: consumption is, among other things (utility, biological survival...), a way to mark status differences among groups of people and even individual subjects in the same group.

In that realm, consumption bypasses all the utilitarian logic and it´s value is pureley social insofar it distinguishes the consumer and at the same time, plays a continuous game of being in and out of the group.

By this logic, diferential consumption starts on the upper echelons of society that can drastically afford that diferenctiation, setting trends that permeate downwards only to cycle back in a way that the subjects of the upper echelons have to create new differences.

If utility is included along the way, well, so be it, but it´s not a necessity.

Both had evidence, just not evidence accepted by one possessing a superior perspective perhaps.

Natural sciences are great to explain the what (how do we perceive sound, how does it travel, how it is produced, how it interacts with other objects...), but the why is something that is often times irrelevant. Toole would gladly explain what are the preferences for listening, but it´s a moot point to explain why some people prefeer this or that response within the logic of his studies; he´d simply state that the preference is there.

We can, of course, hypothesize why connecting the explanation to social and personal factors, looking at tendencies we can track.