Trying to put a hard number on what is essentially a social judgement seems doomed to failure, given social stratification exists. So here's other ways to approach the question.
High end starts at the price point where the people in your life think you are obsessed for spending that much on gear. And that means for truly wealthy people, there is no high end. No one would be so gauche as to ask what things cost in those circles.
Or maybe we could say the high end starts when we enter the Veblen Goods arena. Cut the price of "normal" hi fi by 50%, they will sell more units. Cut the price of "high end" by 50% and fewer units will be sold.
If we ask the question what is the price for transparent, then we can nail things down with measurements. Amp+DAC+ speakers + stands in my system, around $3000 US. I doubt many here would see that as "high end" in the social sense, though by the numbers it is transparent. My neighbor who is a sound engineer at a local venue would not see that as high end, my neighbor who is a printer probably would.
I read your comment carefully. 'Veblen goods' is the key point. This can be considered the standard for all luxury goods. Is it because there are only engineering students around me that no one has told me this story?
And Pareto, as you said, the people among my acquaintances who are really rich don't care at all and buy because they want to buy, so they probably don't care much about the price.
Of course, they compare. They compare the history, value, performance, design, etc. of the brand, and if they think it's reasonable, they buy it. They don't buy it unconditionally.
I now know well that it's important to say that "money is not necessarily related to sound quality."
Probably around $1,000,000 it's hard to find a decent DAC for $115,000 anymore.
The price has gone up 2-3 times during the Corona period, so it's hard to buy it now!
I have a $10-11k system (80% speakers)*. I haven’t heard a better system (and I’ve heard some Wilson, B&W, and Duntech set-ups), but I’m sure it exists. Whether it is so much better I would pay a multiple of what I have paid, I dunno.
*Revel F228be with Hypex class D amp and room EQ via Roon. I bought the speakers used.
You're using a system that can produce reasonably good sound. When my friends start doing audio, I'll tell them to set up a system like yours.
To me, a high-end product would have to be absolutely exquisite in every way.
When it comes to audio gear, the sound quality is only one aspect. As has been pointed out, the electronics that is good enough to exceed our listening capabilities can be had a with very moderate investment, whereas top quality transducers are considerably more expensive.
Every piece of equipment should look superbly stylish and exclusive - immediately recognizable as superior compared to average stuff. In practice, I'd say something designed by the most talented ones from Italy.
Every electrical and mechanical component used should be of highest quality, and the enclosure should not contain any cheap materials, or parts.
Woodwork done in Finland by people who have shown their mastery in bespoke furniture building.
The assembly, fit and finish should be done in Switzerland.
To satisfy my criteria, my rough estimate for the price would be:
- 4 000 € for digital front-end (streamer, A/D conversion, DSP, D/A conversion)
- 15 000 € for Vinyl Player including tone-arm and pickup (to be connected to digital fron-end for A/D-conversion and RIAA-conversion in digital domain)
- 6 000 € for Amplification
- 25 000 € for Set of two speakers
All together 50 000 € VAT excluded. My estimation is that in principle this could be done, at least if we forget the luxury image surcharge, which could easily double the price.
"To me, a high-end product would have to be absolutely exquisite in every way."
As you said, I could define high-end like this. Your article explained it in a way that I could understand. Along with Amirm, your standards are almost the same as what I usually think.
Thanks for the kind words.
This notion of high-end comes up often in our relatively wealthy world (at least the part of the world most of us inhabit).
There are several attributes that cost money. One is performance, but in the audio world that costs very little these days. This is a good thing for those whose primary focus is performance.
Then, there is the buying and owning experience--the way owning something makes one feel. Veblen doesn't really have this right, in my view, and seeks to place a moral implication on the choices we have in the market, based on price. Sometimes, buying extreme performance for very little money is as satisfying an ownership experience as buying and owning something that reflects luxury and exclusivity. But most who claim to be impervious to the attributes of luxury and exclusivity are usually so only in some areas, unless they truly are financially constrained. So, the guy on this forum who insists that low-cost, high-performing audio products represent the moral ceiling of expenditure might have a $100,000 bass boat in the shed or a $5000 fly-fishing rod and reel.
(The first example in a Google search--I know nothing about fly fishing:
https://thomasandthomas.com/collections/rods/products/individualist?variant=3547665217)
And when challenged, they will claim that the sheer craft of what they are using brings joy quite unrelated to measured performance. Note that I observe many owners of extremely expensive hunting and fishing apparatus--far in excess of what is needed for performance--are not in the ranks of the landed gentry at all.
There is nothing remotely immoral about these choices. Frankly, the only required justification for one who is meeting other financial obligations (including the obligation to be generous) is that they want it and they have the money.
(What is immoral, however, is attempting to persuade people falsely that paying more necessarily achieves higher measured performance, particularly when the "measure" isn't measurable at all.)
So, I might select audio equipment with beautifully constructed circuits and machined-from-billet cases, with equipment design that simply gives me joy. It might not perform better than something from Topping, but equipping one's hobby isn't usually just about performance. When I buy a Topping, it's a transaction with Amazon and a delivery truck driver. When I buy, say, a Krell, it's a positive-reinforcement personal interaction with a sales executive (probably the owner of the store) and comes with a significant service delivery, if I want it to. And when I see "Krell" on that amp, and know that it was hand-assembled by a guy in Connecticut whose name I can (probably) pronounce and who is being paid a fair wage for doing so, I might feel a satisfaction unrelated to the lack of audio distortion.
Someone mentioned a Rolex watch. That is a bit of an extreme example, for two reasons: 1.) A Rolex as become the standard status symbol (in America, at least) of the newly rich, and 2.) while the quality is quite good (for a mechanical watch) it is also rather pricey with respect to its competitors, new or used, because of (1). One might instead own, say, a Ulysse Nardin Marine Chronometer, which is as advanced as a Rolex, likely even more accurate, much more uniquely (yet still classically) styled, more beautifully crafted, and maybe half the price on the secondary market. Or, they might own a Zenith chronograph which in most every measurable dimension--including craft and cachet, but not including price--is on a par with Rolex. I would contend that my Breguet Type XX is on a par with Rolex and is made by a company with deeper luxury credentials, but on the secondary market it will be less than half the price simply because I won't be competing with every successful car dealer or real-estate agent in the U.S. to own one. Mechanical watches are accurate enough but they are not accurate at all compared to quartz watches (well, except maybe for that Ulysse Nardin, my example of which is accurate within 15 seconds a month--standard quartz accuracy). But that isn't the point of them, any more than getting to the grocery story is the point of owning, say, an Aston Martin.
All that said, price thresholds are not a dimension that really makes a lot of sense to me for defining what is "high-end". The high-end experience is about who made it, how they made it, how it was sold, how owning it makes me feel, how it looks, the story that I can tell others about it, and stuff like that. Excelling in all those areas usually means a high price, but that's a byproduct of value only to those newly rich car dealers, it seems to me.
By the way, child-like writing that is an honest expression from a non-English-speaking writer beats perfect grammar from an AI embellishment bot any day.
Rick "not an AI bot" Denney
Denney, thank you so much for your long and thoughtful article. I read it carefully.
After reading your article, I found that there are some things that cannot be explained by the "Veblen effect" alone. It seems that it is difficult to explain the part about satisfaction through ownership. I have not properly confirmed the Veblen effect yet. I will check it out.
" The high-end experience is about who made it, how they made it, how it was sold, how owning it makes me feel, how it looks, the story that I can tell others about it, and stuff like that. Excelling in all those areas usually means a high price, but that's a byproduct of value only to those newly rich car dealers, it seems to me. "
I completely agree with this. There are few products that express luxury as well as cars.
It is really difficult to concretize the part where people are "satisfied" emotionally.
The most important thing in consumption, not just in the high end, is how much money I can spend to get the thing I want. Everyone's level of wealth is different, and the amount of money they can be satisfied with is also different.
Generally, people can be satisfied even if they spend a lot of money on a house or a car. Of course, there are things like the high-end fishing boats and fishing rods you mentioned. DSLR cameras are out of style now, but there were also some.
Watches are still an item that many people like. People think that brands like "Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe" watches are worth collecting.
Among the rich, there are many people who suddenly made a lot of money and increased their assets, or those with moderate assets, who are busy showing off their money. There are quite a few people like this among those with assets of $1,000,000 to $10,000,000. They are obsessed with luxury goods and busy making their presence known.
I'm not saying it's bad or that I'm jealous. These people must have worked very hard to create this kind of assets. (Of course, there may be some who do illegal things.)
But I know a few people who are really incredibly rich. But they are very ordinary. There are many people who are more polite, considerate, and approachable than the people around us. They are like older brothers or grandfathers who live in the neighborhood. (Of course, they act and speak more carefully because they don't want to be an issue in the media.)
Among the people I know, there is someone who has assets of over $500,000,000, but he is really ordinary. He doesn't only look for and use luxury products. Oh, of course, he only buys new ones. He never buys used ones.
He uses good products, but he doesn't buy products that are ridiculously expensive. (Of course, he consistently accumulates assets such as works of art.)
Of course, people who spend well spend a lot regardless of their assets. They spend money that we can't even imagine. Because they have the perfect means of consumption called installment payments!
Thank you for writing such a great article. It makes me think a lot.
ps: Am I using Google Translate right now without using any AI?