What do you think is the standard price for HI-FI, HI-END?

[Blumlein 88]

Just thought I would mention that Google translate is much, much better than when you were using the AI for translation.

 

[Thomas Savage]

ps: Am I using Google Translate right now without using any AI?

You've made a real effort to communicate and that's appreciated. I hope you are finding value in your postings and are enjoying yourself here .

The Google translate minus AI is much more effective

 

[Harmonia]

Watch enthusiasts think of Rolex as a mid-market brand, with very high production levels and actually superbly consistent performance. B&O is probably a pretty good analog, but so would be McIntosh, it seems to me, especially considering pricing in the secondary market. They also excel in having a dealer network for support and service, though they seem to be undermining this of late.

The owner of a Patek-Philippe Nautilus or an Audemars-Piguet Royal Oak or a Vacheron Constantin Overseas (steel sport watches all) isn't going to swoon in admiration of a Rolex Submariner on the arm of a person with whom they are interacting. But neither will they disrespect it--those owners may well wear a Rolex for working in the garden, if they are landed gentry, or to the beach if they are an enthusiast.

But there is absolutely no limit to how much one can spend on a watch. I had lunch with the executive of a high-end audio company and the retire chief general counsel of a corporation you have heard of in Boston a while back (we are all watch collectors) and after lunch we wandered over to the Back Bay to visit the watch boutiques. We started with a visit to the Richard Mille boutique, where I was persuaded to try on their latest offering. I didn't even want to touch it, let alone be responsible for holding it in my hands. Price: a paltry (for Richard Mille) $300,000. (I was wearing a Ulysse Nardin Marine Chronometer that day. The other two guys were wearing a Vacheron Constantin Overseas and a Credor Eichi II. Look the latter up, and when you are shocked by the price, remember that it is superbly hand-crafted by...Seiko.)

Rick "there is always a bigger fish" Denney

Wow... I like cars, audio, and IT equipment, so I know a lot, but I don't know much about watches. I'm trying not to know much about them. I think I can't get out once I get into them. It's the same with wine. It's good to own a watch because it's a valuable asset, but I don't want to "keep it well and watch it" because I can't use the things I buy, so I'm not interested in them. I don't have a lot of assets. I'm just an ordinary person.

I'm not sure there anything worthwhile in terms of audio engineering within the band of products that's being defined here as Hi-End .

By worthwhile I mean boundary pushing in terms of audio engineering.

It's all so throughly annexed from true performance audio as to become a total waste of time , for my interests and likely those of the membership.

I'm looking forward to the effect of AI on DSP and how we listen to music at home. Other than that little to get excited about imo . It's all been done to death .

I agree with you. There is nothing more to be developed in terms of audio engineering. It has already been developed. So I suddenly thought, why are high-end audio products expensive? That is why I wrote this article.

Some people do use high-end and hifi interchangeably to mean high performance but to me the terms have quite different meanings.

HiFi - high fidelity is really about high performance (which is mostly what you were talking about). Indeed, this can be achieved at quite low cost today.

High-End is much more about something being a luxury product, with its high cost and exclusivity being part of its cachet. The looks and marketing that make a product high-end do nothing to improve its performance.

Admittedly, sometimes the factors that contribute to something being high-end / luxury are use of higher quality components and materials than strictly necessary, longer warranty terms, better residual resale value, etc. Which can sometimes be used to self-justify the higher expense.

That's a good opinion. If you define hi-fi/high-end, I think this is the basic understanding.

It's interesting with these watch brands - a lot of the very expensive makes I'd never heard of until reading this site.

I wouldn't be impressed by someone wearing a Vacheron Constantine since as far as I know they are twenty quid off Amazon.

Rolex I have heard of so at least if I spot someone wearing one I think they must have a few quid. But of course it could just be a fake bought in TJ for ten dollars.

I always wanted a Rolex since Bond wore one in Dr No. Plus people would see it and think 'He must have a few quid.' But when I got to the point where I could afford one, at least a 'cheap' one I decided I could not spend that sort of money on a watch.

Contrary to that I really don't think anyone buys Mcintosh or any other pricey hi-fi brand for status, or because Bond had one. Everyone I know with expensive hi-fi brands bought them because they thought they were buying better sound quality. Everyone - without exception.

The general public don't see it as it is in your home, not on your wrist. And they've never heard of Mcintosh just like I'd never heard of Vacheron.

Most people don't know about luxury brands for things they aren't interested in. That's so true. I don't know anything about camping, watches, fishing, etc.

That is realistic.

Bill of Material (BOM) costs are one thing, but there also are labor and overhead costs. Overhead, e.g., factories, engineers, managers, sales staff, accounting staff, etc., are not free. When I worked in manufacturing long ago, we typically strived for a 60% prime cost contribution margin (PCCM), which means we multiplied the hard cost (BOM costs and labor costs) by 2.5 to try to maintain at least a 10% net profit. In the case of consumer goods, then add to that the store markup, which at that time ranged between 2x and 2.5x, which they needed to cover their overhead and achieve a profit. So, you are looking at a cost to the customer of between 5.0 and 6.25 times the hard cost. If you have a distributor in the chain between the factory and the stores, who also add their cut, now you probably are looking at 6 to 7.5 times hard cost. In a country that has a 20% VAT, now you are looking at 7.2 to 9 times hard cost.

But, times have changed. When outsourcing manufacturing to low cost regions, BOM costs, labor costs and overhead are significantly reduced. Also, many audio companies now are going direct to consumer and skipping the retail chain. This can serve to allow them to increase their PCCM, though sales expenses are increased. Still, direct to consumer can result in those products being less expensive than equivalent products sold through the typical retail chain.

Even about management and manufacturing! I have more and more things to study! Thank you for the great story.

Despite the ridiculousness of my watch collection, and there really is no possible justification for it, I do not own a Rolex. This not because I disrespect the brand or wouldn't wear one, but rather because they never seem to come my way as a unique buying opportunity. Their very ubiquity as a status symbol prevents that.

But I'm sitting in an office of those who do not at all make a lot of money and who might be put off by ostentatious displays of wealth, and I'm wearing my Breguet Type XX with complete anonymity. That's okay with me, and even a positive. I bought it for me, not for them, but I make a lot of choices to avoid making those with whom I work uncomfortable for any reason. I suspect that only a Rolex would have that connotation--I could wear that Richard Mille and they would think, as you say, that I bought it off Amazon. Again, that's fine.

That 20-quid Vacheron-Constantine is just like the 20-quid Rollex--a Canal-Street fake if there ever was one. Probably with a $2 quartz movement. Even the crappy mechanical fakes get several hundred bucks these days

I take your point and agree that most expensive watch wearers are honest that their watches are man-jewelry and that the extra they are spending is for stuff unrelated to time-keeping performance. And that many buyers of high-end audio believe in the more-expensive=higher-performing myth. This is the fundamental dishonesty of the audio industry (including the press) these days--this notion that one can expect better performance by paying more. They won't own those other attributes for which people would spend real money.

But I would bet that most people, if over to the house for a visit, would recognize McIntosh equipment as being pretty fancy stuff, simply because of how it is styled. Gordon Gow understood the importance of that even back in the days when Frank McIntosh was running the company.

Rick "a fan of McIntosh of old, but doesn't own any" Denney

I also recognize the Macintosh brand, but I don't really plan on using it myself. However, I recommend it to people around me.

Recently, an acquaintance of mine is starting out with hi-fi audio, and he wanted advice from me, so I set up and set up his system.

I set up his hardware with B&W 803D4, Macintosh MA7900, Apollo Extreme speaker cables, and XLO Reference 3 power cables. Since it was his first time, I thought it would be more satisfying to give him products with solid brand power.

Since it was his first time, sound quality wasn't important, so he didn't want to buy an expensive DAC, so I connected Macintosh to a mini PC with ROON via USB and played music. I set up the hardware and used Roon to capture the sound.

He is very satisfied with his music.

He really likes the elegant front lights of Macintosh.

But I don't want to buy Macintosh. Strangely, I don't want to buy it. So I wrote an article to find AMP. I'm currently looking to buy a CLASS D amplifier. I'm looking forward to this new challenge.

 

[Harmonia]

Attached are estimated in-room frequency response and directivity measurements useful for comparing the Wilson TuneTot ($10,000/pair) to the MoFi Sourcepoint 8 ($2,000/pair). My earlier post has a link to the TuneTot review. Here is the full review of the Sourcepoint 8:

MoFi SourcePoint 8 Speaker Review

MoFi SourcePoint 10

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Objectively speaking, the MoFi speaker walks all over the Wilson, doing so at 1/5 the price. The only objective measurement in which the TuneTot outperforms the Sourcepoint 8 is harmonic distortion below about 175Hz (probably due to its stout cabinet). But, the bass extension is not good; the lower f3 point of the TuneTot is around 82Hz. The Sourcepoint 8 has a lower F3 of 50Hz.

Yes. I saw this article too. Many people said that it is too expensive and the sound is not good for the price!

I completely and completely agree with it.

Even I really like all of Wilson Audio's speakers and have set them up a lot? TuneTot was really not a speaker that I liked.

I set up Sonus Faber's EX3MA of an acquaintance I respect. Do you know how good it sounds? It is a bookshelf speaker, but it has lower and firmer bass and clearer imaging and sound than most tallboy speakers. Of course, all the elements other than the speakers, such as AMP and DAC, were set up with products used in expensive large-scale machines. (I mean, the speakers are more expensive than most large tallboy speakers, right?)

Despite being a limited edition product commemorating the 30th anniversary, the sound was really good? I think this is a well-made product and a valuable high-end speaker.

That's not high-end, that's just silly.

It's cheaper than Transparent Cable's $77,000 MAGNUM OPUS speaker cable. There are more expensive cables out there. But is that a reasonable price for a high-end cable?

 

[boxerfan88]

So I wrote an article to find AMP. I'm currently looking to buy a CLASS D amplifier. I'm looking forward to this new challenge.

Since you are looking to upgrade/replace your amplifier…Do you mind sharing what equipments (source/DAC/preamp/amplifier/speakers) are in your current audio/HiFi setup?

 

[Harmonia]

I don't recall what music Amir listened to in the comparison, but the TuneTot's big boost (~8dB) at 120Hz may make it sound larger with certain music. I know of people who like a big boost in that frequency range. The tradeoff is that below 120Hz it falls like a rock.

Also, I would like to look at the inductors used in the crossovers. Laminated steel inductor cores, especially the ones that do not use silicon steel, have high core losses in the upper midrage that rob speakers of their dynamics, even if the speakers otherwise measure well. If the M106 uses a cheap laminated steel core inductor in series with the woofer and the TuneTot is using an air core inductor, that also may explain differences Amir heard.

EDIT: I just found a GR Research video on a crossover upgrade for the M106. It's using cored inductors, but they have heat shrink over them so it is hard to determine what cores are in there. I suspect that they are laminated steel inductor cores, and I suspect they are a significant factor contributing to the M106 sounding small. Also, the cabinets probably could use more damping material.



The SourcePoint 8 has two air core inductors and two laminated steel core inductors based on an image I found on the Internet. If the laminated steel core inductors only are being used for LRC resonant circuits line to ground, they may not have a large negative impact. If, however, one of those steel core inductors is in series with the woofer, it will have a negative impact on the upper midrange dynamics. At this point it is hard to tell. Nonetheless, the rest of the measurements are very impressive for speakers at $2k/pair.

As you can see, Wilson Audio seals the crossover network so we can't see the circuitry exactly. Anyway, I don't really like TuneTot speakers.

Came across this YT video recently rvcqRkYWGhE … the Brama tube preamp looks really well built. Balanced connection throughout.

Can be had for an eye watering $39k. Certainly falls in this thread’s hiend category

Wow, I just found out about this product called Brama. It's Vinnie Rossi. The price is $390,000. Hmm.... The price is high-end.

If it looks like they added a zero to the price tag for no discernible reason, then it's high end.

That's right. Sometimes there are price tags with two zeros attached to them!

People don't buy high end watches to tell the time. Report on recent encounter with the high end--an alternate universe. I recently found out an audio retail store is on my side of town (Minneapolis/St.Paul area). I visited them to see equipment that I rarely have a chance to see such as McIntosh, Luxman, Woo audio, Chord, Technics, and etc. ; and to look into the used equipment room. They had at least 30 turntables on display. They do installations, whole house installations, and theater room installations. They displayed a lot of McIntosh and had a room dedicated to McIntosh with an ideal set up that including the M10 Precision Turntable. Their McIntosh ideal set up cost in the neighborhood of $200,000; and I might note that my mind handles that as if it is infinity. I imagine that the parameters that drive high end audio purchases differ from the other audio sectors. I imagine that those who install such systems want to experience on demand as the case may be pizazz, ultra sonics, meta sonics, fireworks, and perhaps orgasm. My home system which includes credible equipment known to ASR readers isn't orgasmic. The used equipment room was packed floor to ceiling. I wasn't intrigued. All that used equipment, and in fine shape it was, was like a circus, an amusement park, a fun house that supports illusions.

I read your story well. Thank you for writing such a good story.

I think people who are not interested in high-end audio will think the same way as TimF. This is a very common thought.

Even my wife always asks me, "Why do you have to buy expensive audio?"

Generally, people who like music buy audio equipment. This includes headphones and earphones. Generally, if you want to hear accurate sound, a system using earphones or headphones can give you excellent sound at a low cost. Harmonic balance can be perfectly adjusted. If you set the EQ after hardware matching.

But do you know the problem with this system? You can't feel the stage. It's a structure that can never give you a sense of space. Of course, you can create virtual sound. But the limitation is obvious.

Basically, we have to hear the reflected sound of the space with our ears to create a sense of space, but earphones and headphones can't create a sense of space because we hear the sound directly.

That's why we use stereo systems. People. If the environment of the installation space is good, we can hear really good sound.

Especially when you listen to music with multiple instruments and harmonies, like a classical orchestra, you can feel a great sense of pleasure. In addition, we can listen to recorded music conducted by conductors of the past who have passed away at any time.

So, if you give it to me, my acquaintances really like classical music, and they are doing hi-fi audio.

If you are more interested in this and have a lot of assets, you start looking for high-end products.

Ordinary people learn through audio reviews, magazines, etc. that "expensive high-end products produce better sound." Even though it is wrong.

It's like saying that expensive, hand-made cars are not necessarily fast or safe.

Out of curiosity, because I am not clear from your post: can you enjoy or get a kick out of visiting a place with all that type of equipment? I mean since you’re not buying anything, but get to inspect a bunch of it or maybe even listen to some?

Or do you find such encounters just a reason for cynicism about high end audio?

(I myself think plenty of the prices and high-end audio are looney, but I also love seeing the equipment and all the different takes on gear)

It is meaningful to listen to the sound of a properly set up Hi-Fi, high-end system. You need to find a dealer or acquaintance who is famous for this kind of setup, and you need to be able to distinguish the sound yourself, and you need to select and listen to music that you have heard a lot of well-recorded. You need to listen to the same song on various systems and feel the difference to learn.

The only thing wrong with a Rolex is when you tell people it is more time accurate than a $500 Apple Watch. I love watches but my Hamilton Auto is accurate enough if I want analog. Maybe I’ll buy a Rolex one day but not to tell time. Same with audio, you want $150k of gear? Go for it. Just know what you’re paying for.

That's right! If you want to buy it, you should buy it! That's why we earn money.

Every separated component priced from 5 digits and above.

Doesn't tell much about the sound quality, tho. In fact, "High End" usually sounds worse than common Hi-Fi.

I agree. That's why I think we should listen to the audio system ourselves and judge the sound. Reviews often don't give exact figures. Stereophile magazines sometimes publish that information, so I read them often.

I just looked at the minimum net worth of the top 1% of the USA, it's 13.7 million dollars. Arbitrarily, a High End system must be a significant expense for that household, let's say 10% of that value.

Ergo, a High End system is priced at 1.37 million dollars.

10% is too much, but maybe 5% would be possible? Something like 600,000 dollars. Well, if the person is an audiophile, $1.5 million might be possible.

 

[Harmonia]

Hi-end audio is rarely about the sound.
It's primarily the "feel like a king" treatment, before and after sale full support, exclusive dealer relationship, etc, etc.

After all the above are at check is built quality. To the last screw. Components with decades of credentials, proved durability and longevity, and above all good reselling value for the next trade off.
The camps (at hiend) are between unreachable performance like Halcro Eclipse for example and deliberate "tunning" like the silly elevated treble of new B&Ws for example, or tinny,questionable stuff like $50k two-ways good for a listening to a lady crying along with a sax or grander than life, high SPL stuff than kick like mules.

And then is the sound.

(exotic, silly stuff are excluded)

I agree with you. You're right. You don't go high-end just to buy a simple audio system.

"Feel like a king" really means something. There are definitely people who go to dealers for that.

Thanks for explaining the two main camps. Good article.

Once in a while, it can be quite refreshing to go see and hear overpriced bling. Some overpriced bling can be very performant. And some can be horrendous. Ogle at the big snakes laying on the floor, and huge turntable that looks to heavy to lift.

After the visit, head back home to enjoy my normally priced “boring” studio monitor, and feel good that there is really good stuff to be had for normal amount of money.

I hate the sound of bling. I like the sound of accuracy. So I prefer a system that uses studio monitors that reproduce boring but accurate sounds.

Even if I set up a hi-fi or high-end system, I set it up to produce accurate sounds. This is obvious.

I think you're still labouring under some misapprehensions especially with regard to DACs. There's no issue with clocks or jitter and never has been. This is just stuff that marketing use to sell more expensive products to people who don't know any better.

With that $300K system I can guarantee you that at least $200K of it was pointless and the other $100k really only worthwhile if most of it was spent on the loudspeakers, and the loudspeakers were objectively 'good'.

There's nothing wrong with spending a lot on 'high end' if you want build quality or a particular appearance. If you just want to distil it down to getting the best possible sound for your money then forget all of that. There's no sonic advantage to be had with 5 or 6 figure price tags on amps and DACs.

The reality is I could go into a demo where they use $100K speakers and $100K DCS stack and secretly swap in a Topping E30 DAC at $140 and no-one would ever notice that the DCS was no longer in the system.

Forget what you think you know - it's wrong. In the words of Yoda, 'You have to unlearn.'

I get what you mean. Are you saying that you can get good sound even in a sub-$100,000 product?

I wanted to make sure that I compared DACs, so I used a high-end system. Regardless of the price, I compared it in a high-level system.

I know what you're saying. I did that test more than 5 years ago. I also understand that it's possible to compare it without spending a lot of money in a modern system.

I'll try it next time!

I use Goldmund Epilog speakers which I like, the comparison was done using Goldmund Mimesis 29.4 mono amps and a Goldmund Mimesis 22 preamp.
I originally compared the speakers on demo over Wilson WAMM and Grand Slamm which I had expected from magazine BS to be better than they were.
My final comparison before buying them was with the B&W Nautilus which I love the styling of but preferred the Goldmunds.

There are probably better speakers today but I still enjoy the Epilogs hours every day and am too old to get value from anything new.

If you heard a difference between DACs it would be due to the placebo effect, some people are sadly very susceptible to it - which must cost them lots of money but is real enough.

Epilogs are good speakers. Especially, there is no reason why the sound should be bad just because it is an old system. If the settings are good and the sound is accurate, you should listen to it well.

I also admit that the difference between DACs can be a placebo effect. However, I think it is more correct to say that it is because each brand has its own unique characteristics.

It was not an accurate AB test because it was not compared while measuring accurately and there were many variables.

 

[Mart68]

I get what you mean. Are you saying that you can get good sound even in a sub-$100,000 product?

I wanted to make sure that I compared DACs, so I used a high-end system. Regardless of the price, I compared it in a high-level system.

I know what you're saying. I did that test more than 5 years ago. I also understand that it's possible to compare it without spending a lot of money in a modern system.

I'll try it next time!

You can get good sound in sub $100 product!

Comparing the 'sound' of DACs is just a waste of your time. Buy a DAC that has the features you want, disregard the rest. I use the DAC built into a 35 year old Sony pre-amp. You will not distinguish it from the $100K DAC.

I use the Sony because I like the look of it and it has PEQ. These are the things that matter, not fantasies about the sound quality.

I use a £2K CD transport because I like the look of it. It's no different in sound from the £400 one it replace.

Power amp was bought used cost of £1200

Loudspeakers £5K

I've been doing this 40 years so you can imagine how many six figure price tag systems I've heard in that time. I can tell you that set up in a good acoustic that system will take the Pepsi challenge with any 2 channel system at any price. Plus it looks how I want it to look in my living room. And you could do it for less money than I've spent - if you wanted to.

 

[KenA]

Wow…. I’m just… exhausted.

 

[Harmonia]

I think you can take automobiles, and drop it by a factor of 10.

The cheapest new car in the U.S. is the Nissan Versa at $18,000. Some people buy used cars.

So I would say a normal “dedicated” system should be under $2000. You can see how a Sonos surround setup would be around $2000.

Obviously, you can get the Micca $200 speaker and a WiiM Amp for $300 and get a full system that’s quite good. But that would be like getting a value car.

Then you have entry level luxury like the Audi A4, MSRP $42K. Higher with options.
This is where a premium setup lives. So at $5k, you can get a Denon AVR, Revel Speakers, nice rear speakers, etc.

You get the point. The people owning $100K systems are typically those who could afford the $1M super car. People owning $80K cars, might find the $8k sound system reasonable.

Now, no one thinks twice when they see a Lucid Air, Cybertruck, or Mercedes S-class on the street, if you live in a major metropolitan area. Lots of people are able to finance or spend $100K on a depreciating product. There is certainly the individual who will choose to drive an older Lexus or Toyota Prius instead of getting the S-class and then putting it into their statement home theater.

I know somehow who went from a BMW 3 series to a Tesla Model 3, but has FOUR of the Western Electric monoblocks which is $250K MSRP for the four. But that’s different.

So all you need to know is do you define a high-end car as BMW, Lexus, Mercedes? Or is that just mainstream to you, and high end means Lamborghini, Ferrari, and McLaren? Others may say those supercars are call “super” because it’s an extreme… we often hear people call it “summit-fi.”

Good example, well read. When I explain audio systems to people like cars, I explain it like this.

Cars and audio systems have similarities. The price drop after purchase is also severe. The price difference is severe depending on the brand. Sometimes, you choose expensive products to show off to other people.

It's a matter of choosing depending on how you think your money is worth it.

We really need to bring back the blanket ban on car analogies , or at the very least for every one used you need to send the mod team a case of beer .

The car metaphor is an example to help ordinary people understand. It's not about accuracy, but rather simple understanding, so there's no need to take it too seriously.

One of my core audio convictions is that proposing a distinction between high fidelity (hi-fi) and the emergent luxury-market, price-indexed audiophile system of thinking called “the high end” was a huge historical error and the source of endless counterproductive mystification and upselling deception.

There’s a thin line of legitimate discourse around the concept of “reference” components that I can sort of get behind — exceptional gear with superlative functionality and measurable state-of- the-art performance that professionals and reviewers can utilize as a comparative standard of excellence. On the reviewer side, alas, this often boils down to the dreary listing of many tens of thousands of dollars of “associated equipment” in the reviewer’s possession that becomes a kind of resume and bona fide that qualifies the reviewer based on profligate spending (or professional discounts), not technical knowledge.

I also feel this way while reading your posts, but somehow it feels like you're forcing high-end into the big picture of hi-fi. You're right. There's no need to differentiate. It's all hi-fi!

Reviewers are important to show people, so it's important to paint expensive products to attract attention.

Apologies in advance for some of the bluntness below. But I'm not going to try to sugar coat it for you.


But the same is true for nearly all the DACS measured here. Even DACS at the lowest price end are audibly perfect (noise and distortion below human audibility) - as are ALL those in the blue/green section of the DAC chart here. So unless your "ultra-high-end" are faulty in some way, and have audible noise or distortion, or non flat frequency response, there will be nothing in the signal reaching your ears to differentiate it from the average topping device - regardless of the performance of the speakers.


Again - not only "high end DACS". High end means only expensive (as far as I can see). They bring no audible benefits compared to a well designed £$200 dac.




No, it's not. There is almost no dac on the market which has a clock resulting in audible distortion.



And this is just total nonsense.


Also nonsense. There is almost no DAC on the market today which has audible jitter. If there are any that do - they are broken by design.

It looks like almost everything you have learned about the performance of electronics - especially DACs - is wrong. As others have said above, you're going to need to unlearn a lot of stuff before you'll be able to move on.

- No need to apologize. It's better for you to be direct and give me accurate information. I'm learning.

- Listening to your stories, there shouldn't have been much of a difference when connecting the DAC, but if there was a difference, I think it's because there's a difference in the sound from the analog output of the DAC. Each brand has its own characteristics.

Or maybe there was some difference in hardware matching, but I used the same thing for everything except the DAC. I even used the same power cable.

Whether it was a placebo effect or another reason, I'll have to be careful when comparing DACs in the future.

- I was curious too, so I bought a $200 DAC to test it out when it comes.

- The implication was that using a clock would result in less distortion. That's why I said it was important. It's a good DAC that only uses the internal clock, but if you have the option to use an external clock, using an external clock usually results in less distortion and more accurate sound. That's what I meant.

- When I used the rubidium clock, I thought like that, but since you said it was nonsense, I guess there must be another reason.

But when I connected the rubidium clock to the dCS Vivaldi clock and used it, the bass was definitely reduced? Just because I connected the clock? So I thought about it and that's the reason. The distortion was reduced, so the bass was reproduced more accurately, and the overall volume was reduced.

- I can't hear the jitter audibly. You're right. And there's an option to connect an external clock. I have the dCS clock and the change when I connected the rubidium clock was like that.
There's no jitter, but the sound changes?
That's why I wrote it like that.

Who cares? HI-END in my view is BS. Lots of people have expensive systems in poor rooms that sound like @ss. Other people have modest systems with DSP in good rooms that sound superb.

Let's also not forget that some hi-end components perform terribly when objectively measured.

I have a friend whose ~£60,000 system sounds nowhere near as good as my relatively humble system. Why? I have a reasonably well-treated room with a fully-active, linear phase, time-aligned 3-way speaker system.

I also have a much more humble 2-way active nearfield desktop system, also linear phase and time aligned. Blows the doors off my main rig and I have the measurements to prove it.

Owning expensive hi-end hi-fi and not getting the most out of it is like owning a Ferrari F40 and only ever driving it to the local supermarket to buy the weekly groceries. You will never, ever get the most out of it.

Owning a Lotus Exige and regularly caning it at track days is a considerably less expensive and far more satisfying experience.

Too many people in this hobby assume that price=performance. Performance can be objectively measured and more often than not the best performance comes at very close to the lowest price.

You're right. A high-end system with poor setup often sounds worse than a reasonably priced hi-fi system.

There are so many cases where you listen to a system without setting it up properly, and dealers intentionally encourage it? To sell more new products.

That's why I posted. I thought price and high-end had something to do with it.

Uranus’ bass is low because of the rubidium clock.

LMAO. I’ve been thinking it’s a troll, but I can easily imagine some “experienced” audio ponce saying this with a straight face.

No. When I connected the rubidium clock to the dCS clock, the sound changed like that? I didn't change any settings, I just connected the external clock and didn't, and there was a difference. But this isn't just dCS, but when you connect the rubidium clock to a DAC that can connect an external clock, the bass volume decreases?

Has anyone tested it?

 

[Sokel]

I agree with you. You're right. You don't go high-end just to buy a simple audio system.

"Feel like a king" really means something. There are definitely people who go to dealers for that.

Thanks for explaining the two main camps. Good article.



I hate the sound of bling. I like the sound of accuracy. So I prefer a system that uses studio monitors that reproduce boring but accurate sounds.

Even if I set up a hi-fi or high-end system, I set it up to produce accurate sounds. This is obvious.



I get what you mean. Are you saying that you can get good sound even in a sub-$100,000 product?

I wanted to make sure that I compared DACs, so I used a high-end system. Regardless of the price, I compared it in a high-level system.

I know what you're saying. I did that test more than 5 years ago. I also understand that it's possible to compare it without spending a lot of money in a modern system.

I'll try it next time!



Epilogs are good speakers. Especially, there is no reason why the sound should be bad just because it is an old system. If the settings are good and the sound is accurate, you should listen to it well.

I also admit that the difference between DACs can be a placebo effect. However, I think it is more correct to say that it is because each brand has its own unique characteristics.

It was not an accurate AB test because it was not compared while measuring accurately and there were many variables.

It goes down to preferences and needs too.
Say you want a multichannel DAC to enjoy your MCH DSD's.

People can get away with some work and minimal cost, under $1k and do it.
And then there's people as our "own" Kal who prefer a much nicer Merging interface for 10 times this (and do it right) .

There's no blanket we can put over everything.

 

[boxerfan88]

@Uranus a quick question for you, which of the following describes your audio philosophy?

A. You use your audio equipment to listen to music.

B. You use music to listen to your audio equipment.

.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

ps: Am I using Google Translate right now without using any AI?

It's a big improvement!

 

[Newman]

Yes, many people are saying that high-end is only about sound quality, so I'm trying to think that way now.

Well, they are all wrong. And so will you be if you 'go with the flow'.

It’s an unfortunate mis-use of the term “high end”, which genuinely originates from a marketing term and genuinely means “high priced”, as an abbreviation of “the high end of the price range”.

The reason I harp on a bit about it, is because high end (high end of the price range) audio is snobbish and elitist. And a huge amount of mischief has been done by hifi writers conflating high price with high performance and throwing the term “high end” in there as a beautiful confluence of the two. Whereas we on ASR are largely aware of the lie and the mischief in that, as we know that a lot of staggeringly expensive hifi gear performs abysmally, and a lot of remarkably cheap hifi gear performs to a level that cannot be audibly surpassed, ie complete audible transparency.

So I will always encourage us to say “high performance” when that is what we mean. And when we mean very expensive, let’s say “very expensive” rather than “high end” in order to avoid the confusion about price and performance.

cheers

 

[Newman]

I have an additional question.
What price range do you consider as the threshold between HI-FI and HI-END in a 2CH speaker system?

Following on from my post above, it seems that you actually want to discuss the price for HI-PERFORMANCE. Or even HIGHEST CATEGORY HIGH PERFORMANCE. (HCHP)

If so, you have to remove the words "in a 2CH speaker system" from your enquiry. Because the two things are incompatible.

There are two major ways they are incompatible:-

• a 2CH speaker system is taken to mean 2.0, meaning there are only 2 units involved. In that case, it is a natural conflict between the best room placement for the lowest frequencies and the best room placement for the midrange and high range frequencies. A two-unit speaker system cannot achieve HCHP.
• Two channel playback cannot achieve HCHP. You can achieve significantly higher levels of perceptual preference by simply adding more channels of discrete multichannel information.

cheers

 

[Audionaut]

Yes, many people are saying that high-end is only about sound quality, so I'm trying to think that way now.

As is so often the case, opinions differ because there is no precise definition of high-end to which everyone refers.

Everyone has its own idea, which is also very clear in this thread.

In some areas of science and research, there are very narrow specifications for the material to be used. This is high-end per se, but is not referred to as such because the material is subject to the highest standards of production, modernity and reliability, such as technology that is installed in satellites, technology that is used to produce computer chips, technology for clean rooms and medical technology that is required in intensive care units and operating theaters.

It's all high-end, but it's very rarely referred to as high-end, it's technology that meets the desired or required specifications of the very highest standards. I assume @amirm uses such technology to measure at a high level, so his equipment probably also meets high-end standards.

In the audio sector, for me personally and based on my experience, high-end simply means a lot of fancy advertising and beautiful packaging, whereby the content often does not meet what would generally be considered the highest technical standards.

However, this cannot be generalized either, because there are often sinfully expensive and beautiful devices that also fully meet the highest technical standards.

I think this is precisely the difficulty for the consumer: to distinguish between what is just for show (and hopelessly overpriced) and what really meets the very highest technical standards (and where the price is somewhat justified).

In the audio sector, there is no industry standard for what is high-end and no official seal of approval from an authority that classifies it into the high-end category according to comprehensible test samples.

In this respect, it will generally be important for inexperienced people to have a competent advisor at their side who is different from the salesperson in order to perhaps not necessarily get high-end audio, according to whatever criteria, but a component or combination that is good for their own ears.

 

[Petrushka]

The system you posted is analogous to a Rolex watch. A Rolex won't keep better time than something a fraction of its cost, but it will make you feel like you are impressing someone.

Rolex is the Wiim of mechanical watches.

 

[rdenney]

...

Owning expensive hi-end hi-fi and not getting the most out of it is like owning a Ferrari F40 and only ever driving it to the local supermarket to buy the weekly groceries. You will never, ever get the most out of it.

...

Car analogies never work very well, of course. But this one caught my eye because it furthers the idea that more money equals greater performance, whether or not that performance is realized.

Simply put, it's not so. It's like buying that F40 and then discovering it drives like a 1976 Toyota Corolla in bad need of a tune-up, but with an F40 body. With much high-end audio, you'll only wish you could do better after having already gotten the most out of it.

There are wonderful-sounding conventional systems that use passive speakers in regular rooms without all that time alignment and wall treatments and DSP. Not all rooms are minimalist echo chambers.

Rick "but that F40 sure does look slick" Denney

 

[Frank Dernie]

However, I think it is more correct to say that it is because each brand has its own unique characteristics.

No it isn't

 

[MattHooper]

I have a friend whose ~£60,000 system sounds nowhere near as good as my relatively humble system. Why? I have a reasonably well-treated room with a fully-active, linear phase, time-aligned 3-way speaker system.

Out of curiosity: do you know if your friend thinks you’re humble system blows away his own system?

The reason I ask, is that it’s very common for us to like our own systems more than other systems. Because of course we we carefully put together a system based on satisfying our own criteria.

Almost no matter what system I may have just heard, when I come home and fire up my own system I like it better.

And perhaps your friend feels his money was well spent because even after hearing your system, he would never choose it over his own system.

So in other words your system may be better in terms of how it measures and fulfils your criteria, but his system may be better in terms of what he’s looking for.