What is High-end Audio??

[Spirit84]

Interesting question that Paul McGowan has some difficulty answering:

So - how about some of ASR members chiming in: What is High-end Audio????

 

[svart-hvitt]

There is no definition of «high-end audio».

So I prefer this classic definition of real high-end:

 

[Erik]

I know what PS Audio is and I would not recommend watching videos on their channel since they contain huge amount of misinformation.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hile-usb-cable-vs-usb-cable.5714/#post-127414

 

[ryanmh1]

90% of it is expensive casework and crappy engineering. 8% of it is expensive casework and exemplary engineering. 2% of it is ordinary stuff with good engineering (see: NAD and Rotel).

 

[Ron Texas]

High End=Expensive. High Fidelity is more difficult to define. The problem is High Fidelity to what?

 

[JJB70]

Paul Mcgowan is an artist. Seriously, we may hate his messages and the snake oil he sells but his polished, avuncular delivery of those messages is masterfully done. Weeeeeeeellllllllll..... What a great question and all that. He should be working as a comms person for the president or something as he's the sort of person who could sell sand in a desert.

 

[solderdude]

High-end Audio = Luxury Audio.
State of the art materials, constructions and finish is used.
This means expensive and not really affordable to the masses.
Usually bought to impress others or by those who enjoy luxury items and have plenty of cash for it.

The performance of most of the electronic equipment may not be better or can be even poorer than that of well designed and built affordable products but most likely won't have the luxury appeal.

That answer may have been to short for his video though.

 

[Theo]

Paul McGowan is actually defining High End Audio as an equivalent of High Fidelity ("sonic truth", says he). IMHO, there is no need to redefine a term which speaks for itself (HiFi). Do we then really need a definition for High End Audio? May be High End as end of your savings?

 

[JohnBooty]

Yeah, "high end audio" only makes sense if we're talking about price and not performance.

After all, when we're talking about "high end fashion" or "high end real estate" we're talking about price, not sweaters or houses that materially outperform other goods in objective ways -- we don't expect a $500 designer sweater to perform better than a $50 sweatshirt from Carhartt.

As for "high fidelity", that's (sort of) simple to me. The pursuit of tonally accurate reproduction of the source material, at low distortion levels, at sufficient SPL.

The actual measurements for those values (is 0.1% THD high fidelity? or 0.000001%?) can be endlessly argued over but, but high fidelity is more about the pursuit of getting the best fidelity possible rather than hitting some magic number and declaring "aha! I've achieved it!"

(It's a pursuit that's separate from the enjoyment of music. However, they pair extraordinarily well so no problem there!)

 

[VMAT4]

90% of it is expensive casework and crappy engineering. 8% of it is expensive casework and exemplary engineering. 2% of it is ordinary stuff with good engineering (see: NAD and Rotel).

Fr'instance: This phono amp !

 

[JJB70]

I think high end hi-fi is a lifestyle accessory, it's like expensive watches in that it is not about function but style, pleasure of ownership, status etc. The difference is that most watch enthusiasts happily admit you don't buy an expensive watch in order to tell the time and that it is about style, pleasure of ownership, splashing the cash etc whereas people in audio desperately cling to the idea that high end audio is about superior performance.
I don't dispute the fact that if you want really good performance you have to pay for it, and good speakers don't cost peanuts (although neither do they have to cost $$$$$$$$'s) but the micro-niche of high end is divorced from normal ideas of cost, performance and rational analysis.