Why "High end" exist?

[Purité Audio]

‘There are many times when there is a legitimate increase in performance with price.’
Useful features such as dsp, loudspeakers can be better if you pay a bit more, but SOTA electronics can be relatively inexpensive.
I was led to believe by magazines, manufacturers and retailers that the very finest sound quality could only be achieved at a price, one had to constantly ‘upgrade’ but that is simply a lie.
Keith

 

[robh36062]

Some things never change! The quest for more money! Check out bicycles frame where weight reduction is king. So it all turns into the point of diminishing returns.

Rob

 

[Ordin Aryguy]

Ok, here goes...



Well that is a very particular version of "high end" - sounds like the ultra expensive bracket that few audiophiles actually play in. And even there people of means could find rational justification in buying some super expensive gear. Like, if you can afford an MBL 101 Extreme speakers without any financial pain, then you are getting a design that is fundamentally different than most out there, very bespoke, with very high quality parts and finish, and if the sound and looks turn your crank...it's totally rational to buy such a system. In other words: you simply aren't going to find the same product cheap. Any number of super expensive speakers may fall in to that category.



My tube preamp cost more than my Benchmark preamp, but I love the look of the preamp, the build quality...there's some pride of ownership there...and I like the sound in some ways more than the Benchmark. An expensive tube preamp would be "silly" for some audiophiles, but rational for others.




There's always diminishing returns. But I'm pretty sure the Grand Utopias could blow away plenty of sub 5K speakers in various aspects, likely scale of sound, dyanamics, possibly sheer realism with various types of music. I mean, a stand mounted speaker with flat frequency response only goes so far.

I own speakers that are more expensive than some great-measuring speakers reviewed here (like some actives). But I compared them to tons of different speakers (including some that an ASR member might prefer) and I simply loved how these ones sounded in particular. Plus I preferred the aesthetics FAR more than just about any of the other speakers I looked in to (and certainly far more than any active I've seen). They have a super luxurious finish and build quality, a feature I never tire of since I'm looking at them in my listening room every day. I consider my purchase entirely rational for me, even if it's not for you.



"Better" can be situational, as well as subjective.

If someone very well off has gigantic hard to drive speakers, and he loves the cyber-punk look of Dan Dagistino's "Relentless" mono amps which will drive anything, then it's perfectly rational for that person to buy those amps. There's all sorts of pleasures that may go along with it. Even people here who buy Benchmark amps often admit they are paying for over-performance in terms of distortion specs vs what they could have gotten cheaper. But some get satisfaction from the engineering aspect as well.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt from your earlier post. The assumption that I, or anyone, simply won't listen to another's point of view is a touch short-sighted. None of us will learn anything, on any subject or matter, including what drives a fellow enthusiast in this hobby that we share.

Listen I have. Mind changed? Probably not, but that's ok, too. I'm rather certain that my ideals aren't going to sway you, either. But I'd still share a beer with ya.

Several times you mentioned aesthetics. Honestly I get it. Just as chefs say, "we eat with our eyes first." A system that looks as if it were drug from the depth of the Black Lagoon, regardless of how it sounds, will not garner many fans. My system is decidedly low buck compared to most, and yet I have made several component choices with a heavy slant towards their physical appearance, speaker cables being the most evident, still I only spent like $30 on them. So, aesthetics matter to a degree, even to me.

Another mention was about bespoke gear. That simply speaks to the rarity, not the performance.

If Ray Charles (yeah I know he's dead, but play along anyhow) sat down in front of system comprised of uber expensive gear would he discern a 100X, or 1000X difference in quality? My suspicion is he wouldn't. If forced to guess, I would say you have the contrary opinion... and that's ok. Ray isn't hear to ask.

We're all different, and as much as it would be great if the whole world thought exactly as I do, it get kinda boring, too. Differences spawn discussion.

 

[DSJR]

I would say it was the early 80's when I became aware of the growing lunatic fringe of HiFi with one of the first examples being an article in a now defunct HiFi publication called "The Flat Response". In this article, the writer claimed that there was an audible difference between a Linn Sondeck turntable with the power LED disconnected!

That sir, was the very tip of the LP12 iceberg Originally, it was a neon inside the switch.

At my height in setting these things up (I thought I was good at it too compared to other dealers and I did have good training, not just from Linn themselves), the felt mat had a good side and less good side, the belt had an inside out an dupside down and towards the end, I was turning the sodding Vlahalla kit fuse round and thinking I heard a difference!

And then I heard a deck made by Notts Analogue which was a fraction of the price of an LP12 by this time, made a Rega RB300 (bloody bargain in current form to this day with excellent internal engineering - where you don't see it!) sing properly (compared to analogue tape and digital references I had then) and which needed NO involved setup other than the motor pod alignment (mostly done by the makers) and usual tonearm/cartridge setup. This deck (Spacedeck) restored my faith that vinyl records really can 'suspend one's disbelief' in the shortcomings of the medium and to this day, it's not increased in price by multiples as the competition has.

I seem to have a small collection of 'Flat Response' mags. It was so tribal and biased, you'd know the result of a 'review' without even reading it (reading it confirmed that impression). Every time recently when I tried to read a bit of one for nostalgia's sake, I felt nauseous and had to put it down. I'm told Naim Audio helped get it started, but we're talking well over forty years ago and different company and times though.

 

[Mikig]

Sono stato portato a credere da riviste, produttori e rivenditori che la migliore qualità del suono potesse essere raggiunta solo a un prezzo, si doveva costantemente "aggiornare", ma questa è semplicemente una bugia.

It's a lie? no, I don't think so, as long as the buyer is aware of the fact that, very often, they could get the same result by spending one zero less...
I think the issue is related to the period. The "high end" of the last 20 years of the 20th century was based on technology and science that were out of the ordinary compared to mass production. There was a difference, some H-E products from back then are still good. Today's "high end", except for a few cases, is mostly a precise market placement, construction, and marketing of products, especially in electronics, which essentially have the same performance as mass-produced products, but with a box and a trendy name…..

 

[NicC]

Speaking of marketing, at one point a few years ago now, I wanted "better sound" at a (seemingly) good price and purchased a Dragonfly DAC. It was around $500AUD. Took it home, A/B tested for 2 hours, and couldn't hear a dang thing that was different on my system. Returned it the same day and had to pay a $50 're-stock' fee. I learned a lesson there...I should've purchased the $300 3.5mm cable to go with it