What makes up an


Wondering what makes an audio system "high end". Is it name brand, price paid or simply what your ears discern as quality? In the current issue of TAS several budget systems are also described as "high end". Most of the components in these "budget high end" systems looked very enticing to me. What do you think?
darkkeys
Hi Newbee (big grin)

Now I was very careful to NOT use the Caps lock when I typed out that ominous word, but thanks for taking the time to write your view on Mr. you know who. I don't think he is just trolling, that's why I avoided invectives and tried to address and take him seriously. Curious to see what may forthcome......(for an advocatus diaboli and yes we do need them also here, he would indeed need a tad more depth, but let's see)

Regarding the term "high end", I reckon you have hit the nail on the head.It is certainly a subjective term serving some users and it DOES get in the way of meaningful conversation as you so rightly point out. We never use it either, come to think of it but on the other hand it was quite understood what Darkkeys was alluding at of course, namely what makes a system sing, sound musical, what should I look at.....
Cheers,
Detlof

Oops Newbee, I just realised, a greenhorn is spelled "newbie" not "newbee"; you see English is not my mother tongue, so these things happen, but then it gave us a chance to exchange a couple of friendly grins didn't it? (:
I wish English were not my mother tongue....then I'd have a great excuse for my absense of skills. And I wish pigs would fly! :-)
In the spirit of this question I much enjoyed TAS September issue, in which HP interviews Lyric HiFi's 85 year old owner Mike Kay on the evolution of hi-end retailing since the golden age of the 60s. Kay is a grand curmudgeon who deplores what customers have become. He is dissolutioned by the trend toward buyers of statement systems who plunk down $50K-$200K a pop and care not a whit about music or how a system performs. He mourns the general disengagement of retailers and manufacturers from live music and traditional venues like Carnegie Hall. He is of course elegaic on the subject of industry pioneers like Mark Levinson and Saul Marantz and Harvey Samson. He grudgingly admits that the erosion of HT may have run its course & that a minor renaissance of interest in 2CH audio represents hope for the future.

He makes me think about my own emerging interest in the hobby as an adolescent, and how difficult it is today to find a system that satisfies like the Altec 604 & Sansui receiver of youth. I wish I still had that set-up for reference.
it's a good thing that i have a thick skin, so i can absorb all of the brick bats thrown at me and come back.

let me make my position perfectly clear as applies to this and other threads.

i am a an iconoclast because i disagree with what i see as dogmatism disguised as knowledge. there is very little knowledge in audio in the strict definition of the word.
there are a lot of opinions that masquerade as knowledge.

it is my hypothesis that many feel insecure if they don't buy into the conventional wisdom espoused by audio professionals. i don't . thus, i frequently disagree with many of the premises asserted here and in other threads.

i will continue to object when i see hype and opinion masquerading as knowledge and/or dogmatic thinking.

i think the above statements pretty much explain my "behavior" on this and other threads.