??? Where Does "High End" Start ???

If Audio Nirvana is 100% then I’d say high end gets you to 94-100, mid is between 85-93 and entry level is below 85.  

@devinplombier Let me know when you throw the NAD in the trash so I can dig it out. I’d own it with pride. Most American can not afford a NAD. I’d be grateful to own one.

Can not figure out if your statement is a joke or just a bizarre comment. 

I think what level a component is can also be determined by brand. When we see VAC, Boulder , Rockport , CH Precision ,ARC  etc. don’t we automatically think high end? 

No one should care about such a label. It’s the province of gatekeepers and the insecure.  Play what you like, can afford and makes you happy. Enjoy music. 

When the 401 k is gone along with everything else.enjoy the music

@superblueapm ”No one should care (much) about such a label.”

superblueapm…. You are the super supreme Ghostbuster.

You have blown this debate wide open for what it is. There appears to be a lot of “gatekeepers and insecure” inhabitants on here. You have captured the myth of it all…. And put it all into a box, just like in Ghostbusters. 
 

Are those with high-end leanings, supernatural beings?

Who you gonna call? ….at 200 mph…  Superblue apm Mythbuster Debunker!

I don't think its useful to define high end by cost because "high end" "midfi" "lofi," etc., are relative terms, not absolute. Measuring where high end starts by price will always be relative to our own view of what constitutes a lot of money and by our own circumstances. You and I might agree that a $25k speaker is high end, but to the guy who just bought a $250k set of speakers, its likely midfi.  

Harry Pearson claimed to have coined the term "high end" in audio back in the day; I don’t know if that’s true, but to trace what is  considered "high end" I think you have to look at the history of audio reproduction devices. First, those of us in the States were not necessarily clued into what the Japanese or French were doing and were largely limited to the audio press in the US circa the ’70s- Stereophile, TAS, Audio and a few other journals, including J. Peter Moncrieff’s newsletter and a few other resources. The Internet did not exist at this time for normals. 

In that era, which I lived through, it was probably easier to distinguish: it was not a receiver, plastic-y turntable and a set of bookshelf speakers (although some acquitted themselves well). Instead, it was separates- preamp/basic amp, table with the ability to mount a separate arm (not an essential defining characteristic but still) and some form of speaker system that purported to do something beyond the norm: Stats plus woofers and super tweets, the Infinity series, various combinations (that included using Maggie bass panels), bi or tri-amping with active crossovers, the use of more rarified cartridges, etc. 

There were also DIY’ers that I knew back in this era who cobbled together pretty good systems based on older components from the "golden age," including tubed Marantz, McI, Rek-o-Kut, Bozak, KLH 9 (double sets), ad nauseam. 

Integrated amps were not part of this, though today, with the lines to differentiate equipment blurred by low cost equipment, that is no longer true. The "quest" was to spare no effort, which often, but not always, meant expense, to achieve something that represented the cutting edge of home music reproduction. 

We have become inured to unrestrained hype, expense and hyperbolic reviews to the point where it is difficult to separate the true, enduring milestone components from the chaff. I don’t pretend to have superior knowledge, I just lived it since around 1970 and built systems for myself that represented the best that I could accomplish-- I went from a mini-HQD system running ARC tubes and an SP-10 in the ’70s-early 80’s to horns and Lamm SETs with a substantial vinyl front end in the early aughts. I spent more than the average citizen and have a very good system but I don’t claim to have an ultimate system, only one that works for me. (In fact, I have a vintage system that represents a good approximation of what I was running in 1975 and it is very enjoyable, also all tube, Quad Loudspeaker and the same SP-10 I had in 1973). 

Today, the lines are blurred. You can buy separates at low cost, and high quality integrated amps that didn’t exist back in the day. Speakers run the gamut- there is no "one way" and a lot, as all of you know, is getting the system to work in the room, not just hardware. Plus, we have credible digital sources today which did not exist for consumers back in the early days of the "high end." 

I do agree that it is more a state of intention than one of price, although given the cost of gear today, a lot of the top tier stuff costs. I’m glad I got into this 50 plus years ago, and while not complacent, I’m no longer on the "quest."

I’d be hard-pressed to give you a better perspective; much is context. 

@whart  “….hard-pressed to give you a better perspective….”

l know my take on all this was well and truly tongue-in-cheek, but after reading your input…. Well, what else is there to say?

Next question…….?

High End Audio was invented by specific people. Mark Levinson, Bill Z. Johnson, and David Wilson are key names. The former makers of luxury audio, Gordon Gow and Saul Marantz, Bud Fried, Jim Lansing as examples…all practiced economy to an extent…not as much as Dave Hafler or Henry Kloss, but they didn’t go to extremes where the tangible results didn’t make sense. The High End guys lavished military/aerospace/instrument grade parts, extremely expensive metal chassis and transformers, often with a complete disregard for functional utility, in pursuit of vanishing performance benefits. 
The 80s brought us the “Greed is Good” sensibility and the industry took off with fancy parts, exotic materials and questionable engineering choices. The counter argument is also rampant…the ASR crowd, Chi-Fi chip amps and DACs that measure perfectly for a song. 

@toddalin  ...

"Where Does High End Start???"

...Just above what you can afford.

Good One! 

+1 on Audiotroy’s response.  It’s not price, it’s intention and execution.

Helo Freediver!  The terms used to define quality levels are of use to advertisers only. They don't deserve to be uttered by music lovers and gear enthusiasts. Companies like Adcom, Cambridge, NAD, Outlaw, Schitt, Starke Sound, and others have demonstraited that good sounding gear does NOT have to be astronomically priced. High quality parts are not cheap, but fancy, sculpted, extra thick front panels are much more dear. There is an artistic turn of mind, encouraged by the marketing department, for eye-catching products that look expensive (and are) so those with ample funds will have something to satisfy their need to feel superior to others. 

Great sounding components of a music system do not have to be expensive. You can put together a fine sounding system for $5,000 if you are careful. Read the reviews with caution. If the reviewer says, "I bought the sample product after reviewing it," or "I could happily live with this unit in my system forever," that means it's a good piece of gear. If they say, "If you are looking for  product in this price range, you should consider this one," that means it is ho-hum, keep looking. Reviews sell magazines; that's the publishing business. They need something to write about. You don't see the poor reviews in the magazines. Think clearly, listen and read carefully, and be sure you can return anything you buy within 39 deays for a full refund. Listen to it first if you can. You own your ears, no two people hear the same thing (our ears are shaped differently), make your own decisions. Enjoy the music. 

Like most audiophiles and what they believe sounds better, "high end" is 100% subjective.

I don't think you can put a price on it if we are just talking HE sound. 

I have heard some extraordinary music coming from DIY type tube gear. 

To me High End has the look, the feel, & the sound. Beautiful pieces..you know what I mean. You open them & every part down to the screws & resistors are top shelf. Cables, connectors, knobs, whatever is in eye's sight looks & feels like a million bucks. Match that with beautiful sound & I'll say that's some High End equipment right thar'.  

To me High End has the look, the feel, & the sound. Beautiful pieces..you know what I mean. You open them & every part down to the screws & resistors are top shelf. Cables, connectors, knobs, whatever is in eye's sight looks & feels like a million bucks. Match that with beautiful sound & I'll say that's some High End equipment right thar'. 

Precisely. And if your insecurities compel you to relate that to a price tag, then you're not an audiophile.

How does the label “Hugh end” matter? If I spent $20,000 and you’ve spent $80,000 but I like the sound of my system better, does the label “high end” matter? I heard a million dollar system and didn’t like it as much as mine. It was higher end, meaning more expensive but so what? That said, I’ve spent more than I ever expected to create the sound I want but creating the sound you want, I think is what matters.

To be honest, I started my high end hobby  from circuit city , Best Buy , then to our local high end stores here. Until I met 2 audiophiles who own mark levinsons, audio research, theta , and saw their expensive Audioquest , Kimber , and nice looking cables . The sound and music really is amazing.Then they told it’s high end stuff. 

@goldenways + 1

Intention and sound quality are the arbiters of high end, not name brand or price. I've heard many systems over many decades, high price and brand name don't necessarily result in high engagement factor. Many boutique manufacturers out there, intention off the charts and they have the chops to pull off the execution. 

There is no way to establish parameters for any performance metric, never mind an overall assessment of what is high-end, or whatever level of performance.  Dollars don't necessarily figure into this at all.  If one's priorities in sound reproduction match a particular product's strengths, it can be reasonably dubbed the "best" even if it is modest in price. 

For example, the Quad 57 speaker is so captivating in some respects that a lot of people think it is unrivalled even to this day.  It has no deep bass, cannot be played very loud, and has a lot other limitations, but, I would not argue with anyone thinking it is the best speaker ever made. 

There are so many different paths one can take to achieving a personal high end system and no one would agree on all of the choices someone makes.  A local dealer who makes custom speakers and electronics as well as selling some quite expensive branded gear, will recommend some gear that others would find shockingly inappropriate in ultra expensive systems.  For example, he recommends reconditioned Thorens 124 turntables in systems that are well past six figures in price.  Even more shocking is that most of his demonstrations are done from a music server and that server is a Sonos device feeding very nice DACs.  When people ask about a server, he recommends that they get a Sonos from Best Buy (he doesn't even sell them). 

@fatdaddy2 

"Absolute? The point at which your significant other gets really p*ssed at your most recent purchase."

Hold on here. You're supposed to tell them????

Clearly it had nothing to do with the Indians since they were using smoke signals.  And I don't think caveman really cared.

Maybe Mozart was responsible but I think he was deaf.

Didn't Thomas Edison invent the turntable so maybe he should get all the credit.

I do not think you can assign a dollar limit to when hi-fi begins. If you did it would have to be above $2500 since you can't discern Quality music below this level.

This is a difficult question.  

I see a lot of replies stating High End doesn't have a fixed price point,that price doesn't reflect sound quality etc..
 IF THAT IS TRUE,the WHY do reviewers & MANY MANY repliers on this board,when quantifying a system or components sound,continue to specify,it sounds great "FOR IT's PRICE" or "Competes with products well above it's price point" or "punches well above it's price point"?
 

 IF THAT IS TRUE,the WHY do reviewers & MANY MANY repliers on this board,when quantifying a system or components sound,continue to specify,it sounds great "FOR IT’s PRICE" or "Competes with products well above it’s price point" or "punches well above it’s price point"?

"Punches well above it’s price point" has nothing to do with High-end or Ultra-high end. This is about how good the value proposition is. Schitt being one example mentioned earlier. Dan D’Agostino is another. Great products, beautiful industrial design, but expensive. Several brands compete well at half the cost or even less.

I don’t think you need to define high-end as brackets/price points to discuss audio.

No different than two guys with two different Corvettes. 1 is worth $100K the other is worth $40K. They both belong to the same club.

@freediver    No need to shout. Reviewers are paid to promote and sell a product, the best way to do that is convince the potential buyer their getting more for the money. One needs to be their own reviewer, the more time. effort and knowledge towards this hobby this will become a useless question(Where Does High End Start?) There are no absolutes or answers to every question is this hobby a grey area(subjective) exists. Those that accept this fact are much better off.

"Hi End" is a state of mind.

I’m thinking it’s an ever changing bullseye. For example, back in the day,  I bought Audio Research’s top of the line preamp, the SP3a for under $600. Today, I think their top of the line preamp the Ref 6SE costs like $23k. Inflation and new technology changes prices.
Boutique hifi equipment, like boutique cars will always be more expensive and their prices will always keep going up.   Like  whoever heard of buying a car that costs over $2 million?

I think freedrivers figures are accurate

Until I hit $3k to $6k per component 

that’s  where I found my sweet spot

Mid fi for sure   Also I became very satisfied at that price point 

and it was all I could afford 

Tweaks came after that and now I wouldn’t touch a thing 

Good luck Willy-T

Interesting thread. I personally think high-end is an eye-of-the-beholder assessment. How many dollars does it take to reach nirvana? Probably as many opinions as there are people to form them. I'm reminded of something the late Sir Kenneth Clark (historian, author, TV presenter, and crashing bore) once said on his series "Civilisation," (the British spelling): he couldn't exactly define civilization, but he knew when he was in its presence. That's how I feel about high-end audio--I flatter myself that I can appreciate it when I hear it, but what makes it so is not easily translatable into words. Or dollars, come to that. 

As for our opinions on the subject, let's remember this astute Will Rogers quote: "If you laid all the economists end to end, they'd face all different directions."

Of two thing one or the other :

We define high fi by pricing...( i refuse this because i heard one million bucks system sounding bad)

Or we define it by the optimization learning process necessary to make any system/room able to reach his potential..

Why?

Because there is no relation between a system/room ,at any price, before and after the optimization process.. No relation at all... ( i suppose a minimal level of synergy already given between the gear pieces here)

I know for a fact that most people dont know what their system/room optimal level S.Q. is because they dont know how to optimize it...They prefer to buy than to learn...It takes times...If their budget is low they resign to an unsatisfying experience...

It is why they upgrade uselessly half the time to shift the pain for a moment ... The other half upgrading could be motivated by absence of budget constraint or synergy lackings...

it’s amazing, and a little bit sad, how the relative amount of financial resources expended on a hi-fi system is such a point of division. Everyone has their own budget representing what they are willing and able to spend on a system. If someone is able to use that budget to get something that is satisfying, well, they are in the winners circle. I’m also amazed that there are people who claim to know what motivates folks who they don’t know, can’t name, and will never meet to make certain buying decisions. I don’t know what is in someone’s mind when they buy hi-fi gear unless they tell us. I assume, and maybe it’s an incorrect assumption, that whether someone spends $5000. or $250,000 on a set of speakers, for example, they do so because with the information they have, they believe it will provide a satisfying listening experience in the room they have set up for a price they are willing to pay. How could you assume that someone you don’t know made that decision out of ignorance or arrogance? Lots of long distance Mind readers in the audiophile community. No reason to fixate on how other people spend their money. Take care of your own. 
 

You might say there are two ways to be an audiophile.

One is to study, learn, listen, search, find.

The other is to spend a lot of money.

Some folks do both.

Which one do you want to be?

I kinda wish people stopped talking about money all the time. The tenor of this pursuit should never be money.

You will notice that accomplished audiophiles rarely, if ever, mention money.

You might say there are two ways to be an audiophile.

One is to study, learn, listen, search, find.

The other is to spend a lot of money.

Some folks do both.

Which one do you want to be?

I kinda wish people stopped talking about money all the time. The tenor of this pursuit should never be money.

You will notice that accomplished audiophiles rarely, if ever, mention money.

 

Exactly right!

And we do not take the cost of a system as a meter of our acoustical satisfaction nor as a meter of a system acoustical value..

All is in the way we optimize it...

For sure my low cost amplifier even well optimized will not beat a very costlier well done designed and well optimized system...(if the costlier system is not well optimized it may be another story though)

I must specify this because some people taking me for an idiot think that i put my low cost system on the same level as all the costlier beautiful system i had seen here in the virtual pages...

my point is: any system must be optimized nervermind his price...

With my low cost one i reach the level of "the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold"... It is enough for me , my needs and my budget...

Give me money i will optimize any chosen system at any price...

Then i will reach "the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold"

But in the money you will gave me add the cost of a perfectly well designed acoustical dedicated room, i will not install a 200,000 bucks system in a room made of resonators made of plumber plastic etc (mine was homemade at peanuts costs)