??? 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)

@whart wrote:

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. 

That’s just it: speaker systems that purported to do something beyond the norm. This was about large, subs- and tweeter augmented true full-range (often panel) speaker systems when outboard active configuration was actually thought of as an approach to expand on the passive speaker potential, and not as a subject inviting endless debate over passive vs. active. I don’t see how this has been carried over into the present day mentality and realm of "high-end" speakers in any way effective, except for a select range of over-luxuriated statement systems that tend to come off as oddities at ludicrous, out-of-reach price levels. Now high-end has its share of being a faux, pretentious endeavor more about pricing, identity, status and entitlement than an open-minded exploration in pursuit of raw performance; a regurgitation of what’s basically the same low efficiency concept in different clothing, "cultivated" ad nauseum (at progressively higher prices) and from a physical package that’s always less than it could be. 

Price can be a factor, yes, but as I like to quip: until it isn’t. What I mean by that is that at some point one needs realize how a given package and design approach can only be improved so much with expenditure alone. Maybe it’s time to change the perspective and take a different approach: what’re the true bottlenecks of this system, and how can I lessen their influence in a broader, more explorative sense? True high-end mentality, from my chair, is taking that into consideration and seeing the bigger picture, the forest the trees, and then further improve from that, or these coming outsets. Price alone has become too much of factor as a validation means, indeed speaking of progressive pricing as that which defines "high-end" carries nothing of importance to actually elucidate what it’s about. 

It’s all a matter of perspective.  Everyone’s ears are different and the way a system sounds for your taste is what matters. In this forum, you might run into a bit of snobbery because of cost. Cost may have much to do with quality components, but may not be the sound for everyone. 

I have heard a system of $5,000 run all over $70,000 of stereo equipment. Why?  Not sure, the speaker phasing might have been wrong. The components connected to each other may have had an Impedance mis- match?  The room also was not good. The 50k speakers may have not been broken in?  Who knows, but I heard it. 

I am very sure, if all components are matched that in most cases price can matter. But how good is good before the next 5 to 10 thousand dollars makes.... how much difference?  You can have a great sounding system for around 5k that will take much more dollars to beat. Again, it depends on your taste in music, sound, what you like to hear. Price might not matter so much. Its an opinion for the individual .

The premise of this post is wrong. There is a threshold of cost, which is a lot lower than you'd think, where marketing and snake oil take over, and you're not getting any improvements in sound. In general, you will find amazing speakers in the $1500-$2000 range that will embarrass speakers that cost much more. Everything else doesn't matter much. Find an AVR with enough power and a SINAD above 70, tnt standard, cheap 12AWG OFC cables. That's enough for hi-fi, assuming your room and acoustics are setup properly.

As more posts come in the anger and ignorance of the extreme budget conscious audio buyer(defender) becomes more apparent. 

@dayglow “As more posts come in the anger….. becomes more apparent”

You may have a good point.

This discussion is becoming more of a comparing willies debate. Can a smaller well designed one that bats well above its weight beat a bigger shinier bendy toy one?

It can be quantified with any feedback given for both possible scenarios. If a friend for example enjoyed the performance and eagerly wants to be invited back again.

@willie-t  “l found my sweet spot” may have put his finger right on it.

is my 7.4.6 klipsch thx ultra 2 bedlayer with Emotiva XMC-2 pre-pro & 3 Emotiva DR amps..... considered HIGH END? 

@horace_durrant Who is to say, if you are happy then it's HE. 

My friend Mike sums it up well.  Oh I am sure he will piss a few of you off, but I say so the F what!

https://youtu.be/QEz1P15kRhg?si=j3x79QjR32VbV5-x

Your friend Mike is right.

Incidentally, the top comment featured an interesting observation:

I think the irony is like a lot of things in life, by the time you can afford such things you can't appreciate it.

Luckily for me, I am old enough to remember when "high-end" was not even a thing. I think those words might have become a concept in the 80’s? 90’s? I started buying equipment in the seventies at University Stereo in L.A. I think I spent $500 on an entire system and it sounded good to me. Then I worked at a box store that sold stereo. The guys who worked there talked me into Dynaco book shelf speakers. Well, they sounded very good for maybe $300 for the pair. If I’d heard the word "high-end," I would have thought those Dynacos must have been right up there.

I won’t bore you with all the steps I went through: ARC phono preamp, McCormack amp, Apogee Slant 8 speakers. What in the world could have sounded better? As I made more money, I upgraded, and in my mind every upgrade sounded fantastic, so it was high-end to me. 

I have purchased new and used equipment and even inherited some equipment. I would say the retail value of my system is now around $70K, but again some I purchased used and I have a twenty-year-old amp (Hovland Radia--I love it!) which I inherited. Maybe I’ve spent more than $70K over very many years, selling things I wanted to upgrade. I have no idea, to tell you the truth. It’s just as high-end to me as the $500 system I bought from University Stereo in 1970.

Why is it all high-end to me? I love music! I have to have it around me. So anything that produces music and fits my budget  has always been high-end. Still, look at me now in my old age having spent so much money on stereo equipment. It’s not the equipment I love, it’s the music it produces. And after all the changes I’ve made, I have discovered a house sound. Not too analytical, but not too sloppy. 

Enjoy the music. Don’t fret if you don’t have the cash for bigger speakers or more watts per channel. Trust me, if you love music, it’s all high-end.

While I agree with AudioTroy, that only defines our true hobby’s goals in one dimension.
The truth is an answer that is personal to each of us. 
 Achieving the high end for me, as a 65 year hobbyist, was the first time I was truly thrilled by the realism of the sound quality of my system.  I’ve gone through countless speakers, amplifiers, cables, etc with only fair results.  Sometimes with great and expensive equipment.  Only when I combined excellent set up with fine equipment did I really achieve high end.  From then all the additional spending was additive.  I could have enjoyed high end much earlier had I understood how to create more than just a nice wall of sound. So that threshold for all of us is that combination of quality equipment and setup knowledge applied in our space.  Every time I turn my rig on I’m absolutely amazed and thrilled by its realism.  That’s high end for me.

I am an old fart at 70 years old and i don't know what you would call my system. Some would say mine is low end but i don't care, its sounds good to me. Im a tube guy (surprise) and I do my own work on them.

Rebuilt HK Citation II

Rebuilt HK Citation I

Rebuilt Thorens TD124

PH 16 Phono preamp

Fixed my 16X16 room. Probably the best thing i did to improve the sound

Rebuilt 4 NLA Advents stacked. I was a friend of an engineer at Advent and he told me what is best to get them to another level. I like the sound a lot and i had many people listen to it and they cant believe how good it sounds. Sounds good to me and I don't have near the money of some higher priced system that dont come close to mine. One of these days I will upgrade the speakers but I'm not paying 10,00 + for a smidgen of improvement.

All old stuff like me (lol)

When the music involvement becomes such that the system reproducing it dissolves.  You’ve arrived.

"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????“

I don’t have anything to add on the definitions of HEA, mid-fi, etc, but today, the wife and I were discussing my most recent purchase (Backert Labs Rhumba Extreme).  She was objecting to how much I spent, and recognizing how she would react, I was initially hesitant to tell her about the purchase. “Don’t you think I’d notice a new piece of audio equipment?”, she says. Me: “Well, I’ve had it now for several months.” Crickets . . .

Later, while sitting in our family room with my audio gear, she said “Okay, which one is it?”  I pointed to it saying “Three silver knobs.”  She didn’t ask what it was or what it does. 

Did anyone get the right answer yet?

I've always thought of it more as in brands rather than price..... I am going to date myself pretty quickly with the brands, but none the less, everyone will get it.  

Denon, NAD, Yamaha,  entry level audiophile.  and occasionally, each brand would step into midfi.  

Adcom, Sumo, maybe a Hafler bridged into midfi.... 

Conrad Johnson, Threshold, Audio Research started High End....

Of course none of this is absolute Today, Brands like Schiit, go entry level and tip toe into mid as do others, but in general brands do target this way.  

As product improves,  there are some entry level priced products that are very good. There is more blurring and a ton of opinion, but when is that not the case in this hobby.