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
I agree with mrtennis.. If only we could take the listeners out of the equation. It does raise the question. "If a system is playing music and no one is present, can it really be called music.?? One way to take the listener out of it is to send his wife to shop for the system. Think of the money that would save. You would have a lousy little system and she would have a dozen new pair of shoes.....

Anyone coming to the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest????
I feel that the musicians/artist make the song pleasant to the ear. Not necessarily the equipment. As stated above in various ways in the various post, a great song on a lousy system still sounds good because of the song itself. A lousy song on great equipment is still a lousy song although the performance capability of great equipment is still evident.

For comparison sake, I believe this applies to a musical instrument also. If you put a lousy musician on a instrument of proven quality, the lousy musician will make this quality instrument sound lousy. Put a very skilled musician on a lousy instrument and the song will still sound great. Put a skilled musician on a quality instrument and it sounds even better.

This is only my opinion as one who listens to and appreciates music.

Is there a general agreement that the term "budget high end" gear is a legitimate term for inexpensive gear that crosses over the threshold of hifi sound?
"Is there a general agreement that the term "budget high end" gear is a legitimate term for inexpensive gear that crosses over the threshold of hifi sound? "

To my mind and ears absolutely yes.
I very much liked the musician-instrument comparison. Right on the dot. Thanks Darkkeys!
Darkkeys, An excellent analogy, I think. Why not 'budget high end' when what is being discussed is inexpensive equipment capable of high quality reproduction, especially when incorporated into a system with similarily inexpensive components, synergistically. I've heard some pretty fair systems that didn't cost a fortune. IMHO, the pursuit is as much about 'flash' and 'expectations' (albeit unreasonable or unobtainable as your analogy suggests with an unskilled idiot who buys a Strad and then takes music lessons. A disease not exclusive to audio. Think cameras, race cars, ad infinitum).

But to save Mr T the effort, apart from the TAS' collection, what really defines the term 'budget' or 'hifi' sound, or 'budget hifi sound'? Within my budget I have no problem putting together a 'hifi' sound. Or do I?

Sorry, the devil made me say it! :-)
Newbee,

But here you have the definition. You only need to exchange a few words from what Mrtennis has said in his last post. It is actually an equation with two unknowns, a formula which I've found can be used for many different instances.

To wit:

"there is no guarantee that budget sound will be hifi and there is no guarantee what you have spent will be budget. the hifi and the budget can contribute to a pleasant sound.

if a stereo system is minimally budget, there will be instances in which it does not sound hifi, as a consequence of the quality of the budget."

Get it?
Cheers and thanks Mrtennis