The term "High End" needs to die. Long live Hi-Fidelity!

I like the term "hifi" and use it frequently, and although I'm lucky at this stage in my life to be able to afford pricey stuff, I've always felt that there's a lot of reasonably affordable (a relative term really) brilliantly  designed components that embarrass the so called "high end" stuff and sound beautiful. Besides, it's more fun to use the experience accumulated from years of hifi fun to assemble a world class sounding gear heap from less "precious" (and sometimes "previously owned") components, and compare it to a multi buck system someplace (usually a local "audio salon") and note that, yeah man, my gear pile sounds better (with the obvious advantage of it being in my house where I can dial it in)...more fun, way more fun.

Or you can use years of experience to identify the more expensive components that are actually worthwhile and create a system that sounds sublime. Truth is that there are no "victims" in either scenario.

In general, I agree with Eric.
When I first became interested in Hi-Fi home stereo, back in the mid to late 70s, the term High End Audio was loosely used, referring to audio systems, speakers and components, that were above and beyond (in terms of sound and performance) than the common all-in-one rack systems of the day. My goal then, as it is today, was to build a musical and engaging system, synergistic with its environment and my budget. I had subscriptions to "Stereo Review", Stereophile" and The "Sensible Sound" magazines and enjoyed much, the reviews and articles, but as the reviews became more like sales pitches for ridiculously priced audio components, I gave them up.
It seems now, that "High End" applies more to the very high $$$ price affixed to audio gear than it does to its real value or performance.
When I can, I still enjoy auditioning new components and speakers and experiment with upgrades and tweaks from time to time, but, In all, I'm very pleased with my system - whether or not it qualifies as someone's idea of high end - it works for me.......Jim

jsautter...I don't think you got the gist of my post...obviously a good system can be obtained by paying for a new Boulder or D'Agostino "Relentless" amp, $40,000 cables, or any number of things in the range of precious hifi stuff...but a simple example of how not to is maybe my $1,200 Dennis Had Firebottle amp...is a Kondo Audio Note at maybe 30 grand a "better" sounding amp? Maybe to somebody it is, but based on my enjoyment of the Had amp I seriously doubt anything comparable is worth 30 times the cost, or is even "better" sounding in any way. My system does sound "sublime," and hey...I saved 400 grand!

Why does anyone care about what anyone else spends on anything? I suggest considering the following guidelines: (1) Spend your own money how ever you want; (2) Resist the temptation to sit in judgment on others who spend differently than you do--either more than you or less than you; and (3) Call the hobby whatever you want so that it reflects how you view the hobby. I understand OP's reasoning, I just don't think it accurately reflects cause and effect.
IMO audio equipment enthusiasm isn't shrinking because of terminology. And it isn't shrinking because potential new adherents are becoming convinced they can't afford it. It is shrinking because we are making less communal investments in music appreciation and education. Thus, fewer people believe music is a worthwhile "investment" of their time or their money or both. The music is what matters and because fewer people value music, fewer people are attracted to pursuing "quality" audio equipment to faithfully reproduce the sound of music. That includes the DIY segment. I would argue that the Asian audio market has traction because that part of the world still values music education and invests in it.