In your opinion, what is Hi, Medium and Low end?

So, now we have 4 categories: lo-end, mid-end, hi-end, and wretched excess and Albert is the poster boy for the latter. Way to go Albert, I'm jealous.

Gogirl, if one is willing to give up full range and go with a 2-way mini-monitor, then high-end can be achieved for four-figures, subject to that limitation. Many people do make that compromise and are quite happy with it for many years. I did that for decades and only moved up to full range in the last year or so. (My investment escalated several fold, partly because I can now afford the best components, but a doubling occured simply to get another octave or so without giving up the all-important midrange and imaging.

I think the definition of high end is defined in sound and not money. The key is that timbre be accurate and that the sound be transparent and stress free. Compromises must be skillfully implemented such that they really don't stick out (for instance, the roll off must be natural and graceful).

Dave

It's not so much that it take a large investment of money for equipment. Most serious music lovers have more money in software than gear I'd hazard to guess. Take a 1000 lps or cds and compare that to the cost of a system that most members have. It's the time invested in learning about room and equipment interactions and what works with what. FWIW if I became wealthy I'd have a pro design a room made for audio. And if possible involve the equipment manufacturer in the process. Otherwise I might be just be another rich guy with an expensive but crappy sounding system. There are too many to mention but on this thread there are several members with vast experience in audio that it pays to listen too. If I was starting out and had the money I'd find out what they're drinking and hand deliver to their house on serious listening night. Definitely at least worth reading threads some of the more astute members threads to learn before buying anything. You can skip mine!

Oh no, the dreaded automobile analogy torpedo! Abandon thread! Abandon thread!

No, I cannot afford the cost of most hi-end equipment. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy what I can afford.

So,I think by Jax2 and Mapmans reply that it takes a very large investment to achieve high end performance and some either just cant afford the cost or are not into the music that much.

Did I say that? I'm not even sure where you got that inference from my response?! I think there is a threshold where your investment in "improvement" can skyrocket in terms of $ spent VS improvements gained. If I had the money I don't think my priorities would be to spend huge amounts on small improvements. I like my system as it is. I have heard plenty of all-out systems that have impressed me, but the degree of improvement does not occur to me, personally, as worth the investment. This is all speculation, mind you. I don't have that kind of money, and I have no idea what that experience may be like or how it might change me. For me, right now, the greatest improvements I could think of for my system would be in tweaks to my speakers and in changing my room to a dedicated custom designed room for listening. The later would probably render the largest improvement in my case. That is definitely something I'd be willing to invest in if I had lots of money.

Why do some still say they have high end systems if you need something better to make it truly high end.Or is this like having a faster car gets confused with having a better car ?

I said I considered mine to be a modest system. I don't try to improve it for the sake of bringing it to someone's arbitrary definition of what is "better". I improve it because the investments usually bring me closer to the music, and thus bring me enjoyment. I've reached my own threshold where the investments required to make things significantly better are not worth it to me, short of perhaps the room (which actually would be a very significant investment).

The car thing doesn't connect. I hate cars. I ride a motorcycle, and avoid 4 wheeled vehicles like so many piles of dog poop on the sidewalk. I drive one only if I have no choice. Even taking your statement about cars and applying it to bikes I don't connect. "Faster" makes absolutely no difference to me. I'm much more interested in how well the bike fits my riding style and my preferences of terrain. Fast has very little to do with it. I've ridden the same model bike for 12 years now (two versions of it) simply because it fits me and my riding style best. There are a great abundance of much faster and sportier alternatives to what I ride, yet I have absolutely no desire to go there...not even a curiosity. Been there, done that, it doesn't fit me. If I had money up the wazzoo, I am quite sure I'd still ride the same bike and would still avoid driving a car. There's a thread somewhere on here about what kind of cars we all drive if you want to bore yourself to tears, in case you aren't already.

This all may occur to you as defensive, but I have to say your response just doesn't fit me at all. If I implied what you seemed to take from my post, I didn't mean to. Perhaps it was my poking fun at my buddy, Albert, but that was all tongue-in-cheek. I do respect his passion, and the man is a gentlemen in every respect. Hope that clarifies my perspective a bit.