DUP, why do I have to keep explaining these things to you? "High End" refers to gear designed by folks who are trying to achieve fidelity to the source, not merely loudness or boom in the bass. Sometimes this gear is mass-marketed, but usually not. "Entry Level" high end is gear that is compromised by the necessities of costs (anybody can throw a 15" driver, a $5 whizzer, and a $2 horn tweeter into a large box -- but the result won't be faithful to the source), but still carefully enough designed to keep a natural midrange (again, DUP, fidelity to the source, as much as possible, not mass sales, is the final goal) and a non-boomy bass. The compromises create products that err on the side of omission , not comission. You get a hint of the best at a fraction of the cost (hence, the term, "Entry Level").

After all, you paid 15 large for your Wurlitzers -- is THAT high end? What did YOU pay for that you couldn't have gotten with a Blose? Even your AVA crap costs 2 to 3 grand, per piece...why didn't YOU buy a $500 Mitchy-Bitchy receiver, with over 7 channels at a "guaranteed" 300 watts per channel, complete with a piezeolectric weather vane on top? Did you get the propeller beanie yet? Now, stop being a churl. DUP -- the conoisseur of High End sound...now, THERE's an oxymoron!

Gotta move that air, eh?

DUP has some objective questions that can only be answered subjectively. The answer to his first one word question is, yes, "Entry Level High End" is an oxymoron. The term is self-contradictory. So, an answer such as, "achieve fidelity to the source", is meaningless. No different than achieving a home run hit with a bat purchased at Oshman's or a custom bat manufactured specifically for your own hands. Also, fidelity doesn't translate as quality, which is left up to the engineers and producers. For the end user, fidelity begins with the degree of accuracy of sound that is recorded. Personally, I feel people are wasting resources in the wrong direction. They obtain poor quality recordings and try to make them sound better through the use of high end equipment. A practice that would be idiotic if your collection is mainly from the CD racks at Target and so forth. There is nothing wrong with obtaining high end equipment. But don't be surprised when you realize that half your collection sounds like crap because the equipment exposes the poor fidelity from the "source" and not to the source. This is the fallacy of Stereophile. There are no studies to my knowledge comparing and measuring low end equipment with high end equipment using the same low end source. Why? Because the lower end equipment is going to surpass the higher end equipment because the source is manufactured for the mass market. Thus, a commercial source is more popular because the average listener is used to hearing it on lower end equipment, which was the design from the start. When they hear the same source played on higher end equipment they will point out how bad it sounds and the owner of the high end equipment is stuck with pure denial. But it is a free market. Knock yourselves out. Some people buy quality sources and quality equipment and are happy. Some people buy poor sources and quality equipment and think they are audiophiles. Some people buy the everyday poor sources and play them on lower end equipment and are happy. I think DUP and I are a minority because we actually study the studies and ask questions like, "What if you played an Alicia Keys CD from Amazon.com on high end equipment? Would you swear she is in the room with you or will the fidelity of the source be so bad that you end up hearing all the things the producers and engineers didn't even hear or even intended for you to hear? So, trying to achieve fidelity to the source may be a self-contradictory statement as well. Semper Fi.

BTW, I consider something "high end" if they don't need to mass advertise to remain a going concern or something that was considered high end a long time ago and still keeps ticking after all these years and can be compared to something currently on the market. Like the obsolete Sansui SP2500 compared to the Klipsch Heresy II or its replacement the Hersey III. I've noticed a few people that own both sets and prefer the 1970s Sansui. I have four mint Sansui SP2500, which I purchased for less than $200 per pair. The Heresy II retailed for $1,098 per pair and the Heresy III retail for under $1,500. I guess all three sets would fall under someone's definition of "entry level high end" equipment. In the end, it is the engineering design and not the full page ad that takes priority. I also don't think something is high end just because it is an a shop and can be "auditioned". Auditioning is the equivalent of taking out a new car for a test drive. It doesn't tell you the whole story or what is in the future for you if you make the purchase based solely on a test drive. Also, price does not mean high end. That would be the most stupid mistake to make and is a risky way out of avoiding studying the art of audiophile listening. Bragging rights are not for sale at any cost.

It seems that Oxymoron is too complicated.

"They obtain poor quality recordings and try to make them sound better through the use of high end equipment. A practice that would be idiotic if your collection is mainly from the CD racks at Target and so forth."

How does one know what is a low end recording until one tries it on a high end system? Also,

I have heard more than one recording that sounded bad on a low/mid fi system, but sounded excellent on a high end system. Turns out the midfi system just could not resolve the recording like the high end system could.

Maybe "high end" is in the ear of the beholder? Is a $49 power socket "high end" when you can get a socket at Lowes for 49 cents? Maybe "high end" is a state of mind or maybe it is relative? For example, if you were using the $150 turntable from your college days and then bought a $500 P2with a good cart., maybe from a relative standpoint, that is "high end". We could go on and on and this question provides a good test of logical reasoning and argument. Thanks.

Tom Collins

"Is there anything an audiophile won't beleive?"

Yes, you.

I may not have been clear in my post. I was referring to the logic (or lack thereof) involved in answering your inquiry. I thought it might be interesting to see if someone could come up with logical arguments to justify a subjective subject. I agree that such would be difficult but interesting anyway. I was not advocating for the $49 unit over the 49 cent unit, only pointing out that some folks might feel that that was high end. looking at it from one point of view, price (alone), one could make that argument. is it a good argument, i don't know. someone else may claim to hear the difference, is that a good argument, i don't know either. there is no right or wrong answer.

Tom

You may be referring to a high fidelity recording which should only be played on high end equipment. As for how to determine if you are purchasing a quality recording. Well, that is where earning your stripes as an audiophile comes in handy. There are names other than just the musicians and record label related to the recordings. Like the producers and engineers for example. We also have to take into consideration the source of the source. If the source of your recording is from the original master tapes et al and are professionally engineered than you know it will sound splendid on a high end system. If it is taken from a 3rd or even 4th generation master tape than you will know it will probably sound like crap on any system.

Entry level high end is a legit question.
Like many hobbies, there is a price/performance curve.
Eventually they all get to an area of deminishing returns.
The cost increases rapidly in exchange for smaller and smaller gains in performance.
The entry level high end is in the area where the curve begins to go vertical. The vertical scale could also be labeled in units of insanity.

Lamont, what sticks out in your post, to me, is your statement, "There are no studies to my knowledge comparing and measuring low end equipment with high end epuipment using the same low end sources."

Yes, there are. Countless studies have been made. By individual listeners. The measuring instrument is the ear. "Low end," "mid-fi," and "high end" are terms of convenience. No one can define them, but anyone who loves music can hear them. As 301 notes, non-"high end" equipment tends to impose its own colorations on both the best and worst sources, and everything in between. We have all heard it. Nobody can prove it objectively. A boom and a honk pervade all sources, well-recorded and poorly-recorded. A high-end setup, even at modest cost, resolves detail and has, thus, more "fidelity to the source." I chose the phrase carefully. All recordings are different, and high-end gear reveals those differences. High end gear is transparent and digs deep into the grooves and pits. Even "cheap" high-end gear descriminates. The more distortion, the more homogenization. Screech and boom. You can argue this, but you can't deny it.

Yes. There is such a thing as low-cost high end. Anybody who argues this hasn't been listening. There is no oxymoron. This forum category is legitimate, sophistry aside.

Cheers, and happy listening to all.

Quote:
I have heard more than one recording that sounded bad on a low/mid fi system, but sounded excellent on a high end system.

And also have heard the converse.
Music that I heard and liked in the car or at a bar, and then after buying the disk and playing it at home and hated it.

Cyclebrain, this used to happen to me, when I had equipment I wasn't satisfied with. But, over the past 10-12 years, it hasn't happened at all. Today's $3,000 system can be more neutral and resolving than yesteryear's $10,000-$15,000 system. And those are nominal prices -- inflation-adjusted, the comparison becomes even more ridiculous in favoring the modern system.. Today's best entry-level systems can provide sound you couldn't buy for any price 30 years ago, provided a proper set-up (careful room placement and due attention to vibration problems). Tremendous bass was possible 30 years ago, and tremendous dynamics, but overall fidelity to the source that compares to today's best "budget" systems was not.

Car sound can be seductive, if there is a match between the particular music and the car acoustic environment. But I'll still take anything I hear over the car stereo or at a bar or restaurant, then play it at home, and I'll enjoy the music more through my home system. This wasn't always so.

Fair enough, Clifton. But you sort of quoted me out of context. The part about Stereophile studies. Semper Fi.

Lamont, I am truly embarassed (and sorry) to have quoted you without noting the stereophile qualification you worded in. It always pisses me off when somebody does this to me. Your reaction was much more civil than mine would have been.

My feeble excuse? I am quite passionate about this point (and related points). If it sounds good and measures bad, believe the sound (unless the measurements indicate reliability problems). If it sounds bad and measures well, believe the sound. On all these "audiophile" (ugh!) forums, folks badger the musical experience, touting the abstractions, the numbers.

Actually, as an old fart who has been following the audiophile press for 25+ years, there has been a slow and quiet, but sure, revolution. Professional reviewers of old confidently rejected many designs, in favor of an absolute standard only they could hear. I believe this occurred because earlier designs were so deficient -- you had the "pillow over the drivers, AR-3 sound," which solved the problem of agressive upper mid-range and tweeter deficiencies, and the "needle through the brain sound," which was dynamic and exciting, but murdered the mass violins in a symphony orchestra recording. Now, many, MANY high-end designs have succeeded in capturing the positives and rejecting (or downright eliminating) the negatives.

Wes Phillips touches on this point, in the recent As We See It, when he says that he has heard very few systems recently, if assembled with the music in mind, that he couldn't listen to long and intensely and still enjoy.

I am sure your system, with its liberal dose of home cookin' and lovin' care for the ingredients, outperforms many $100,000 "store-bought-blind" snow jobs.

And, yes, Semper Fi. If you can't talk to 'em, shoot at 'em until you can.

Not a problem, Clifton. And you bring up good points.