[vegasdave]

You can get great results by mixing high end and mid-fi as I have done. My Bryston amp and preamp are high end. My speakers would be mid-fi I guess. My cd player and turntable are had mid-fi prices, but offer high end performance, imo.

[weirdo]

My friends know of my passion. A friend at work asked me if I was in it for the gear or for the music. My response was that I loved music so much that I absolutely need to hear it with some Verve. For me high end is loving the music and doing whatever you can to make you feel alive when you listen to it. 

[vegasdave]

True. Well said.

[Niteshade]

High end has nothing to do with how much you pay for your equipment in terms of sound quality, strictly speaking.  It has to do with reproduction quality. The more faithful to the source something is, the 'higher-end' it is.

I think it's a term that should be applied to an entire audio system. What good is a nice CD player or turntable if the speakers, amp or preamp, etc.... are a weak link?  It all has to be high end to be truly high end.

[Bemopti123]

Hi end for me is as another member said, is something that intrisically involves hi expenditures.  Hi fi, I second, third or more what some members have stated is the quest to achieve oneness with the performance either via affordable products or through quite intricate or expensive ones. 

If one really thinks about the second definition and attempts to truly achieve it, then there must be a hi end audio company who will sell "time machines" to specific performances of the artists of our pleasing.  If course tha is the madness in this entire quest for hifi, the impossibility of it.  Consider that most of the performances we like today were not really made in a live venue but mixed and remixed in a acoustically controlled studio.

Not to be herectic here but many people you see today achieve oneness with their favorite artists via really low end electronics such as an Ipod and a pair of earphones going somewhere.

Most of my musical enjoyment as of late has been what I have just described eventhough I am heavily equiped at home.

[Bemopti123]

.

[KeithA]

High end has nothing to do with how much you pay for your equipment in terms of sound quality, strictly speaking.  It has to do with reproduction quality. The more faithful to the source something is, the 'higher-end' it is.

I think it's a term that should be applied to an entire audio system. What good is a nice CD player or turntable if the speakers, amp or preamp, etc.... are a weak link?  It all has to be high end to be truly high end.

To me, what you are describing relates to 'high fidelity'. I still think high-end has $$ connotations

Here's an excerpt from Wiki...

In the 1950s, the terms "high fidelity" or "hi-fi" were popularized for equipment and recordings designed for more accurate sound reproduction

Keith

[Niteshade]

HiFi & High End are synonymous, aren't they?

Maybe I should rephrase that: HiFi and High End should be synonymous.

Why should price be a factor?

[KeithA]

HiFi & High End are synonymous, aren't they?

Maybe I should rephrase that: HiFi and High End should be synonymous.

Why should price be a factor?

Because some of those making the gear have chosen to do so

Just having a bit of fun here I agree with you that in many cases the two can be synonymous...without anyone getting hurt

Hi-fi (the phrase) was coined many moons ago...since that time, the terms hi-fi & hi-end have become somewhat synonymous, I agree.

However, now there's a place where one can pay $50,000 for set of speakers cables and ICs.....the new High End that's certainly more easily segregated by $$ as opposed to incremental performance

Keith

[1ZIP]

My guess is that if you went into most audio shops and say you were interested in some "HiFi" gear their response would be to ask if you had been in a coma since the 50's. 

My primary system is Bryston and I don't consider it "High End".  I use to consider McIntosh to be "High End", mainly because it was so good for so long, but I don't any longer, although I confess a lust and fascination for useless flickering meters bathed in cool blue light.  The point is that the majority of gear provides very good if not exceptional performance at good prices so for me the term "High End" has lost any meaning in differentiating one piece of gear from another.  I suspect that this may be true for many.

[Laundrew]

Exactly, as with most things in this hobby everything is personal and relative. If you bought it at a dedicated audio store, or not at Best Buy, is it high end? If you bought the most inflated priced stuff from best buy, would that be high end? My system could be someone else's dream as easily as it could be their starter or back up system. I don't like to say 'high end', in regards to my own stuff,I don't know if it is or not, doesn't really matter to me what you call it, i just say  'it's good, I like it'. It might be difficult to not equate high end with overpriced. I think you get what you pay for, but only up to a magic point. After the magic point, artistic takes over from sonic.

I think that wrathchild has made an excellent observation on this subject. The point wrathchild makes about the "magic point" is, I believe, right on the mark. After you reach a certain plateau, you are not going to experience great improvements in audio quality.

But what about looks?

I was most impressed by the comment of "artistic merit." I think that there is a great deal of truth in this statement and perhaps some individuals would not like to admit this. Could it be that we all have a small amount of vanity in this particular hobby (is it really a hobby, I no longer believe it is...)? Do we need to have equipment such as this - regardless of how much we all deeply enjoy music? I would say that we do not need equipment such as this but - and here is the kicker, we want it. Audio manufacturers know this, especially in this price range.

Before I continue, I want to make it very clear that music is very precious to me - it is my escape.

So, am I guilty of having a little vanity? I think that I would have to put my hand up and say "yes" to this. Aside from my wife, only one other person has heard my new audio system and this is the way I wish to keep it. Does this also make me selfish? First and foremost, the audio quality must be paramount. I also place a very high value in component aesthetics - they must look awesome (for me anyway). I enjoy the aesthetics of all my components - especially my JBLs. I have started to research turntables and would like to add one to my system next year. Not only must the audio quality be exceptional, but I want (see..the word "want" again) it to be a mechanical wonder - I want to say "wow" when I see it on my stereo stand, I want to sit back and stare at it. To achieve this, I am certainly willing to spend extra.

"Artistic merit," wrathchild is absolutely right...

Perhaps "some food for thought..."

Be well...

[redbook]

I agree with this last entry. Being an artistic spirit has led me to not only WANT but NEED a high level of easthetic satisfaction . Sound excellence IS paramount but I have to dig the looks as well.