Poll: What's wrong with high-end audio?

The Audiophiliac with a high-end Klipsch speaker.

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

CNET Poll

Would you ever buy a high-end audio system?

Yes, if could afford it
Yes, high-end audio, like high-end cars, watches, or cameras is expensive, but it's worth it.
No, high-end gear is way too expensive
No, I don't have room for gigantic speakers or amplifiers

View results

I know what's wrong with high-end audio: it's a secret.

Unlike high-end cars, watches, clothing, etc., 99 percent of potential high-end audio buyers are completely unaware of its existence. It's interesting, car magazines regularly plaster shots of cars that only a miniscule number of readers could ever buy, apparently because guys who drive Dodge Caravans love to read about Ferraris. Even the New York Times runs fawning features about the glories of exotic cars and not a peep about high-end audio.

High-end audio magazines and Web sites are only read by folks already in the game; the Audiophiliac's primary mission is bringing awareness of the better stuff to the wider world.

Sure, a lot of high-end audio is silly expensive, but there's a lot of good stuff that's fairly affordable. And the price of entry plummets when you buy used gear on eBay or Audiogon. Chances are your five year old Sony receiver is nearly worthless, so it may actually cost more to own than a high-end amplifier that you can use for decades.

When you factor in just how long a great set of speakers or electronics can last, it's easier to swallow the investment. A good friend is still using a Linn LP-12 turntable he bought more than 30 years ago. If you really love music, don't you want to hear it sound as good as it can?

Let us know by voting.

[thabassman]

audio is very important to me. so yes i would and did. :)

[Peter Duminy]

High-end Audio is the backbone of the Audio Industry in my humble opinion. For what may be unavailable now due to high costs, may well become affordable and available to mainstream consumers in the future. This is due in part to the ? trickle down? production effect in this, and other Industries. The automotive and camera products are prime examples of this phenomenon.

[joshieee]

I think things are improving. You can buy a brand new top notch SACD player today for under $1000, which will vastly outperform any CD player available at any price ... When you consider that some of those high-end CD players used to sell for 10K upwards, that really is progress. I think that's why Krell and Mark Levinson have stopped making CD players entirely and moved to SACD (though their examples are still mega-pricey - lol).

[gringcorp]

High-end audio's problem is that it's not as expensive as high-end cars, where ludicrous prices and small dealer networks are no impediment. Cars are also more obvious status symbols, since they're visible in the open. High-end audio has massively opaque pricing structures (at least in the primary market), small dealer networks, and repair and maintenance networks that are equally difficult to navigate. Sports cars advertise themselves, but audio needs to be marketed, and dealers and manufacturers have been fairly bad at coordinating this.

[MatrixDweller]

Price out a pair of Von Shweikert VR-11SE speakers. They are only $200,000.

[Lenman_99]

The only problem with the theory about using high end equipment for decades is connectivity. Unless the "high-end" equipment comes with future unrelized connectivity it isn't very useful. Do any of your old "high-end" equipment have HDMI connections or network connectivity? Problably not if it wasn't built in the last five years. That means you need to buy addition connectivity to connect to the 'high-end" equipment. Speakers yes, but not sure on the receivers and amps.

[WopOnTour]

LOL
That's because there is absolutely nothing "high end" with respect to the HDMI specificaton audio wise and current network connectivity hardware is so rediculously noisy a seperate network appliance would be preferable anyways.
I suggest you stick to your Sony

[MatrixDweller]

That's what a prepro is for. The high end speakers and amp(s) don't care if it's HDMI or RCA stereo. The prepro does all of that and you only replace that when you absolutely need the next type of connection. Every audiophille knows that separates are the way to go.

[pegc]

HDMI is for DRM, not for sound, despite any marketing claims. HDMI enables THEM to control what and how WE use media. Yes I have it, but it is evil.

[TimAPhillips]

I'd vote by my answer isn't a choice:

Many people can't justify buying a high end stereo because they live in an apartment/condo/someplace that shares walls. I simply don't want to be the annoying neighbor, so my all-in-one Sony package works just fine for the time being.

[John72953]

Not buying high-end audio equipment because one lives in an apartment/condo is one of the biggest ongoing and completely false and mistaken reasons. Not bothering your neighbours has to do with volume levels, not the quality of equipment one uses.

[blusky08]

Actually, this is a real issue for many people. To truly enjoy and justify high-end audio equipment the benefit is primarily observed at a certain reasonably loud volume not generally recommended in an apartment setting. And let's not forget about issues. High-end headphones attached to a portable device are far more realistic.

Also, "high-end audio" is a rather nebulous thing. For example, the boost in quality for HD video over SD video is much more clear--but what is "good audio?" It's really a much more personal thing, and also surrounded by undue hype. (Really, is a $10k speaker so much better than a $2k speaker? It's very subjective).

[ohjoy]

lol very true John7 volume has nothing to do with it. infact a well designed system will allow greater detail at lower listening levels. So no you do not have to have hi volume levels to get good sound.

Kevin

[FirstReflections]

The problem here is where exactly is the line that sepeartes "high end audio" from everything else? Some people would consider $1000/pair for speakers to be "high end". Others would consider that price to be reasonable if the performance is excellent.

Personally, I consider up to about $3000/pair to be reasonable. Expensive, but reasonable. At that price, the best speakers I have ever heard - The Status Acoustics Decimo - are within reach.

But then there is a whole other league in pricing! You can easily jump from $3000/pair to $6000/pair. Do you get anything for that jump? In terms of quality, I say no, but there are other reasons, such as sheer output (loudness) that could justify that price if your room is large enough to require it. After the $6000/pair - $10,000/pair range though, things just get silly. We start to see $100,000/pair or more and at that point, I'm calling bullplop on all of it because I've heard speakers from companies who are charging these kinds of prices and there is no sonic improvement. It's purely ridiculous mark up and, in fact, in many cases, the actual sound is worse!

So what is "high end"?

If we're talking the $3000/pair Decimo, then yes: high end audio is absolutely worth it!

If we're talking over $10,000/pair, then no: there is so sonic justification for paying that kind of price.

[DMS46]

"In terms of quality?" Absolutely you get more when spend upwards of $10k! Everything has a variable price tag and build quality, including the internal components of a speaker. Not to mention research and development costs. And consider where the speaker US built, or overseas? There's a price tag on that. Your money goes into more than just speakers parts. And you can hear the difference.

Why would you spend $6k on a sofa when you can sit perfectly fine on a $300 one? QUALITY. LONGEVITY. Why spend $800 on speakers you'll probably need to replace in 2 years when you can buy $8k speakers that last a lifetime? And your son's lifetime? And your grandson's lifetime? Same answer.

Truly hi-end audio is completely worth it, if music and movies are part of your life. If you drive a car to get where you're going, go cheap. If you want to enjoy the ride, go quality.

[damone5000]

This post explains high-end audio perfectly but misses the point. Like anything else, audio has diminishing returns on your investment. Going from a $500 pair of speakers to $1000 will give you great return on your $500 increase where going from $10000 to $10500 is negligible. My point is that if you enjoy music try to find where the return on your money is still noticeable to YOU, and stop when it isn't. For me that was at around $1000 for speakers and $1500 on an integrated amp. However, in no way do I think quality or sound stops there, I just cant hear it with my ears, so spending more doesn't make sense to me.

The principal problems with audiophilia are:
- poor availability of high-end audio media (SACD content is meager)
- high-end playback devices are too rare to attract new converts
- consumers care more about video than audio
- 'more features' is flashier than 'better fundamentals', so the former are easier to sell

[coprock]

How about negative shopping experiences with audio boutiques? While most high-end and quality audio lines have affordable entry-level gear that is of much higher quality than those found at box stores, many audio salons, at least in LA, don't stock these items or give you the "upgrade business" when you enter their store and couldn't really give a damn if you want an entry level item. Sorry guys, I don't need amplifier separates for a bedroom system.

[ohjoy]

I am sorry to hear you have not had very good experiences in hi_end audio stores. Please do not let this discourage you and find a store and salemen that will take the time to help you achieve your goals. Thier out there and its worth the effort.

Kevin

I used to sell, design and setup hi-end audio systems in LA which I did for over 30 years, so if you need any advise or help feel free to email me [e-mail]

[NineVoltToys]

The problem with high-end audio is demand. When audio manufacturers went about out marketing each other in the 70's with audio specs like THD, Watts per channel, transient response, et al....they found the truth in the market. Most people don't care. That's right, most potential customers of high-end audio really don't care about the claimed advantage that esoteric gear has over, say, a $1,000 audio system. $1,000 audio systems sound good to most people and the good stuff doesn't sound so much better that it justifies the price jump. Don't get me wrong audiophiles, I'm not saying that the difference isn't worth it to you, just that MOST people don't find it so. That's the truth that so many audio companies found in the 70's and why so many went out of business. Most people who buy cars don't buy them as trophies, they buy them to get from point A to point B. Likewise, most people buy audio equipment to listen to pop music, not to hear the change in the conductors pocket or to realize a breathtaking soundstage.

[HalSF]

I'm a bemused onlooker when it comes to "the high end," hi-fi, "the absolute sound," etc. In practice, I'm a militant mid-fi audiophile. I appreciate it when innovation filters down into affordable products, and I might daydream about a pair of Wilson Audio X-2 Alexandria speakers in my living room, but I wouldn't spend that money even if I had it. (There are too many good humanitarian and environmental causes to support with donations, for starters.) My conviction is that I can get at least 95% of the way to audiophile excellence with components like my Musical Fidelity A300 integrated amp, Paradign Studio 20 speakers, secondhand Rega P3 table, Ortofon Kontrapunkt A cartridge, Kimber PBJ cable, Sony DVP-S9000ES SACD/CD player, and so on. My $5K system sounds fantastic and profoundly revealing in my small listening room; to the audipphile press, it's all "budget" stuff for a Cub Scout. The profound breakthroughs toward virtual reality that high-end audio reviewers discover via the latest "reference" component or obscenely epensive interconnect always seem a little ridiculous to me; it's like describing a jump from 98.9% to 99.3% perfection as a quantum leap.

[jaguar717]

But this is true for everything. It's called the 80/20 rule. You can buy a 45k Corvette that'll outperform anything on the road under 100k, but to get an extra 5% performance you have to jump up into the 6 figure range.

The 2nd fastest Intel chip is going to give you a ton of bang for your buck, but step up to the fastest and you gain a little speed but pay a ton more.

This is true for any other "flagship" product. Part of it is the law of diminishing returns, which says that at the margin it takes a lot more to squeeze that extra little bit of performance out, and part of it is that sellers know they can charge a premium for the "best" versus just "very close to the best".

When you're talking about quality, it always becomes uneconomical at some point. Most people do fine with decent stuff, some people take an extra step to upgrade, and after that it's a niche. A few people will care enough to pursue that subtle improvement, and most won't.

[paskunyak]

First the article: The obvious difference between high end cars and high end audio is visibility. You buy a $300k sports car, and everyone takes notice. You spend $50k on audio gear, and only a few friends see it, and most of them think you are crazy(for real crazy go back and look at that video Steve posted on the Athens audio club).
NineVoltToys is partly right, most audio buyers believe a $1000 system is good enough, and most of the ones who don't settle for a $2000 system. He is wrong about cars. Yes, lots of people like my brother and best friend buy cars to get from A to B. Both of them bought Toyota Corolla LE's for about $17k. Well build, good mileage car with ZERO curb appeal. But cars sales figures actually show that most buyers want the options packages, even when they buy sensible cars like Corollas. A lot of people trading in their SUV's for gas friendly cars are still ordering leather seats, high end stereo, moon roofs etc.
Much as I think the Athens audio boys are GONZO, I also know the $17k my brother and my friend spent on their Toyotas would buy a killer audio system with massive, and long-lasting "curb appeal". I would be in pig heaven listening to music on such a system long after my brother and friend have replaced their Corollas three or four times or more. So, what price value? The answer depends on the individual, what each of us wants, and what each of us can afford.

[Renegade Knight]

High end audio is about sound quality. You would think that after 50 years of improvments even the low priced stuff would sound great. Finally in 2008 give or take I've found some affordable equipment that sounds great. I'm just not sure why it isn't all great. with the ultra high end competing over the last smidgen of fidelity improvement to be had.

Maybe that's the problem. The industry never bothered to innovate the right way until recently. Thus there was no reason to do DTS sound in a CD. Most all equipment coudln't even play a standard CD passibly well.

[jeffivers]

If high end manufacturers start doing mass consumer advertising, prices would go up and quality would go down to pay for the ads.

Because of advertising costs, sponsorships and other publicity efforts, the price of a Rolex is out of proportion to the value of those mass produced watches, while many people consider a Rolex to be the finest watch money can buy.

[Vesicant]

>Sure, a lot of high-end audio is silly expensive

I believe you meant to say "high-end audio is silly *AND* expensive."

The situation is that "high end" is a self limiting market. The AV Club dweebs and dorks are unlikely to have the dough. And as an adult, any fixations like oh, AC power cord "purity" put you right back in the AV Club. So grownups who can afford high end don't give a rat's patooty about technology and tweaks. When they buy their McMansions, they'll hire a bandit consultant with a fancy, low-lit showroom and tell them what the budget is, but are they going to say "hey, I want that $500K SuperDork speaker system with the unobtainum binding terminals spitpolished by orphaned octuplets?" Unlikely. It's the consultants who put the SuperDork systems together, not the clients. The clients just want pretty lights.

Let me put it another way. For people with big bucks, media systems (audio, TV, DVD, whatever) are checkboxes on the status symbol checksheet. They don't care about the technology or the performance; they only care about the reaction they get from those they want to impress.

Let me put it one more way. You tried this car vs. audio thing in previous column, and it didn't fly there either. Cars are cool. They can be seen in public, and people know what the price tags are. Cars declare something in public about their owner. What does a high end system say in public about its owner? What does a bloated AV price tag say about anyone except that they obsess about stuff that seems silly to a normal person -- sonon dampers? Isn't that something Captain Kirk used on Star Trek?

Nope. When there's a Top Gear show on the BBC for SuperDork AV systems, then you can try the exotic car vs. high end audio shtick again.

[jceaves]

Hey, I love Top Gear. You can watch cars go. I don't think audio systems translate into TV.

The real problem with high end audio is the endless yearning for the upgrade or the better sounding component. It is crazy. Unlike Mr. Guttenberg friend with the Linn turntable, many audiophiles never seem satisfied with their gear. As with drugs or porn, the jaded continually search for the more exotic and perverse. There is also way too much righteousness about what equipment sounds best, how to set it up, etc. To the normal consumer, it is like walking into a role playing game where the geeks playing have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. Yuck. To most, it is simply off-putting. There is a lot to be said for buying a system that you can afford and just enjoying it.

[blusky08]

@jceaves

You nailed it.

[steve5200]

@jceaves

Yes, you really did nail it. My thoughts exactly.

About twelve years ago I purchased a pair of NHT speakers for about $1100. This was a small fortune to me at the time, but as a 26 year old guy music was a huge priority and I did not regret the purchase (I still enjoy the speakers). Shortly after the purchase, I subscribed to one of the audiophile mags and was quickly turned off by the same sort of snobby and geeky attitude you describe above. It surprises me that some audiophiles are able to enjoy anything at all in life, much less their stereos.

[oooh5615]

There are some problems with reasoning in this little entry. Namely:

- the 99% of the "potential" buyers are not actual potential buyers. Someone who likes gazing at Ferraris is not a potential buyer. Someone who's got 100k and is looking for a roadster is. Same way, If I had 10k to burn on a high-end audio system and were looking for the right one to buy, only then I'd qualify as a potential buyer.

- Any moron can tell the difference between driving a Caravan and a Ferrari. Fewer people will detect a difference between some Best Buy audio system and, say, NAIM. The difference is going to matter for even fewer. The average, mainstream quality is likely to suffice for ordinary folks. Including myself.

- Good but affordable stuff, as you put it, is not high-end audio yet.

- A piece of equipment to last 30 years? As John Maynard Keynes famously said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

[Freeradical79]

Like Swiss watches, Italian shoes and tailor made shirts from my favourite Parisian boutique, I think High End HiFi is worth every penny. It makes me feel good. The first major purchase I made when I left home was a pair of used floor standing JM Focal speakers and a NAD amp. I used a discman (gasp) until I could afford a Marantz CD player (it was on sale).

Sad was the day when I moved out of a spacious terrace and into an uber minimalist glass box studio apartment. While the studio was stunning and had 180deg views of the Harbour (yet another vice in life worth every penny), I had to replace my beloved JMs with a (horror) discreet mini DVD system. That was 2003. Since then I have moved countries a few times and become used to using Logitech 2.1 systems hooked up to my iPod - Oh The Shame!

I will put aside several thousand dollars to "invest" in a nice 2.0 system when I finally settle down. The problem with proper HiFi is that its never been something that has mass appeal, the difference in sound quality to most people between a $500 mini system and a $10000 component system is noticeable, but not significant. But then these people, this demographic, don't understand why a $400 pair of Italian boots hand made from aged leather are so much more appealing (and comfortable and longer lasting) than a pair of Hush Puppies...

And not all HiFi nuts are AV geeks. Far from it. A lot of us just like nice looking and beautiful sounding objects, a decided choice to marry form and function in the decision making process. To live in those airy loft apartments with high gloss floorboards and thick plush rugs, sipping aged whiskey and nibbling on Roquefort. LIFE is about indulging your senses, enjoying the sights and the sounds, and not giving a rats about what anyone thinks of your choices ;-)

[minimalist]

There is nothing wrong with high end audio at all. If you can afford it it can be a wonderful experience. And no matter what you can afford you can always strive for the best sound in that price range.

Now <i>audiophiles</i> on the other hand... some of them can be real pains in the ass. Not the enthusiastic and helpful kind mind you who are a delight to talk to. I'm talking about the snarky, elistist ones who use high fi to judge and mock others while keeping them out of the little clubhouse.

<i>"Lord, save me from your followers"</i>

[atubbs]

I read audiophile equipment magazines for the same reason I read car magazines. Just like I dream about the Ferrari, I have the same experience with the newest Wadia, Cary, Wilson, and whatnot. I may never own any of them, but it's fun to imagine.

It's also fun to root for the underdog, or discover some hidden gem/value. Just like discovering that some $30,000 four-banger (albeit, without any class, style, finish, or interior) beats a $180,000 thoroughbred through the slalom, hearing that some no-name $649 loudspeaker delivers sound nearly as musical (if slightly lacking in bass, dynamic capability, and finish on its flaking plastic veneer) as a $45,000 super-system lets me pretend I'm living the high life.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see any real difference between the two. Sure, the magazines cater to the cognoscenti (and, let's be honest, I don't think the average Ferrari buyer is checking what Car and Driver says about the car before buying one), but to think that the majority of The Absolute Sound or Stereophile readers own $50,000+ stereo systems is silly. Head-fi offers an interesting survey of this as well; if you look through the forums it's clear there are some people with ridiculous systems, but the vast majority of the enthusiasts there have systems that are much more down to earth.

[research1st]

The real problem with the High End Audio Market is the fact that the point of diminishing returns happens failry quickly. Opinions can and will vary but once you get above that $5,000 level you get miniscule increases in sound quality per dollar invested. That's the real reason that High End Audio Equipment has always been a niche market. Again... Just my opinion... :-)

My current system of approx. $3,500 suits me just fine. My hearing isn't nearly good enough to appreciate the slight benefits in sound by going on up to the $5,000 and higher systems. And I'm also willing to bet that 90+% of the population couldn't tell any real difference either....

15 years ago I was the victim of a home burglary. I had approx. $10,000 worth of audio equipment stolen, and cameras, and TV's, and jewelry, etc... They even stole a couple leather jackets... They cleaned me out... Anyway.... My current $3,500 system sounds just as good as that $10,000 system from 15 years ago....

I've got friends who have fairly new $10,000 and up systems who will, when pressed, grudgingly admit that my $3,500 system sounds pretty much like their $10,000 system.....

As for longevity of equipment.... I've seen high end equipment have problems just as quick as some of the mid to low end equipment...

[osynnek]

I don't see the comparison here. Just about everybody needs to get from point A to point B. There are many methods to accomplish such a goal and the ultimate would be to have a premium form of personal transport. The exotic car. But the vast majority will buy an economy car that performs the task at hand. Some will simply not even have a car.

The definition of "Potential Hi-end audio buyer" is what I have some issue with. Owning premium playback equipment is actually about the music. The music is what matters and frankly, most of the music out there is, subjectively, absolutely crap. 99.9% of the people out there who claim to listen to music don't really listen to music. The .1% who do, will buy the best audio system they can afford to get there. But that would also be balanced against attending the live event. The rest would do fine simply streaming highly compressed music on their computers.

Those who value their collection of well recorded good music will seek out the best possible playback equipment they can afford. But you and I know that most "music lovers" out there don't value music. They download it for "free". Something that's "free" does not require $1000 (maybe make that $500) worth of equipment to play it back. They sound fine on an iPod.

High end audio manufacturers are catering to that .1%. A small but high margin market. This business model can only change when the technology of great sounding equipment gets disrupted by something that will bring the price way down. I see digital amplifiers (Class D?) as possibly having potential to do that. The other piece of the business model, is of course the music. Our societal culture defines music. Music is an artform. There are a few very well record good music out there, but the vast majority of music is poorly recorded and absolute drivel to listen to. Only some of it is actually worth paying money for.

Which brings up the money. Copyright fees, distribution, rights management, licencing fees all conspire to drive up the price of everything from the equipment itself to the playback medium, to the music itself. Why should a CD or DVD I legally own and paid good money for have the right to go and deactivate or disrupt my computer? or not play in my home or car CD player? I paid (sometimes too much) for that right and the seller has broken my trust in a perfectly legitimate business transaction. It only takes one (or two) to put the entire industry in jeopardy of losing my business altogether. I can play my own music (as a musician) or I can simply not value music and use something else to define my personal societal culture.

There is nothing wrong with hi end audio. The issue is size of the market and what is being marketed. The definition of "potential high end audio buyer" is what I would question.

[orbit55]

Approaching perfection asymptotically.