Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Musica Bella]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

 

[Gregm]

I think high end does deliver IF set up right. IME setting up right is painstaking and takes time---even when you start the journey with professional support.
By WBF standards, my system is borderline medium level (below 150k). The sound, however, is captivating --- there is enthusiasm, rhythm, dynamics, excitement... *(add lib)

*except on the current exceptionally hot days when everyone and their dog is polluting the mains with their air-con (as do I) drops a notch to "very good".

 

[Rexp]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

Well, whether one is satisfied with the sound field depends on whether you've heard 3D imaging. If you haven't experienced it, you'll be satisfied with mediocre imaging, if you have heard 3D, you'll settle for nothing less.

 

[morricab]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

It may not be for us to decide how one spends their money but if you bring up your system on a forum then it is open for us to discuss what pros and cons we think a particular system has based on experience with those or similar components.

 

[microstrip]

Well, whether one is satisfied with the sound field depends on whether you've heard 3D imaging. If you haven't experienced it, you'll be satisfied with mediocre imaging, if you have heard 3D, you'll settle for nothing less.

IMO it depends a lot on the type of music we want to listen and how do we listen to it. Many audiophiles I know care more about other aspects than imaging, and they have listened to great 3D.

Also stereo reproduction of acoustic music has no intrinsic 3D imaging capabilities - it creates an illusionary soundstage that depends a lot on the listener and system. Can you tell us some details about the systems and recordings that you have listened that have top 3D?

 

[godofwealth]

There’s no 3D imaging in a concert hall generally. You get a wash of reverberant sound from millions of reflections across the concert hall. You localize visually for the most part. If you closed your eyes, 3D imaging largely disappears. Occasionally concerts will feature instruments that are placed off stage like the rear or side of the hall. But that’s more for show.

Perhaps it’s a sign of my age, but I don’t care one whit about imaging. In my youth ( as Father Brown famously said), I obsessed over imaging from reading too much of HP’s writings in TAS. These days I generally care more about the music and often walk around my room when an album is playing. Plus I listen a lot to mono recordings, which at least on vinyl sound a lot more realistic than fake stereo.

The greatest recordings from the first half of the 20th century are in mono. That includes even later jazz and pop, from The Beatles to Bob Dylan to Frank Sinatra. One thing they all shared was a distaste for stereo. They recognized that stereo was just a fad from record companies to sell more records for a few cents more. The Beatles carefully supervised the original mono albums. The stereo versions were generally left to some studio flunky.

Of course when multichannel SACD came out, the record companies pulled the same stunt as when stereo was introduced. Sony put out all the mono Bob Dylan albums in fake surround sound.

Thus the world goes around, as the famous monks in France say who have been making chartreuse for a thousand years.

I’m listening now to Gerry Mulligan’s classic album Jeru in fake stereo. The piano is panned hard to the right channel, drums on the left channel and his baritone sax in center mono. It’s completely fake and manufactured. Enjoyable nonetheless. But it bears no resemblance to any kind of reality.