Has anyone made the jump to $uper High end and were disappointed?

After a certain point, it's all diminishing returns.  That last 5-10% will often cost you dearly. 

You also can't tell anything from a show.  Determining your system sounds better than a show system is saying nothing at all.  At best a show is a place for you to get an idea of items you might want to seriously audition later.

Can we please stop using the ridiculous argument that's being attacked but has never been made by anyone: that high price = high performance.  Of course money doesn't correspond to performance but that doesn't mean it can't.  In many cases, the best components are obscenely expensive.  That's life in the low volume world.  Did I want to believe that the D'Agostino M400s are as amazing as reported.  No and I didn't want to pay the price either.  But reality is reality, and they are not only as good as reported, but you'll not find anything on that level for half the price.

I went to sound show couple of months ago and heard systems that cost twice /triple and more compare to mine .
Did it sounded better than mine ?
Yes it did.
Did it sounded twice/triple and more compare to my system ?
No it didn’t !!!
My conclusion is that I am happy with my system and I will not splash extrovagent amounts on expensive high end systems to achieve a minor improvement to what I alreay have.
The right way is to build carefully the correct system for your needs ,throwing away a lot of money for expensive gear is certainly not a guarantee for a good system .

Note that it is absolutely possible to make a recording sound better. It might not sound better than the music did in the room when recorded (uh huh), but I've put a bit of EQ on things here and there for decades if I want to…because I can and I'm going to and you can't stop me…so there.

I am from the future. So you can trust me, the SQ gets better and better, without end. Amen. There is not enough time left in the world for ANYONE to get to the final destination. Assuming there was one. Which there isn’t. The trick is to stop 🛑 obsessing about the equipment. I am going back to the future, now.

I agree that there is much more to achieving good SQ than spending more money, on "better" equipment. I just don't think SQ can keep getting better and better, without limit.

sqlsavior
With respect to FIDELITY, there certainly IS a glass ceiling, and it is the recording. One may be able to improve the sound of a recording, to make it sound better than it really is, but it is logically impossible to be more faithful to a recording than the recording itself.

>>>>>Sorry, but the recording is not (rpt not) part of the system. Super expensive high end systems includes the speakers, electronics and cabling, only. The recording is simply the MEANS to ascertain the SQ of the given system. Of course, you don’t want to play a BAD recording if you wish to show off what your system can do or judge the SQ. Give me a break!! Even the OP doesn’t include the recording in his definition of $uper high end systems. It’s why reviewers and many of us use recordings we’re familiar with to judge the effectiveness of a new cable, new interconnects, new tweak or the entire system. The recording is obviously INDEPENDENT of the system. The recording is actually just a TOOL for judging the SQ of a system or part of the system.

What I’m obviously referring to when I say THERE’S NO GLASS CEILING are those things you generally don’t see at shows - system burn-in for ALL electronics, speakers and cable, vibration isolation, room acoustics solutions, cryogenics, treatment of CDs, and the myriad of, you know, devices, tweaks and all the clever ideas that audiophiles are so fond of, that audiophiles ORIGINATED. Cables in the right direction, fuses in the right direction, suspended cables, Mpingo discs, Intelligent Chips, what have you. So, in fact the quest for Audio Nirvana is never ending. Unless you run out of ideas.

geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio concepts

With respect to FIDELITY, there certainly IS a glass ceiling, and it is the recording. One may be able to improve the sound of a recording, to make it sound better than it really is, but it is logically impossible to be more faithful to a recording than the recording itself. Thus, with respect to FIDELITY, mind you, the asymptote metaphor is undeniable.

I guess the short answer to the initial question would " every one who has gone that direction has been disappointed." 

Jim 
the dealer of the month.........not sure which month that was exactly.....

Pete and Repeat were riding on a horse. Pete fell off. Who was left? 🏇

Almost all systems are being created by trial and error. It will never create a system what will be the most effective on all parts togheter. Pure on the fact that you cannot say why the stage and sound what comes out of your sytem is what you hear.

So we go back to where it starts. And that is music. For 100% sure you need an audio system what can reveal all the information of the recording. And even filled in the right way into the space of your room.

This never can be created by collecting any system by trial and error? How big do you think the chance is that this system owns all the parts of sound? And second it needs to be displayed as it is recorded.

We communicate a lot with many different specialists in different parts of sound&vision. When we visit new clienst often they created most things just by their own.

This proofs that people have no idea how complex sound is. And second how many parts there are you need to look after. I always say: each fault is your system is one too many.

Each mistake you make will influence different parts. That is why trial and error is extremely ineffective.

The way we work you need a lot less money to create a certain level. Tru-Fi proofs that audio created by properties makes the influence of each single part so much more effective.

This way each parts will create more quality and more properties of these parts will be used.

For example: A loudspeaker who can create a stunning 3D holographic stage and a exeptional level in layers in sound.

Most amps are 2D, like most sources have a low level in diversity in sound. So most products will not even be able to use the full potential of this loudspeaker.

This we hear and see all the time over and over again. Based on the fact that the trail and error sytems are founded on pure gambling.

When you go on this way, you can spend as much as you want. It will always be very ineffetive. That is why audio audio needs a mindset to create a much higher level in effectness.

The word highend is worth nothing. Because each single expensive audio product does not say you anything of the properties it really owns. And second it does not garantee you anything in terms of quality and endresult.

Audio is all about music. And music is all about emotion. When a system is not able to reveal all the emotion of a recording and all the details it will not make any person happy and satisfied over a long period of time.

That is why many expensive systems we hear at shows are not that impressive. Based on the fact that they all miss essential properties of sound. They cannot reveal these parts of a recording.

Sorry to be so disagreeable but I found out that all this audio stuff is actually NOT (rpt not) asymptotic. There is no glass ceiling. There is no law of diminishing returns. The reason for my statement is that real sound quality SQ, not what you THINK is SQ, is not connected at the hip to system cost. SQ is, however, connected at the hip to how well the person can locate problems that are there in the system but not obvious and fix them. Either with tweaks, aftermarket fuses, isolation, what have you. You cannot expect ANY electronic component to make up for these “hidden problems” no matter how much you spend. That’s why a well thought out inexpensive system can sometimes beat an expensive system that is simply plugged in and played. That is why a lot of folks who have 30 years of experience in this hobby still have mediocre sound. No offense to anyone living or dead. 🧟‍♂️

Is a waist of funds kinda like a money belt?

Of course there is a curve of diminishing returns. With respect to high fidelity, it is asymptotic to the recording being played. I learned a long time ago that, for me, sound quality doesn't get better and better and better, no matter how much money is spent. Not that I would necessarily be disappointed with a much more expensive system. I'd expect a little more air than mine, and more bass definition and extension. I'd also expect it to play a lot louder. But while the ($200K?) system in the Rockport/Boulder room at RMAF 2016 sounded wonderful, it didn't sound any better than mine, to my silver ears at least. YMMV.

gbmcleod, you must have a very sensitive system. I didn't really experiment much with isolation devices. The biggest difference for the better I heard was when I put Boston Audio graphite tuning blocks for speakers under speaker spikes, I use Polycrystal not steel spikes. Big improvement in everything. Howerver, I have free resonance speakers that do have excessive resonant energy. Another example, much smaller but still significant, is that I put one 1/2" Walker resonance control disc near turntable motor on the maple block the table sits on. The maple 3" block is in turn sits on three big Boston Audio tuneblocks. And all this construct is on a wooden floor, no rack. I tried to put the second Walker disc near tonearm on the maple block and it got a little worse. And just one disc near tonearm made no audible difference. I also put one Walker disc on top of my Nakamichi cassette player - same improvent as with the table. And my integrated solid state amp definitely sounds a little better when sitting on brass Audiopoints than on Boston Audio tuneblocks. So yes, isolation is very important, though I call it tuning. But I don't think my sysytem is as sensitive as yours.
Electricity here is terrible, just terrible. Very dirty and voltage fluctuates almost constantly. Without my PS Audio Premier regenerator the sound is unacceptable most of the time. And I mentioned power cords, older Purist Audio Dominus did wonders when was put on the integrated.
So, my advice would be to learn how to fully tune your existing good set-up before moving much higher, or it will be a waist of funds and nervewrecking experience.

inna: my experience is that the electricity can be good, but if your components are vibrating, you will lose the musical lines in a symphony or anything else. I have tried nearly everyone’s isolation feet: Up until a few months ago, I used Nordost and Stillpoints footers (more the Stillpoints than the Nordost. Much more.) But one day, 3 or 4 months ago, I came across a thread asking about the latest generation of the Townshend Seismic devices. (I have a Seismic Sink, which I’ve had since 1994, which I can’t use because I don’t have the pump for it.) I hadn’t really thought of them, although I had Townshends ribbon tweeters 3 years ago. After reading the thread and then the review on Positive Feedback, I thought, hmmm... why not try out their current isolation feet? (I could always return them if they didn’t work great.)

WHOA! New ballgame. Neither the Nordost nor the Stillpoints did what the Townshends do, which seems to be, to remove ALL vibration (but again, the footers must be placed EXACTLY). Not being a technical anything (!), I can’t speak to the technology, only the results. The sound field is much larger, as though I moved from row 15 to row 8 in Carnegie Hall. The musical lines hold together fairly well (that’s the speakers’ limits) even during an fortissimo. A tuba actually "breathes" and you can hear the "blattiness" that makes it so distinctive. In fact, the whole bass range is extremely "present." Now, my electricity has always pretty good. And I’ve had Audience Adept, PS Audio, Bybee, and Shunyata AND Nordost power conditioners. All very good. Sound was great. But when I put in the Seismic Platform (under my turntable), that was the moment I realized that vibration was a major player, too. And, even with the platform, it took me at least 2 months before I realized that the feet needed to be optimally placed under the component and rotated (they’re on a bolt, and can be moved upward and downward). I put it in 3 other systems I set up for friends and had to adjust them each time (just the height of the pods themselves mainly, but as I moved them underneath the equipment front to back and side to side ( I had, by that time, also gotten a set of just the pods with no platform on top of them, because I knew I'd have to insulate the preamp as well as the turntable), I could hear the difference between "great" and "exceptional." And so could my one friend, who goes to the symphony every two weeks and listens to music (on his stereo) without speaking until the song is over. We played "I Am A Rock" (Simon and Garfunkel) and the second time we played it, I had rotated the isolation pod a minuscule amount. And I DO mean MINISCULE. Nonetheless, suddenly - as he put it - "I can hear AIR around Simon’s voice." And he was right: I heard it as well. (You could also hear how nasal Simon's voice was: it was like hearing INSIDE his head, it was SO evident). I wrote the importer, Dan Meinwald, and told him what I’d observed about the placement, the rotation, everything. And he agreed. Not only that, but the springs on the damn thing must be COMPLETELY VERTICAL. It’s possible to have the bottom part of the spring slighted angular from top to bottom. Imagine a clock and the springs angled at a 1 o’clock - 7 o’clock positioning. Nuh uh. It HAS to be VERTICAL: NOON TO 6 o’clock ONLY. Don’t know why that's so. Just know that it is. I subsequently learned they must be - one at a time - raised and lowered for the very best results so that, if I’m playing, say,  Abbey Road by the Beatles, I can hear Paul and John’s voices separated in space and in harmony and can follow each one individually.  Otherwise, without that exactitude, that last piece of "magic" is just not there.

So, I put complete isolation right up there with electricity. And now I know why people have gone thru such lengths as putting the equipment in an adjoining room, but how many of us can do that???  And, of course, the room itself, which, without "fixing" it as much as possible (I have 30-40 tube traps), will still leave you in the dark about how good your system actually sounds. I would tie all 3 together in first place. Any one of them out of whack, and the proverbial cake will fall flat. It’s no surprise to me that people argue (and not very nicely these days) about whether any given device is as good as others say.

"Room, electricity and isolation devices". Fully agree. I would say electricity first, isolation second except for turntable, maybe.
I would also add to that cables and power cords. Many seemingly have no idea how good their active components are because they are connected with mid-level cables. Real high performance usually starts at over $1k a piece or for a pair. Ultimate performance is much more. Personally, I like to have cables at least one step above active components.

I’ll have to come at this question in reverse.

When I discovered High End equipment in 1985, I started out with an AR turntable and Spica speakers. Jumped from Spicas to Apogees. Jumped from Apogees to WATTs. In the space of 1985 to 1988, I jumped all the way: Versa Dynamics 2.0 ($15,000 in 1988 dollars) Jadis preamp and amps (and Convergent preamps). Cartridges? Only remember starting at the Carnegie One and ending up with a Clearaudio Accurate. MIT and Transparent cabling, top of the line at that time. $10,000 in ASC Tube Traps alone. Was I elated? Not as much as I expected - but I didn’t know it at the time, because it still sounded (to my ears) - GREAT. Oh, I forgot: at one point, I had 5 speaker systems at once, including Avalons, WATTS, Infinity and Goldmund speakers. VAC mono blocks. The works. $80,000 in 1988 dollars. $166,000 (according to the inflation converter I just used) in 2017 dollars.
NOW, I have a system barely $10,000 total. And I LISTEN to the music. NOT the EQUIPMENT. And I am FAR more content, and enjoy the music far more.

What have I discovered over time about audio? It is that extremely important factors are: the ROOM, the electricity and isolation devices. But especially the ROOM. Still: the biggest one? MY KNOWLEDGE AND ability to set up a system completely CORRECTLY. And I was not alone in only getting maybe 80% of what a well put-together system should deliver. I once improved a system back in 1994, a system consisting of Rockport/ Clearaudio Goldfinger/Jadis JP-80/Wilson Grand Slamms/Transparent components, by doing something exceedingly simple: I moved the power cord that was sitting right on top of the speaker cable OFF of it - putting the speaker cable on a book stood up vertically, thereby removing it from the vicinity of the power cord by maybe 8". We replayed the cut and the people in the room were astonished at the improvement, and "the people" in the room were 1) the Executive Editor of TAS, one of TAS’ most famous reviewers, an amp manufacturer whose amp started with the name "BEL"...oops, the cat’s out of the bag. These people should have known that power cords should never be near, much less, on top of, speaker cables. But they didn’t. And ironically, it was TAS’ Enid Lumley who, in one of her columns, warned readers about keeping cables at 90 degree angles to each other/power cords. The famous reviewer said to me, "showoff" and we laughed together. I told him it was Enid’s column and he should be reading the magazine more carefully (he laughed).

So, it’s not the "law of diminishing returns" all too often: it’s one’s own ability to get the best out of the "super expensive system." As I usually do, I’ll mention HP, and his frequent admonishments that "setup is CRITICAL" to getting the sound right for the component he was reviewing. I knew "enough," but not like I do now. NOW, I know speakers must be ABSOLUTELY level - with each other. In my room, the tape measure says one speaker is 1/16" higher than the other. I ignore it. Why? Because the floor in that room (a new addition built SPECIFICALLY for audio in 2003) SLOPES between the right and left side of the room. MINIMALLY. But the speakers don’t lie when they reproduce the music now that they are exactly "in line" with each other. NOW, I know to tune by ear. And I know that moving a tube trap 1/32" can be the difference between really, really, really good... and superb. It’s not always the equipment that lets us down: sometimes it’s our lack of expertise/knowledge. When I look back at what I had then - and what I have now is WAY less expensive than then - I wonder what those components REALLY sounded like.
Now I have relatively good, but not super expensive stuff (I burned out on audio), but the sound, in terms of following musical lines, dynamics, airiness, coherence, are much more enjoyable on a system that is, combined, less than the cost of my VAC amps in the 90s.


An example of diminished - make that awful - returns on the investment: A local dealer has a $100k+ system, and I can tell you, he’s getting NOTHING out of that system that approaches the cost, never mind what that system SHOULD be able to do, musically speaking. In terms of sound, his system sounds (barely) like a $10,000 system (no insult intended: mine is around that much now), but a MEDIOCRE $10,000 system with no depth layering, no airiness, indistinct imaging and the dynamic range and contrast are truly pitiful. (Tonal quality is okay, but if the system was set up optimally, I’d be able to tell a Steinway from a Yamaha). So, yes, I’m disappointed in HIS system because I know what it COULD sound like, but it’s not the money that’s the letdown: it’s the dealer’s lack of either knowledge or just plain caring. He has lots of rich clients and they ooh and ahh and he sells a ton of expensive stuff. But he’s doing his clients a disservice. Sure, if you put Nordost Odin in nearly ANY system, it can be mind-blowing. But is it as good as the Odin gets? Not even close. Still, it qualifies as a "super expensive system." Keep in mind: he’s a dealer. People think of him as an "expert" in sound reproduction. He’s not even close to that. I doubt he hears much (or ANY) live music or he’d KNOW his system isn’t working. When The Rite of Spring has no more dynamic punch than a 60s rock album, something’s wrong. Yet people think "he’s the expert." If only that were true.
So: super expensive stuff set up poorly? The system will be Dead On Arrival. BUT. Half as expensive (but still VERY expensive) components set up RIGHT? Magic.

I think my Zenith Allegro sounds pretty good for the $50K I paid. Just sayin'.

That’s nice but just saying that is just more marketing fluff. Where’s the argument? Where’s the meat? 🍔 For a glimpse of what I’m talking about when I talk about retrieval of INFORMATION during playback take a gander at my white paper, “What’s Wrong with CDs and Why do They Sound so Horrible?”

first parapgraph:
“Have you ever asked yourself why CDs often sound thin, undynamic, threadbare, hollow, tinny, bass shy, whimpy, rolled off, jangly, radio like, congealed, generic, uninspiring, airless and discombobulated? Here we look at some fundamental problems inherent with CD playback that might help explain why CDs frequently sound horrible.”


When you control the mail you control ..... information. - Newman

geoff kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

Creating sound&vision is for me so much more easy than writting it in words. Many of my clienst and new clienst always say; this is not even possible to discribe to understand it.

That is why there is only one option. This is to demo it, and that is our new goal in 2018. We think it will create a lot of new options for many people.

If I can be so bold those posts just preceding this one are not so much arguments as they are marketing monologues. Furthermore, it’s rather odd that you would brag about parts upgrade since there is probably no one who would disagree with that or think it outrageous. What I’m am referring to, by contrast, are issues that are not (rpt not) oft discussed, if ever. And I don’t even have to broach the very difficult and user unfriendly subjects on which a lot of my products are based since those unspeakable issues are beyond the scope of this forum. But there are certainly enough issues that ARE accessible and not too far out, as I just got through describing. 

Most of my time in the last 7 years I spend on the acoustics. Because this will always be the biggest influence on any audio system. That is why we don’t sell any audio system without Statement Audio Pro-measurement.

Not only we can solve the acoustic limitations of a room. We can add a lot more details and layers from the low frequencies till the high frequencies.

Almost each roomacoustic system absorbs details and layers in the whole freqency range. We don’t have this limitation. That is why we can outperform even highend stereo preamps.

We can reveal so much more details and information. And that is why we can use our Statement Audio Pro-measurement for highend audio as well.

We have proven over and over again how easy it is to outperform many highend stereo pre amps of over 15000 dollar. When people loose from a Onkyo 5509 you should see their faces. I always feel pitty for them.

People think it is just an Onkyo. We see it as the best level in properties we can find. I have to admit that mine and many of my clients are modified of over 3000 dollar. What we do is we change the cheap parts by expensive parts.

But even with a stock 5509 and S.A.P.-measurement and many different Pass labs monos and amps in 2013 I was already able to outperform the Pass labs XP-20 on the same Pass Labs poweramps.

Now in 2017 we are even so much further.

I spend a few hours each week to listen to new music. For me as a music addict (what I am since I was a child) you love to look for new music.

I can buy music of all different music websites all over the world. Based on the fact that I use IP-Vanish so I can buy music from each single country.

The positive thing is that the level in quality is a lot better than in the past. But.....still the most recordings sound not that good. Even High Res recordings will not solve these limitations. I spend over 200 dollar on new music each single month. A perfectionist only wants the best quality possible.

It cost me a lot of time each week to find it. You can be happy as a child when you find a new artist. Most music I bought I buy from Qobuz.

You have the freedom to listen to music before you buy it. Bought music is about 40% better in quality compared to the same music streamed at the same bit rate.

I also find new artists by using Youtube. When you like a song or artist type in this on youtube. And Youtube will come with many similar kind of music. This way I also found new music what I later bought.

I love a website like Prostudiomaster as wel. Because they often are the only one who have some titles in high res no other one has.

The ineffectiveness of audio is being created by trial and error. And money will never help you. We auditioned different systems of over 500.000 dollar. And mann often it sounded rather poor.

When we audition these kind of systems I always start to look at the people who give these demos. They have often no idea how poor their systems soundd.

The most annoying part for a music addict like me is that they use often shitty music. When I ask them what music the use, they have no idea.

In Munic I met different people who were often only business people. Their real knowledge in both music and audio is limited. They only talk about prices and what we can earn when we sell it.

This will never be my world of doing audio. You only can do this is with full passion and drive. There is no other way to do this the right way.

I disagree. The real problem for audiophiles is that there are so many problems in playback, especially for digtital, and that many of the problems are either unknown or not well documented. Therefore, the motivated audiophile is forced to try to research what those problems are on line or to undertake the investigation himself. What kind of problems am I referring to? Well, without going too crazy, let’s start with background scattered laser light in CD players. Also, the vibration of the CD transport compartment itself, let alone seismic vibration, which of course is another big issue. These problems are not secret, for crying out loud. Well, some of them are but I will avoid those. What else? OK, the induced magnetic field from large transformers. And the vibration of large transformers, you know, the vibration that is direct coupled to the chassis and all th circuit boards by the four bolts holding down the transformer. And wire directionality, including fuses, power cords, all wire. See, I didn’t mention anything too crazy. 🤪

So, it’s not strictly a trial and error issue. Although that can be part of it. For example, I’ve always said trial and error for speaker placement is the wrong approach. Audio is like a big excavation, trying to retrieve the missing information, the information that is there on the recording but not in the room during playback.

The sad fact is that, as our disposable income generally increases as we get older,  the most important transducers - our ears - continue to deteriorate and no amount of money spent on  "high-end" equipment, is going to fix this problem.

From 2005 till 2007 I visited about 70 people with systems between 10.000 euro and over 200.000 euro.

I was amazed that most of these 70 systems sounded rather poor regardless of price. It proved that the way they created these systems by trial and error was not that succesful.

The list of faults they made is so big that it is difficult to create a stunning system. Most of them are in a circle and trail and error will never get them out of this circle.

They change one part for another one and hope it will be the solution. They have no idea that what they do is gambling. And that this is the reason why they are not able to make the step they would like to see.

In the last 2 years I met different new clients with expensive systems all far over 50.000 dollar. I said: I only can help you when we sell everything.

Based on the fact that all their parts could be easily replaced by better ones. Even for the money these systems were sold for. It was easy to create a superior level in sound and stage quality. In most situations I even don’t use all the money of the sold products.

It proofs how much more effective Tru-Fi is over trial and error created audio systems.

When you read this discussion well, you should have read that trial and error is the most important part what limits most people. Trial and error is pure audiogamblind based on facts.

I had many duscussions about this with people who also work in audio. And they all admit that it is not that precise. Only when you have not the insight and knowledge to look further you will go on to do audio this way.

You only can use Audioquest cables and the same counts for other brands maximum when you understand the properties and what it does in an audio system.

Cables are tested just by audiogambling. And you can hear that the endresult changed. But this is extreemly ineffective. Because you still don’t know why your stage and sound is what you hear.

This means you drive a boat but you have no idea how to guide it to the place you want to go. People have no idea how limit the part is of the whole quality a cable could create if you would use the full potential.

My clients buy cables at the importancy level of a component. This means I creatre shootouts for them that I can create a bigger step with a cable compared to change to a different component.

Most people overhere cannot even imagine this. This proofs that trial and error give totaaly different endresults compared to creating audio by Tru-Fi.

Perfectionists always want their clients to get the best value for the money they want to spend. And you can only spend the amount one time.

So we create ideas what will give them the biggest step. I love to outperfrom audioshops. Each selling option for me is like a game. And I only want to win.

Tru-Fi is superior in effectness compared to any silly kind of trial and error. For me it is so easy to outperfrom other shops over and over again. What they can offer for me it is so easy to overrule it.

Even with cables I proved to outperform component options of competitors. Audio for me will always be a battle against children.

Children have less knowledge and experience of many situations they don’t have experienced yet. Trial and error also does not give you the information to understand it what you are doing.

When I am at an audioshow I always start to count the faults they made. And mannn the lists are long. Thousands of tests in almost 20 years gave me superior insight and knowledge to understand both sound&vision.

I can see and hear that they only can see to a very limit level in details. Because they have no idea what they do wrong. They never went sofar into details.

Huh? But nobody is saying all expensive audiophile products are great. In the case of Audioquest and many other audio companies, their products have a range of prices, as someone noted, including the $uper Expensive audiophile products - which is actually the subject of this thread, I.e., is anybody DISAPPOINTED WITH A MOVE TO THE SUPER EXPENSIVE HIGH END?

Obviously, as least to most dedicated audiophiles, there is a whole lot more to the hobby besides buying a bunch of expensive stuff and plugging it into the wall.

Most likely the new Audioquest Hurricane power cord at almost $2K for 2m Cord would qualify as $uper High End just based on cost.

“A rich audiophile has about as much chance of entering Audio Nirvana as a camel 🐪 has of passing through the eye 👁 of a needle.”- Old audiophile axiom

If you call expensive products highend, it is even insane. Because many products proof to have nothing to do with how music and voices and instruments sounds in reality.

They want to create the idea that expensice is good, but the facts proof that money does not garantee you anything.

What do you want to achieve in audio? What do you want to offer to people who spend a lot of their money on audio?

I think you should give them the best they can get for their hard earn money. But when the focus these days is more regarding on how we can earn as much money as possible. You will limit yourself at the end more and more.

People need to learn to look further.........for manufacturers this counts even more than for customers. They are the ones who can change the audio world and how to create  better products and new ideas.

$50K would be for a 13’ pair of non biwire WEL Signature speaker cables, bi-wiring almost doubles the cost so a standard 8’ pair biwired would run $60K or so

In my experience the WEL Sig speaker cables are a little too expensive for the quality they deliver. I get much better results from the analog interconnect that I have a lot of, at a more ’reasonable’ $7.5K per 1M (I have an 8M balanced run that I got at a very good price)

The new Dragon HC power cord is a relative bargain at $4.4K for 1M, and the base Dragon low current (for sources) is half that. As both of these cables absolutely hands down destroy the previous WEL Signature power cords (which were $4K) I have to say they qualify as a bargain. I believe that the Hurricane that Bo alludes to is the sweet spot in the line and also very fairly priced -- the Dragon’s have silver in them so run more than the Hurricane’s which are all copper

I currently use WEL Sig for all my analog interconnects and a mix of AQ Dragon and SR Galileo for my power cords. AQ Digital cables are OK but can be bettered by Transparent and others -- I use a mix of Transparent Ref XL and Marigo’s top end AES/EBU.

Anyway AQ certainly cover the full range from entry level to high end -- one of the main complaints against them being the complexity of their product hierarchy.

Bingo!

besides, it doesn’t make sense that Audioquest which has been high end for a very long time suddenly went, what, MidFi. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true.

The Everest are discontinued cables. Are not there anymore for many many years. Second the most expensive hdmi cable is the Diamond and costs 935 dollar. 

You are talking nonsense. The Hurricane is even in the US below 1500 dollar. The most expensive one the Dragon is  below 5000 dollar.

Audio is all about facts :)

Everest cables by Audioquest are $21,000 and Audioquest HDMI cables are $13,000. I think that probably qualities Audioquest for the $uper High end. Obviously Audioquest sells mor3 “affordable”cables, too. I don’t know how much the new Hurricane power cord is but I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not cheap. I patiently await Bo’s write-up of the Hurricane power cord and his thinking about Cable and Power Cord Directionality.

@stfoth; what I know for 100% sure is that your Bluesound cannot reveal all the properties of sound.

I will put this weekend the review in english of  the Hurricane. It will make clear what makes it differently to the old ones and others.

I wrote an article about Audioquest but not in english. I will translate it soon. And I will put it overhere. A person will do the grammatically correct. It is not my 1ste language as most of you know:)

Our website will also be in english in 2018. All the texts needs to be translated professional first. I will let you when it is ready.

Audio is very personal. And all people react  based on their insight and thoughts.

When I ask them what do you want to change about your sound and stage?

Many people aks for a more analogue and emotional sound. For this you need the right properties of sound to be able to reveal it.

This is something you all overhere will understand. We use those sources and modifications to create a sound what van reveal as many layers as possible.

People take their own source with them and their own music. We always start with our own music so we can explain each single part of sound to them. 

This makes it for them easy to understand the differences compared to their own source.

Most sources they bring in own a 2D stage. When we compare the sources just bewteen 2D and 3D. It is often very easy for people to understand that the music is being playes a lot more tangible and a lot more separate and free from eachother.

Many always use the words that it becomes a lot more emotional and intense when you go from 2D to 3D stage. 

Based on our emotion people become a lot more emotional when a voice or instrument is full free and tangible in space.

When you compare a simple acoustic recording in a 2D stage vs a 3D stage, it is very easy to understand the difference.

When we go back to 2D the most common reactions are; it is less involving. The emotion is gone we experienced during the 3D stage.

When you want to understand better how our emotion works. Read articles about emotion and how music influences our emotion.

Audio is sold by shootout. And each shop has the same chances. So you need to create a superior level in sound and stage compared to competitors. Audio is that simple.

The most convincing, emotional and intense one  will be the one who will be chosen. So you need to create an audio system what can reveal as much details  and emotion of a recording.

The sound you hear is the best proof of everything. This is what you get at the end. People choose the sound what influences their emotion the most. So it is for every one overhere to understand that music is emotion.

So you need to create the sound and stage what is the most convincing and intense. Did you ever think about how the sound of voices and instruments is being formed and created.

This is needed to understand audio at all. You cannot control and guide any system by trial and error. When you only judge at the endresult of everything togheter. It is not possible to understand why the stage and sound of your system is what you hear.

I give you an example: This year I visited a shop and he (the owner) wanted to compare 2 loudspeakercables. So I asked him: when you take this one out, which properties you take out?

He said; I have no idea.

So I asked another question: which properties do you bring in when you connect the second cable?

He said: I have no idea.

The next question I asked: so you never have any idea why the stage and sound of your system is what you hear?

He said: I don’t think so.

So I said: This means you do audio by trial and error and only listen to the endresults?

He said: yess I do.

And I said you are doing pure audiogambling. And have no idea (foundation) what you are really doing?

He said: I think you are right.

This is not about being right. This is all about understanding that you need to do audio differently so you can control and guide your system to the sound and stage you want.

I used the words overhere  many times......you need to learn to look further!

I actually do not find that objectionable. On an objectionability scale of 10 I’d give it a 2.

Bo1947. you are using the word " proof ", rather than " prove ", in many of your sentences. fyi

I read somewhere that a group of cancer patients were mysteriously cured and the doctors were baffled until they realized someone with the nickname of bo1972 was secretly injecting them with the Tru-Fi serum.....Incredible load of cow crap....

Bo's posts are hard to follow? He comes around from time to time with his imagined "expertise" and posts long tributes to his seemingly vast (20 years? It was less a few rants ago) experience gleaned from selling audio gear and honing his superior listening skills, and his inherent ability to understand what few can ever comprehend: His posts. Example: "We create both sound and vision on properties. This will win in each individual situation of any trail and error system. Because all these systems have no foundation on how they have been created." First, get spellcheck, second, a clue.