What is HIGH-END?

Solidstate (amps, preamps), Tweaks, Cables, New gear, etc...

Moderators: Hyperion, KD

What is HIGH-END?

Postby vintage_dog » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:03 pm

a perspective (article from one newsgroup):

"To resolve this conundrum one is obliged to trace the evolution of the
terms across decades of usage. One cannot simply redefine them on a
whim. These terms have certain origins, and have been conditioned by
long usage.

The term "high fidelity", despite its long history, became hackneyed
not long after it was co-opted by its namesake magazine, High
Fidelity, some four decades ago. Harry Pearson subsequently coined the
term "high end" to rejuvenate a jaded concept. Since the very first
issue of the abso!ute sound in 1973, High Fidelity (the magazine) drew
Pearson's fire. High Fidelity was, for Pearson, a paradigm for what
was wrong in audioland: complacency. What Pearson sought was not
merely "high" fidelity, but TOTAL fidelity.

The idea of an absolute standard is not, however, new to HP. The idea
arises (insofar as I am able to trace it) in W.T. Cocking's May 4,
1934 article for Wireless World: "High Quality Amplification,
Designing Distortionless Apparatus". The opening line of Cocking's
article states: "Broadcasting and gramophone records are used chiefly
for entertainment purposes, the aim being to reproduce in the
listener's own home exactly what he would hear if he were in the
studio."

This is, of course, a purely subjective standard, as was HP's. In
both cases, HP and Cocking deployed their observational powers to defy
the objective standards of their day. Cocking, moreover, was a gifted
engineer. He accordingly desired to correlate what he heard with what
he could measure.

Cocking did this by first placing distortion within the context of the
human ear: "Unless the sound output from the loud speaker [sic] is
identical with that in the studio, the reproduction cannot be said to
be distortionless." High quality sound then, was for Cocking,
effectively "distortionless"; i.e., distortion that lies below the
threshold of audibility. Cocking then proceeded to objectively define
the measurable limits of "distortionless" sound.

Cocking's specifications for high quality reproduction are as follows:
"We may say, therefore, that practical perfection is reached with a
uniform response between 25 and 10,000 cycles [although a deviation is
allowed up to 1db throughout the midband]." Cocking justified his
claims by reference to correlated listening tests. It is interesting
to note that Cocking allowed up to 5% harmonic distortion in his
specifications for high quality.

Here in the US, the more fanciful term "high fidelity" was preferred
over that of "high quality". I can trace the use of the term "high
fidelity" to at least May 1934, when it turns up in Keith Henney's
editorial for *Electronics* magazine. Henney makes reference to the
tentative definition of high fidelity issued by the RMA's Engineering
Division:

"HIGH FIDELITY: A receiver rated as a high-fidelity receiver must have
an audio frequency range of at least 50 to 7500 cycles, with total
variations in acoustical output not exceeding 10 decibels and with at
least 10 watts of electrical power output, with total distortion not
exceeding 5 per cent."

Evidently we Americans were less fastidious in our demands than were
the English at that time (!). In England the term "high quality" was
to arise again in D.T.N. Williamson's landmark article "Design for a
High-Quality Amplifier" (WW, Apr/May 1947). Williamson, by that time,
felt that the standards for high quality as set by Cocking and his
successors were no longer "distortionless".

Evidently the reduced coloration of the existing componentry allowed
Williamson to hear flaws in the earlier equipment. One wonders,
however, why Cocking did not know better, considering that he was
using live studio sound as his reference. Perhaps he was just beset by
the practical limits of his day (as he seems to imply). In any case,
Williamson set about to redefine the term "high quality".

Williamson stated the requirement for high quality as follows:
"Negligible non-linear distortion [0.1% across the power band] up to
the maximum rated output." In addition, Williamson argued for a
"Linear frequency response within the audible frequency spectrum of
10-20,000 c/s [within 0.2db]." Williamson also provided figures for
damping factor ("20-30"), and for "power reserve" (peak power) "of the
order of 15-20 watts" (Williamson apparently was not a "power music"
aficionado).

Williamson's specifications were to become very nearly the standards
held today by organizations like the EIA and the IEC. One has to
wonder, however, in light of the above, whether there will not one day
come about another round of revisions; and yet another reassessment of
what constitutes "distortionless" sound.

As we have seen, the term "high end" is a subjective term coined by a
gifted observationalist who felt that the quality of componentry, as
he observed it, could and should be better; and that the term "high
fidelity" had outlived its usefulness. In the course of time, HP's
term "high end" superceded the term "high fidelity" in the minds of
audiophiles (witness, for example, the name of this newsgroup). In the
process, he and his writers evolved a powerful vocabulary for
describing subtle differences among the various playback components
(and the recordings used to judge them).

If one wants to know what the term "high end" means, therefore, one
must go back and read the early issues of TAS. Considering that many
rahe readers do not own, or cannot otherwise obtain, early issues of
TAS, I will, in future posts, attempt to essay some of the highlights
that led to the genesis of the high-end."
Last edited by vintage_dog on Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vintage_dog
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: south of town

Postby vintage_dog » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:10 pm

how rec.audio.high-end defines high-end audio:

"2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality."
User avatar
vintage_dog
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: south of town

Postby vintage_dog » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:11 pm

another input:

"Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
at all to do with specs. Just the sound. Today, the list would be much longer,
but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
reciever qualify? Probably not."
User avatar
vintage_dog
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: south of town

Postby ichabod » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:23 pm

"High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound of live, uamplified music in real space."

As I would care to read this very informative article on fidelity and Hi End audio, what really strikes me as odd and interesting is the phrase .."unamplified music in real space."

How many of us would care to wish that if we could only take out the electronics that often mar a live presentation. Many at times as I watch live classical performances here in Cebu, I've always ended up frustrated listening to how much has been altered in terms of tonal purity due to amplification (electronics) over a poorly placed microphone set-up in an overly bright sounding PA system that does nothing but adulterate the natural tonal purity of sound -- the precise timbre of a violin, oboe or cello, piano, or double bass.

I often wonder where does true hi fidelity come in. Is it before the electronics or after it passes through those pick-up microphones? I'd like to hear my recordings as though there were no electronics and microphones. Is this possible? Can it be? By the above definition, this is what Hi End sound is.

If our goal then in listening is to conform to the quoted definition of what Hi End means, "unamplified music in real space" it becomes indeed exceedingly difficult to meet this goal without a transducer and amplifier that sounds as natural as live music itself.

By its own definition, "unamplified music in real space" in an amplified form (audio) is no longer that I'm afraid. It is to some degree an altered form of the true sound as heard live by the human ear. Ergo, the way to go around this is to pick out electronics that resemble the wave patterns set naturally by the human ear, a set of frequencies that are even ordered, similar to the sounds of musical instruments as we hear them in an acutal live event.

If all this can be produced faithfully, then one would have achieved the highest form of fidelity, as if there were no gear, just real music, live and fleshed out! What better way can one listen than this? If indeed one's hi end gear meets this standard as it so states by the above definition, then there's nothing more to quibble about, is there?

Once confronted with nature, we stand in awe! Any attempts to describe what audio or a speaker might do in relation to live music are rendered useless. What you've got is pure high fidelity! Live sound itself!
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Postby rtsyrtsy » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:24 pm

I was watching CNBC the other night and they featured the lady who who heads up Swarovsky.

Among the questions asked were such an ultra-luxury company would have items in their stores ranging from US$25 to US$25,000. The lady's answer is that luxury (or the high end) doesn't necessarily mean expensive. It should make it's buyers feel good.

Great insight, I think.
User avatar
rtsyrtsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:25 am

Postby mozilla » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:30 pm

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

There is a difference between a music lover and an audiophile that reflects on the sort of hi-fi equipment they buy.

Hi-fi for music lovers was well described by Peter Walker as providing a window on the concert hall, the closest approach to the original in your living room. There are a lot of technical problems, still, with achieving anything like the ideal. That is why we say high-fidelity and not just fidelity. The important thing about trying to reproduce the original performance in your living room is that there is an objective standard, the original performance itself. This implies constant concert going. One of the great problems with the classical Walker approach is that the modern living room is not the size of a concert hall or even the sort of library or drawing room of a grand house in which live recordings of chamber music is often made.

Audiophiles have essentially given up on the window on the concert hall. They have gradually taken upon themselves to reproduce their music the way they want it, without reference to any original. Since they are now in the vast majority, a whole trade of manufacturers has sprung up to cater for them. Over the years bass extension has become the dominant criterion of goodness of loudspeakers to those in this group, and thus for the manufacturers catering for them. Those designers who are still concert goers and so retain a connection with the music lovers sell their work into this market as boutique brands, as fashion goods. Their good gear is then copied by strictly commercial parties who hardly ever, and in some cases never, see the inside of a concert hall. Such people add more of what is desired by their market, which is bass (or in an amp power), and eventually the entire experience, in comparison with the concert hall, is distorted. Very expensive speakers with boomy one note bass acquire a faithful
fo

Since there is no objective standard, fashion and hype become the norm. How much you spent and how much brand recognition your hi-fi has becomes much more important than how it actually sounds. Fourth and fifth carbons of once reasonable designs are sold at vastly inflated prices by >designers< who have no connection to the original music, no philosophy of music reproduction, only the desire to make a buck. Some of their speakers are better built copies of other peoples speakers, but the premium is justified by more bass, not more faithful reproduction. Their customers are easily spotted by having spent vastly more money on their amp and speakers and sources than on their collection of music. They think the brand name and the cost gives them superiority, or an entree into cultured society. (A retired brother keeper a month or so ago wrote a letter to these newsgroups which she intended as a putdown to me: it consisted of the brand names of about nine pricey audio components she owns.)

A subbranch of these deluded people becomes religious about the particular experience of their preferred brand and angry when one points out that the sonic output bears little relationship to live music. Or perhaps they are just trying to protect the trade-in value of snake oil.

Image
User avatar
mozilla
Moderator
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 11:54 am

Postby Audio_Tyro » Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:46 pm

Good point. But we just need to clarify some things. Any concert that caters to large audiences, speaker system is usually employed to amplify the music (and let everybody hear the performance). Take for example the speaker systems used by pop/jazz bars in, say Jupiter street, or in Street Life, or wherever... these can be way too low in quality when compared with the ones in theatrical concert halls for Classical performance. So which concert should be use as the reference for high fidelity? Not everybody likes to listen to Classical music. There are those that go for Rock or Pop/Jazz concerts.

Now, choosing Rock/Pop/Jazz concert as the true reference for high fidelity may lead to disaster too. Some might get the wrong notion to buy commercial speaker systems like Peavy, Torque, Community Audio, JBL Eon, Ramsa, Daichi, etc. :)

So, ano???
Audio_Tyro
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Makati, Philippines

Postby ichabod » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:53 pm

"So ano?"

The question that MIcob here is asking deserves an answer. Grant I think in his discussion has part of the answer if not ALL, to Bai Micob.

It's interesting to note that most concert goers think that the kind of sound they'll be presented with is louder than loudest meaning like concerts will be loud and ear splitting in most cases like probably rock music. Or music in the pub with a grop of raucous musicians who will spouse their own self loudly with the kind of instrument they'd each be playing. Musicians too have their own maturing in lessons classical how to approach music and harmony to convey the meaning of an etude, a sonata, a concert of two pianos and violins perhaps, guitar and mandolin, on and on to the largest of works, a symphony played by an orchestra, 100 piece or less.

Playing in a large concert hall like the CCP will necessarily require a big symphony of say a 100 to fill an entire hall with a volume of sound that we us listeners from our seats can hear enough to enjoy the music. But the natural question that audiophiles ask is: Can the concert hall experience be possible in my living room? Can or will I hear the same level of loudness as I would from say balcony one of the CCP to make one feel as though he or she was in some concert?

Any one who wants a clear answer to this need not go far. Just check how loud can a symphony at full tilt will sound from music or dB charts to determine how loud indeed it is.

MOst opf the time as my info sheet tells me, a symphony at full tilt is hear between 90 to 95 dB from where you are seated in the concert hall. Now pray tell me why on earth do some of us insist that we hear any louder than that?

Since this loudness level is quite normal and within range of any speaker including the LS 3/5a, and many other smallish pretentious speakers, why might it not be possible to hear pure fidelity of sound in well recorded materials that we often play with our audio. There are many speakers that are designed to accurately portray speech and music as well as do that "space thing," giving us listeners an eerie feeling of the concert hall where you might have been seated the night before, don't they?

If the audio system does not put that kind of concert hall realism in the forefront of your living room as though you were in a concert hall, why bother? The thing is fidelity in recordings have in essence capture a performance standard everytime and most of the time that you need not quibble or worry one bit about its faithfulness even in timber to the performance. Now that to me is the standard any where you go, like saying what goes in goes out -- whether good or bad. But who needs a bad one. No one listens to bad recording or music. No audiophile wants to be caught playing a bad recording in his system. That is the standard we use to show how good and accurate our systems can be. But without those good recordings, any audio set-up is useless.

"So which concert should be use as the reference for high fidelity?" And the simple answer is any good recording done splendedly, sorry I almost said spendorly, in any concert hall that is well designed acoustically. Who would want to do a recording in anything less to satisfy both music lovers and anally critical audiophiles?

Lastly, Grant thanks for improving the "fire away" arsenal. I was so amused to see it!

Bomba nyor! Pit Senor nasad diri sa Cebu! Photography na sad ta! Inviting all audiophiles who are photophiles as well to come to Cebu and join the Sinulog Photo Tilt!
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Postby ichabod » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:09 pm

To add, any recordist worth his salt and wants to please us audiophiles must give us the most natural of recordings. Same should be true when listening to live presentations. Miking should be done as though there were no mikes at all. In fact the CCP uses less microphones during concert performances. That's where the concert hall acoustics play a big part to helping recreate the purity of the musical instruments and their different pitches including those the human voice. It must be heard as pure and natural as can be.
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Postby vintage_dog » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:00 am

i split this thread...discussions on "sinulog, etc." are now at "etcetera"
User avatar
vintage_dog
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: south of town

Postby Quiel » Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:19 pm

another perspective....

*****

"What Is High-End Audio?"
By Stereophile Magazine's
Chief Technical Editor,
Robert Harley.
"High-end audio is about passion - passion for music and for how well it is reproduced. High-end audio is the quest to re-create, in the listener's home, the musical message of the composer or performer with the maximum realism, emotion and intensity.

High-end audio products bear little similarity to the "stereo systems" sold in department stores. A music-reproduction system isn't a home appliance such as a washing machine or toaster; it is a vehicle for expressing the vast emotional and intellectual content of the music recorded on our records and CDs. The higher the quality of the reproduction, the deeper our connection with the music.

The high-end ethos - that music and the quality of its reproduction matter - is manifested in high-end audio components. They are designed by dedicated enthusiasts who combine technical skill with musical sensitivity to craft components that take us one step closer to the original musical event. High-end products are designed by ear, built by hand, and exist to enhance the experience of music listening.

If you enjoy music, you'll enjoy it more through a high-end system. It's that simple."
User avatar
Quiel
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:33 pm

Postby johnmarc0 » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:59 am

arnoldc wrote:high-end? matambok ang pwet?


High Rear End naman yun ser eh!
User avatar
johnmarc0
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: My Documents

Postby johnmarc0 » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:17 am

One thing for sure, "high end" does not equate to "high prices" am aghast when people say they have high end gear though all they have is "expensive gear". If francis' posted article is correct, high end means reproduction with the least comparative (not absolute, unless the current laws of physics have been debunked) distortion.

Thus high end gear is a fluid definition, bec the reigning high end gear is comparatively less distorted than others, laws of the jungle apply, it may be some else's konka tomorrow when better gear were introduced. Sadly, just maintaining higher prices keeps you in the "high end category" making PT Barnum correct (an idiot is born every minute).

As a latin saying goes ... " a philosopher need not know everything, he just have to know a little better than the village idiot to be called one...and it is easy for the philosopher as idiots abound..."

JM
User avatar
johnmarc0
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: My Documents

Postby av_phile » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:26 pm

I really would like to believe in the definition of High End as one that remains true to the pursuit of High Fidelity in home playback systems. With price being irrelevant.

But the sociatal and psychological implications of the terms are often very price-dependent. Something like anything above $10T per gear is "high-end." That makes even a flagship Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, Sony and other "commerical" gears below $3T fall into the classification: "Mid-Fi" or anything but High End.
av_phile
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Manila

Postby hi_finoy » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:42 pm

As quoted:)

High-end audio? What makes it high-end? Yes, it costs a bloody fortune. But is that it? Or is there some other intrinsic value to speakers that cost $10,000 a pair? And can you really hear the difference between those 10-grand speakers and a pair that costs $250?
Ask five audiophiles and you're sure to get five different answers. One will tell you that if you have to ask, you really don't deserve to know. How snobby. Another may tell you it's a clarity of sound and a perceived placement of instruments that cannot be achieved by lower-end equipment.
We also found that there is somewhat of a stigma attached to high-end audio. In the '70s, high-end audio was like an exclusive club. Only golden-eared people were considered worthy of membership, and that snob reputation continues to follow the industry. The rest of us became convinced we had inferior auditory senses. And we asked this question: If we can't hear the difference in audio products, why pay for it?

Truth is, you can hear a difference&150;between recordings, between CD players and between speakers. Whether the cost-benefit ratio is worth it is a subjective choice. It may be staggering to learn that a company sells a $35,000 amplifier, and that people actually buy them. But for the people who design, make and buy the equipment, the investment is worth every musical note.

The power of amplifiersHow do the manufacturing costs of a power amplifier add up to $35,000? The Mark Levinson No. 33 power amplifier is actually two mono amps that operate together to produce stereo sound. That accounts for part of the whopping retail price, according to Jon Herron, product development manager for parent company Madrigal Audio Laboratories.

What accounts for a $26,000 difference in power amplifiers? "There's a big difference in size and weight," Herron says, citing the 333's 170-pound frame versus the 33's 375 pounds. In addition, the 33 system can double its power to handle a 1-ohm speaker load–a task that's only a fantasy with most amplifiers. While the $9000 amp delivers a not-so-shabby 300 watts into an 8-ohm load, the $35,000 package pumps 600 watts into a 4-ohm load and a frightening 2400 watts a side into a 1-ohm load. In the No. 33, everything in the signal path between the AC outlet and the speaker must be able to support power and current for 2400 watts into a 1-ohm load. To support that load, the amps use 220- or 240-volt current–the same as most kitchen stoves. All the related cables and IEC receptacles have to be rated to support those levels. Mark Levinson amps boast heavy-gauge power cables, 20-amp outlets, a 5-kv toroidal power transformer, 60 output devices and massive extruded heat sinks.
Still, plugs and cable don't add up to $35,000 or even $9000. So is any 2-channel amplifier worth $9000, let alone $35,000? It's all relative. The amp's job is to put out voltage at any frequency, regardless of the speaker. That's where they get into overbuilding. If you're happy with the sound of a $300 receiver, then what the high-end guys do is overkill.

Amplifier designers make their products sound better by using better-quality parts. They use discrete components such as resistors, capacitors and transistors–or vacuum tubes–rather than assigning those functions to an inherently noisy integrated circuit. Parts like resistors, capacitors and transistors are graded by tolerance level, and those that are built to tighter tolerances cost more.

Another feature often listed on audiophile amp spec sheets is a toroidal transformer. Transformers are required for two reasons: to reduce the line voltage from 120 volts to a number the product can handle, and to isolate the product's circuitry from AC power to ensure safe operation. Standard transformers are square. Toroidal transformers are spherical, which allows them to cancel out electromagnetic fields and produce less hum. You can hand-tune a toroidal transformer by turning it until the hum goes away. Mass-market amp makers can't do this.
hi_finoy
 

Postby av_phile » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:45 pm

Quiel wrote:another perspective....

*****

"What Is High-End Audio?"
By Stereophile Magazine's
Chief Technical Editor,
Robert Harley.
"High-end audio is about passion - passion for music and for how well it is reproduced. High-end audio is the quest to re-create, in the listener's home, the musical message of the composer or performer with the maximum realism, emotion and intensity.

High-end audio products bear little similarity to the "stereo systems" sold in department stores. A music-reproduction system isn't a home appliance such as a washing machine or toaster; it is a vehicle for expressing the vast emotional and intellectual content of the music recorded on our records and CDs. The higher the quality of the reproduction, the deeper our connection with the music.

The high-end ethos - that music and the quality of its reproduction matter - is manifested in high-end audio components. They are designed by dedicated enthusiasts who combine technical skill with musical sensitivity to craft components that take us one step closer to the original musical event. High-end products are designed by ear, built by hand, and exist to enhance the experience of music listening.

If you enjoy music, you'll enjoy it more through a high-end system. It's that simple."


I agree that High-End is all about passion. Passion for the music we want heard in our listening rooms. Every hobby requires passion to make it transcend being a hobby, into an obsession. To some extent High-End borders on obsession.

But I might find argument in the assertion that "music-reproduction system isn't a home appliance such as a washing machine or toaster..." Maybe to us obssesed with the hobby, it is. But a gourmet CHEF will likewise consider his stove, ovens, toasters and utensils with similar esteem as "a vehicle for expressing the vast emotional and intellectual content..." this time, of Cooking.
av_phile
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Manila

Postby SoFtCliPpEr » Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:58 pm

Hi End

Is a state of mind. Truth (Veritas)plays a vital role in the equation. One has to be true to himself foremost if he is to enjoy what he hears. To achieve this condition one must be keen in knowing the things he needs to meet his goal or satisfaction level. It is a gentle touch from God.

The soul of man is the most sensitive to it's presence not the ears for they are merely vessels. How many times have we experienced listening to a familiar piece only without any reason feel the warmth of high fidelity's embrace. I seriously doubt if one was thinking about his tube gear or anything else in his system during these blissful moments.

The truth to the matter is one is moved by the music he hears, he is overcome by it's power, (not the wattage or price) the beauty of the performance (certainly not by the luxurious wires and fancy lighted feet on his gear). Hi End how fleetful thou art..we seek thee everyday of our lives. Often we are misled and look for you somewhere else where you are nowhere to be found. For you are in the hearts of those who created you.. US.
SoFtCliPpEr
 

Postby ichabod » Sat May 01, 2004 9:19 am

That for short is "the magic hour!" When all else is in sync, the earth (ground), the heavens (positive), and your entire being which is in your brain!
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Postby SoFtCliPpEr » Mon May 24, 2004 10:43 pm

Ode for Hi End

I dreamed I met high fidelity
A most amazing interesting woman..

She had that look..you very rarely find
The look the very haunting hunted kind..

I asked her to say what had happened?
And how it all began..

I asked again-yet she never said a word
Just as if she never heard..

And next I saw the room was full of wild and angry men
They all seemed to hate her as they all fell upon her and then they all disappeared again..

Then I saw thousands of millions
All crying out for her!

And then I heard them mentioning my name
And leaving me the blame..
SoFtCliPpEr
 

Postby ichabod » Thu May 27, 2004 8:09 am

Hi end, where you never see the end!
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Next

Return to General Audio

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests