Talk:High-end audio

message: The article said (in the definition section, which as I've mentioned about probably needs a rewrite anyway) of hi-fidelity reproduction that '[t]his is obviously more important with performances involving acoustic instruments and without studio manipulations of vocals.'  This is simply not true; in my experience, it is often the opposite that is true.  For example, artificial sounds have a knack for finding their way into gaps in poor speakers' response ranges.  I suspect the claim about acoustic instruments and unmodified vocals was based on a listener's appreciation of the aspects of those sounds, but that the listener had little appreciation for artificial or modified sound's own qualities.  I have removed the claim. Ventifact 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic vs Electronic Sounds, which Benefits More from High-End

message: if someone with recording knowledge can polish up the 'recording companies' list it would be of great appreciation. I think this day in age there is certainly a demand for 'high end' recording. Add to the list and please add to their stubs, or simply create a stub.
:Pro audio is not 'high end', by definition. 'High end' is a consumer market. (Of course some companies sell to both 'pro' and 'high end' markets - dCS is a good example). Mirror Vax 23:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Pro-audio (i.e. recording and broadcast) is a completely different field from high-end consumer audio. It uses an almost entirely different set of products from different companies, with relatively little overlap. --Spliced 11:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: "Audiophile Propaganda" - that's a nice, flame-baity way for me to put it! :-)
I've noticed, on Wikipedia, that a number of articles have come under the influence of - how shall I put it? - "audiophile propaganda".  I've noticed it particularly with claims made in relation to valves, where there'll often be a brief claim of 'sonic superiority', or the like.  But it's not just valve stuff.  Here, in this article, there's the "Debate" section, which doesn't really seem to really belong, or need to be, in this article.  (Such things would be better placed in, say, the audiophile article.)
The thing that really struck me about the "Debate" section is the last line of the following (emphasis mine):-
At the core of much of this debate is the limit of human hearing. While it can be clearly shown with basic electrical engineering that accessories such as analog audio cables (which we will focus on for this discussion) do modify the signal going through them, some argue that the modifications to the signal cannot be heard. At the center of this issue are a limited number of experiments that have been performed in attempts to determine limits to human hearing. The results from experiments that have been performed generally come up with different limits to human hearing that vary based on the test variables. These experiments generally do not deal with complex signals (such as music) and thus are not valid for extrapolation to this debate.
I've also noticed the comments on this talk page, by someone anonymous, on the issue of cables.  That commenter says, "At the very least, it should be noted that this is a subject of some contention."  Yes, and so is the issue of the shape of the earth (flat-earthers).
There really is no reason why what I've rudely called "audiophile propaganda" should be treated any differently to, say, pseudoscience.  Golden-ear myths have already been debunked, and the rejections of such debunkings are recognisably typical of psychoceramics.
So, I'm deleting that section of the article.
Simon G Best 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on, Simon! Anoneditor 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: High-end audio and subjectivists have given me much more laughs than Monty Python.  It is incredible to observe how blinding the ego can be.  Rather than accept evidence and admit that one has been take in by some very slick snake-oil sellers and hype magazines, subjectivists would rather go on blithely reinforcing myths.  A snake-oil seller's most dangerous enemy is a person who has the ability to do critical thinking and not let his ego get in the way.  William Greene 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Audiophile Propaganda"

message: "Professional recording studios" don't use high-end audio for three reasons:
* roving producers demand a standard "reference" sound.   Hence the proliferation of that hideous white coned "reference" speaker.
* they are much more concerned with how the 'music' will sound in a Chevy pick up than via a Krell powered set of Martin Logans
* they buy different magazines
The rest of the section is also basically wrong.
Thoglette 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And on the other hand 

message: Of course it differs in opinion as to whether Bose is "high-end audio" or not (see links on the Bose article), but the company Koss is listed in this article. Maybe I haven't heard the right product, but everything I know that Koss makes is low-end junk of the Behringer type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.191.179.114 (talk • contribs) .
:I can't speak for Koss nowadays, but they certainly used to be viewed as a "high end" provider of headphones. I still have my second pair of Koss Pro-4AA (IIRC) headphones and, while the second pair wasn't as good as the first pair (owing to obvious cost reductions in their manufacture such as no liquid-filled earcups), they were nice enough.
:Atlant 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding in Bose. See links and citations in the Bose article, as well as the discussion page. ASH1977LAW 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Koss? Bose?

message: For Bose being a high-end system please see the following citations & the bose talk page
C|Net "Classy compacts: high-end CD radios" 
The Register "Bose SoundDock iPod speakers" 
Forbes Magazine (which is famed for it's coverage of high-end lifestyle products) - describing Bose as a producer of "high-end" products 
Wetfeet - describing Bose as a producer of "high-end" products "Bose is arguably the number-one manufacturer of high-end audio equipment" 
Popular Science (a magasine with over 100 years publishing history) - describing Bose as a producer of "high-end" products
PC Magasine describing Bose as a producer of "high-end" products
Flyingmag review - describing Bose as a producer of "high-end" products
Let us take the citations one at a time. C|Net reviews high-tech products. The Register is a technology news site aiming to provide objective content. Forbes bills itself as "Home Page For The World's Business Leaders" and is the most widely visited business web site. It features in-depth coverage of current business and financial events and of high-end lifestyle. WetFeet is a job site, and describes Bose as “arguably the number-one manufacturer of high-end audio equipment, with sales accounting for 25 percent of the world market.”, so whilst it is unqualified to comment on and review individual products it is qualified to talk about the company itself. Popular Science is a reputable magazine (with a 135 year history!) with a focus on science and technology. PCMag.com is the name for the online part of PC Magazine provides reviews and previews of the latest hardware and software for the information technology professional. Note that PCMag has only reviewed systems that are applicable to it’s target audience (the iPod docking station and the multimedia computer speakers). Also it is important to note that one reviewer (also from PCMag.com) states that Bose is a company that produces high-end products and the other reviewer says that while most people view Bose as a producer of high-end products, that “audio-snobs” are unlikely to hold that view. Flyingmag is aimed at pilots and has reviewed the aviation headsets. So, to recap:
Three publications reviewing high-technology products and the latest technology hardware and software
A high-end lifestyle publication
A site reviewing buisinesses
A highly respected science and technology magasine with over 100 years of publication history
A publication aimed at pilots which reviewed the aviation headsets
… all have said that Bose is a producer of high-end audio products. All are qualified to speak on the subject and are respected and well known in their respective fields. All are excellent citations for Bose being a producer of High-End audio systems. We have seven separate and dissimilar, highly respected and trustworthy sources saying the same thing. I think it is fair to say that Bose is indeed a producer of high-end audio.
ASH1977LAW 10:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I wonder if audiophiles and audiophile magazines regard Bose as a high-end vendor.  High-end vendors are often small companies that sell their products only in audio salons.  Bose appears to sell their products in mass-market stores like Best Buy and in salons.  I think there is less debate about whether vendors like Krell or Halcro are high end.  Perhaps the article should note that Bose tries to cater to both segments of the market.  William Greene 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even one of those magazines is a credible source for this, because none of them are Audio, Stereo, or Psychoaucoustic magazines. They deal in things OTHER than audio. They are not experts in audio. And Popular Science is not a credible source. They frequently make far-fetched suppositions that are almost always incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.243 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Apart from my own feelings of horror caused by once hearing out the loud-touted Bose system (which made me conclude that it's crap), the fact is that mainstream publications are not authoritative in the matter. They regard even $1,000 speakers as expensive. To consider putting it into the article, one would need at least an article from Stereophile. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Lightweight puff pieces by non-specialist writers, such as those cited above, are ten a penny.--Harumphy (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for Bose being a high-end system

message: Adamantios, you say the snake oil section is verifiable but you don't verify it. I've added "citation needed" tags, even though I agree with the assertions under that heading. Binksternet 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Binksternet, the deletion of the section was by an anonymous user who didn't provide any explanation. I'll try supply citations. Regards, Adamantios 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decent effort, Adamantios. None of the references are to specific articles but the section is better than before. Say, should the cable stands be said to be marketed as a remedy against airborne vibration? Lifting cables into the air wouldn't relieve this notional problem. How about vibration that might come from lying on a floor? Binksternet 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, this article still needs a lot of work ofcourse. That's what I thought about the stands, but I can't really say. I wouldn't buy them in the first place :) Adamantios 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snake oil business

message: The notion that studio monitors are not high end audio equipment is so blatantly false, it seems redundant to point out how incorrect that is. Studio monitors are as high as high end can get.
One popular studio monitor that is an audiophile grade home speaker was the ADS L1290 and ADS L1590, very clean, very accurate, very impressive. It was used both in the home and in the studio, directly contradicting the incorrect section.
I will delete the section in its current state, but leave the part explaining that studios seek accurate reproduction as that is true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.243 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on studio monitors is blatantly false 

message: Added a source and citation to the controversy section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.243 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added citation #4 to last section 

message: I'm going to take a picture of my stereo and include it in the article, ok?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.85 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Picture of My Stereo is Needed