What makes a product high-end?

I came across a thread here recently where Amp A was compared against Amp B in the context of high-end products. Someone chimed in, "Oh, I wouldn't consider Amp A to be a high-end product", which made me wonder why and what would then constitute a high-end product.

So I ask openly: What constitutes a high-end product for you and, more importantly, why? Feel free to provide examples of products that you consider to be high-end and explain why you would consider that product to be high-end.

I do recognize that this can be a loaded topic for many, but I'm genuinely interested in the "whys" (and "why nots"). Let's respect each other's opinions and have a civil discussion.

Thanks,

Tom

 

The following would be necessary conditions in my opinion...

1) The amp is designed and manufactured with the intent of delivering performance on par or better than the 95th percentile
2) The amp's measurements imply no obvious flaws
3) The amp is subjectively pleasing and considered a fair value to those experienced enthusiasts who are the intended customer

I've said everything and nothing here at the same time.

For me personally, I'd consider an EC Balancing Act to be "high end".

 

You gotta be high to buy it.

 

Usually, "high end" = "big $."

 

I'll reject #1 and #3.

#1) Cheap amps can outperform over 95% of the amps out there.
#3) A $20,000 headphone would be considered "high end". I'd never consider it a value.

I think it basically boils down to: it's expensive and people are willing to pay for it.

 

High end for me is anything that exceeds a mortgage payment...

 

Typical associations with high-end are:
1. high priced
2. high performance
3. high bragging rights
4. high probability of creating religious arguments (tubes vs transistors)

I prefer to consider how well I can emotionally connect to the music with a particular system. Thus an Eitr, Modi MB, Saga, Jotenheim and HD650 gain high end status to my ears.

 

A ''High end'' device is:
- relevant in context of best in 10 to 20 years to come (look at this great Japs stuff of 70'...80's or Theta/Sonic Frontiers of 90's) --> in engineering terms, over-engineered
- has best of technology put into it (tubes can be best of tech even today), best tech usually costs more than 8 dollars
- weighs at least 5 kg, that's because of 2'' copper milled faceplate and vol knob made of marble

 

High end = fancy chassis and high price. Correlation to performance is optional.

 

That's pretty much what I think. You say something is High-End because it's among the best products available on the market. Some people think High-End means "among the most expensive products" on the market. And that's certainly used by some.. but I prefer High-End based on performance.

So... HD650... in my book it's high-end with the right amp and dac but mid-fi with mediocre gear. For speakers Magnepan 3.7i is High-End in my book unless you crave a lot of bass.

Granted, in some countries I'm sure a pair of Beats or hd598's can be high-end. I think the high-end is relative compared what's on the market and what's reasonable for you to buy. If you live in Malaysia and earn a couple of hundred dollars a month I think it's perfectly ok to call something like the HD598 high-end for you.

 

10K, but just look at it...all class A, balanced, attention to detail is second to none...there are much more expensive products with much worse build quality...for me, this is a real high end product (Accuphase A-47)

 

What is NOT a high end product...anything Lampizator, looks built by a drunk monkey.

 

high-end ought to correlate with the performance/price ratio for devices whose performance exceeds the median.

 

Well, I agree 100% with the two statements you made regarding #1 and #3 yet I still stand behind the points I made. This is because I've said nothing about price and the OP asked what you as an individual consider "high end"... to me "high end" is a product that actually merits it's price whereas your definition (and that of most posters here) is that high end = "rip off".

I'll rephrase my original post as follows to avoid confusion....

1) The product is thoughtfully and intelligently designed, engineered and manufactured to deliver performance that is far better than average
2) The product has no obvious measurable flaws
3) The manufacturer succeeded with #1 and has passed muster with those who are in a position to assess it's subjective performance

 

Is the question what makes a product high end. or what SHOULD make a product high end?

Currently what seems to be the expected norm is in line with what @schiit & @pedalhead said.

What should be the definition seems more in line with what @GTABeancounter is saying.

For me, High End should be in reference to the performance, not the price or appearance, with appropriate build quality/longevity.

 

I don't pay attention to the traditional definition of "High End" which clearly has a price component and thus an exclusivity component. For me, it is all about the sound quality, features, and build quality in that order. That is all that matters to me.

 

"Hi-End". When the ad for it tells you everything about the thing. Except the price.

 

Unknown high end actual products are defined mainly by their price....

High-end vintage products are defined by their accumulated historical and mythical status ...

The ratio quality/cost is in line with past mythical products, the time proven valued one ...

After that for me, and at the end , a known high end product is a mythical one slightly improved by my own experimental disposition...

 

The term itself can lead to rumination and GUTB-like delusions