Qual o conceito do Hi-End?

Meus amigos, vê-se e fala-se muito sobre o Hi-End.
Faço ideia o que seja, mas baralha-me com certos aparelhos serem considerados como tal.
Alguém me pode definir concretamente o conceito do Hi-End?

PAINTER escreveu:

Meus amigos, vê-se e fala-se muito sobre o Hi-End.
Faço ideia o que seja, mas baralha-me com certos aparelhos serem considerados como tal.
Alguém me pode definir concretamente o conceito do Hi-End?

Julgo que no início a classificação de high-end destinava-se aos equipamentos de desempenho superlativo.
Hoje é sinónimo de bens de luxo e de preços "estrato-esféricos".

ricardo onga-ku escreveu:

PAINTER escreveu:

Meus amigos, vê-se e fala-se muito sobre o Hi-End.
Faço ideia o que seja, mas baralha-me com certos aparelhos serem considerados como tal.
Alguém me pode definir concretamente o conceito do Hi-End?

Julgo que no início a classificação de high-end destinava-se aos equipamentos de desempenho superlativo.
Hoje é sinónimo de bens de luxo e de preços "estrato-esféricos".

Supunha que fosse aparelhos destinados à superior qualidade em todos os apectos, mesmo na sua reprodução sonora absoluta.
E faz-me confusão um tuner ser classificado Hi-End com AM!!! Que eu saiba, esta frequência não tem nada de som puro. E talvez por isso se tenha fabricado só com FM.

Se calhar no seu tempo era o topo de gama e por isso esse estatuto, é evidente que o conceito se prende a factores cost no object e que pretendem elevar a reprodução musical ao mais alto nível e claro que isso é caro. posso ter um Punto ou um Ferrari ambos servem para andar na estrada um é um carro outro é um automóvel high end

Este texto é uma espécie de enquadramento histórico...interessante

What is HIGH-END?

"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."

ricardo onga-ku escreveu:

Este texto é uma espécie de enquadramento histórico...interessante

What is HIGH-END?

"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."

Muito curioso este artigo   
Já desde 194... que se procura uma definição mais qualitativa da Alta Fidelidade. Pensava eu que o High-End já fosse posterior aos anos 80, mais devido ao aparecimento da leitura digital, e não fosse ignorado o som analógico!

High end    

High end     

High end               

High end     

High end     

High end             

High end    

 

Mário Franco escreveu:

High end    

High end     

High end               

High end     

High end     

High end             

High end    

É isso tudo.   


E todos os que falam mal, não têm dinheiro para lá chegar assim como eu.   

Possas ainda bem que sei Inglês senão ficava sem saber o que era isso do High end  

ricardo onga-ku escreveu:

"The Complete Guide to High-End Audio" - 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.
Because music is important, re-creating it with the highest possible fidelity is important.

High-end audio products constitute a unique subset of music-reproduction components that 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 potential of the music encoded on our records and CDs.
The higher the quality of 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 products.
They are designed by dedicated enthusiasts who combine technical skill and 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 for one reason - to enhance the experience of music listening.

A common mis-conception among the hi-fi consuming public is that high-end audio means high-priced audio.
In the mass market mind, high-end audio is nothing more than elaborate stereo equipment with features and price tags aimed at millionaires.
Sure the performance may be a little better than he hi-fi at your local appliance store, but who can afford it? Moreover, high-end audio is seen as being only for trained, discriminating listeners, snobs, or gadget freaks - but not for the average person on the street.

High-end audio is none of these things.

First, the term "high-end" refers to the products' performance, not their price.
Many true high-end systems cost no more - and often less - than the all-in-one rack systems sold in department stores....

Second, high-end audio is about communicating the musical experience, not adding elaborate, difficult to operate features...
High-end audio is for music lovers, not electronic whizzes.

Third, anyone who likes music can immediately appreciate the value of high-quality sound reproduction.
It doesn't take a "golden ear" to know what sounds good.
The difference between good and mediocre music reproduction are instantly obvious. ....

Finally, the goal of high-end audio is to make the equipment "disappear"; when that happens, we know we have reached the highest state of
communication between musician and listener.
High-end audio about equipment; it's about music."

  
Mais explícito não podia ser.
Obrigado, Ricardo!

E todos os que falam mal, não têm dinheiro para lá chegar assim como eu.   [/quote]


  
Hei-de ter a minha aparelhagem, vais ver!

A tua sorte é o Benfica ganhar ao PAOK!!!   

PAINTER escreveu:

Hei-de ter a minha aparelhagem, vais ver!

Pensava que tinhas uma....  

António José da Silva escreveu:

PAINTER escreveu:

Hei-de ter a minha aparelhagem, vais ver!

Pensava que tinhas uma....  

quase...   

Provocation:

High-End is a successful concept to distract the dedicated listener from the musical content. At the end waits the audio hell.

  

Sounds perhaps unfamiliar and funny, but think about it.

Cheers

mannitheear escreveu:

Provocation:

High-End is a successful concept to distract the dedicated listener from the musical content. At the end waits the audio hell.

  

Sounds perhaps unfamiliar and funny, but think about it.

Cheers

Já tinha lido essa frase algures, e é compartilhado por muita malta que eu conheço e que tem bastante conhecimento em áudio.

A verdade é que existes muito high end que é mesmo muito bom e aquele menos bom, ou que nos agrada menos. Depois temos o problema (para nós tesos) do valor pedido. Qualquer sistema high end que se prese, custa no mínimo 30.000 por cada equipamento e chega com facilidade aos 150-200.000 euros, o que é incomportável para a grande maioria das pessoas que conhecemos (os números são uma média por baixo, pois existem colunas para as quais 200.000 não chegam).

Felizmente que se consegue ter som de grande qualidade por muito menos.

    


Já agora só para ser mauzinho

E o que é o high-tec   

E todo o high-tec é hi-end   

Será que todo o hi-end é high-tec   

E quem quer pagar para ver   

E se for bluff poker   

E se eu não tiver orelhas high-tec para ouvir o hi-end         

António José da Silva escreveu:

Qualquer sistema high end que se prese, custa no mínimo 30.000 por cada equipamento

Isso é uma adulteração do conceito original, que apenas classificava os equipamentos pelo seu desempenho:

High-End refere-se a equipamentos que são projetados e fabricados com o objetivo específico de reproduzir um som que se aproxime o mais possível da música ao vivo, não amplificada e gravada num espaço de acústica natural.* - Harry Pearson

Depois "alguém" descobriu que se encontrava ali uma mina de ouro e daí em diante foi só facturar.

Se olharmos para o mercado de high-end americano vemos uma série de consumidores inseguros que apoiam as suas decisões nas opiniões dos críticos das revistas da "especialidade"…

Hoje high-end é sinónimo de luxo e o denominador comum é o preço elevadíssimo.
Mas apesar de tudo até há uns quantos produtos de preço absurdo que têm um bom desempenho, mas há muitos mais que são vendidos a um preço adequado.


* - música "clássica"

ricardo onga-ku escreveu:

António José da Silva escreveu:

Qualquer sistema high end que se prese, custa no mínimo 30.000 por cada equipamento

Isso é uma adulteração do conceito original, que apenas classificava os equipamentos pelo seu desempenho:

High-End refere-se a equipamentos que são projetados e fabricados com o objetivo específico de reproduzir um som que se aproxime o mais possível da música ao vivo, não amplificada e gravada num espaço de acústica natural.* - Harry Pearson

Depois "alguém" descobriu que se encontrava ali uma mina de ouro e daí em diante foi só facturar.

Se olharmos para o mercado de high-end americano vemos uma série de consumidores inseguros que apoiam as suas decisões nas opiniões dos críticos das revistas da "especialidade"…

Hoje high-end é sinónimo de luxo e o denominador comum é o preço elevadíssimo.
Mas apesar de tudo até há uns quantos produtos de preço absurdo que têm um bom desempenho, mas há muitos mais que são vendidos a um preço adequado.


* - música "clássica"

Pode ser uma adulteração, mas em simultâneo será uma consequência lógica e passo a explicar o que quero dizer.

Para se desenvolver o melhor, é necessário (sem ordem lógica).

-Gente de grande conhecimento e competência a tempo inteiro (ou free-lancers).

-Tempo para desenvolver os aparelhos (tempo=dinheiro).

-Materiais usados que muitas vezes são também eles de topo (necessário ou não)

-Normalmente são empresas grandes, com bastante empregados, nome registado, edificios etc.)

-Têm que cumprir com todas as normas (certificados) do país de origem e países de chegada (normas nem sempre fáceis de adquirir e que custam bastante dinheiro).

- Pagar a uma rede de distribuição e/ou importadores (nos casos grandes, ambos) para a distribuição dos ditos.

-Pagar à cadeia de marketing mundial para dar a conhecer o produto. Um assunto mal visto por muitos, mas no fundo essencial. Só conhecemos o produto se realmente...............o conhecermos.

-Margem de lucro dos que muito trabalham para (tentar) vender os produtos (importador e/ou revendedor). Uma tarefa pela qual tenho bastante respeito porque despendem de muito tempo e paciência e lidam com todas as reclamações e garantias de várias marcas, assim como a aceitação de retomas com todo o investimento/capital envolvido.



Se somarmos tudo o que é investigado e feito e pago a muita gente para e execução/marketing/venda de um produto de topo, e se tivermos em conta a sua produção limitada/exclusiva, o valor fica mais plausível.


E não nos enganemos. Um produto feito por um qualquer amigo cheio de saber e que seja magnifico, que seja colocado numa qualquer caixa de inox ou alumínio escovado de 10mm e que seguisse os caminhos acima citados, também seria muito muito caro (e não menos High-End).

Acho que o preço final deve pouco aos materiais luxuosos e aos componentes de primeira água, é antes uma opção comercial.
Por cada par de Wilson, Magico ou a YG vendido a Wharfedale ou a Monitor Audio vendem 20.000 e isso obriga a margens enormes.
E para justificar esses valores os fabricantes de produtos high-end recorrem a serviço das revistas da especialidade, "contratando" um "comercial" para esse efeito; o crítico escolhido tem como principal objectivo criar uma "aura" em torno do referido produto e o seu trabalho é facilitado pelo valor exagerado que é conferido à sua opinião (por vezes seguida com fervor religioso) e pela ignorância dos seus leitores.
Como o valor da venda tem de ser distribuído pelos distribuidores, pelos lojistas e pelos críticos, imagino que o lucro real até nem seja por aí além…

Conforme referi anteriormente até existem produtos de high-end com bom desempenho mas o preço que pedem por eles é por vezes absurdo.

A propósito dos preços absurdos do high end:

A High End Death Spiral? by Roger Skoff

One of the things that's been in the news lately is the idea of "Death Spiral" pricing, where a company (or an industry) is, for whatever reason, forced to charge too much for its products, which causes sales to drop off, which makes the company, in order to survive, raise the prices on its remaining sales, which causes volume to drop even further, forcing the company to raise its prices again, causing still another decline in sales, and around and around again, until there are no sales at all and no company or no industry, either.

The discussions of that issue that are currently in the news refer to different industry, but I'm afraid that the concept of a pricing death-spiral may also apply to our own High End audio industry altogether too well.

continua em -> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue71/skoff.htm