What classifies a HT system as entry level high-end?

[prerich]

We all know entry-level systems (the famos Onkyo 606 w/polk RM6750's and PS3 - I would have put the Yamaha RX-V663 with the 606 but the Yamaha can't compete price wise anymore - it's price has gone up since I bought mine). What would you say is an entry-level High-End system - to include source(s), amplification & processing, and speakers?

[allstar780]

Would my system (see sig) count as entry level?

[Beta Man]

I think everyone has their own levels...... if someone is having a builder make them a house, and in that design, portions off a section for home theater...... he's probably looking at different systems as "entry" "Mid" and "High" and he'll probably have to decide how much he's willing to invest to hit what level he wants....

There's something called "settling" many, including myself, do it.... and we most of us regret it though

There's also something called "sacrificing" and many have done that as well.... and most who have... have few regrets if any......

[kingofgrills]

I was reading a review on the Yamaha RX-V863 in Home Theater Magazine this weekend. They classified the RX-V863, which retails for $999, an entry-level receiver. If that's the case, I guess they would consider the RX-V663 budget-level with a retail price of $549?

It's all relative, I guess. A $999 receiver in my book isn't entry level. I wish it was though, because then I could afford to buy more Blu-rays.

[prerich]

This is the kinda stuff I'm after folks, Beta made a good point - settling and sacrificing. I just picked up my issue of Audio Advisor and I saw a speaker setup that I would love to hear - the Vincent Audio LS-308's currently out of my range - there is a Vincent amp that's in my price point but I would have to replace all of my amps with the Vincents (or at least the front and center). I'm currently setting - do I regret it, yes and no. I would like to have better because I've heard better. As much as I like the Yamaha RX-V663and all of its codec greatness - I still think the Fosgate Model 3a sounds better than a lot of newer stuff I've heard (on the receiver end). I wonder if this is why the High-end CE's are not in a rush to make HDMI compatible prepro's?
Lets discuss this some more (lets break up the monotany of - what receiver should I buy...ect). When do we reach the point of diminishing returns, does that only come to the level that we're exposed to, how good our ears are, or any number of factors. Why some beileve they are high-end but haven't scratched the surface or others consider themselves mid-fi but have systems that are generally better than what is considered average by - not the CE industry standards, but by what the average person will spend on a system.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by allstar780

Would my system (see sig) count as entry level?

In some circles...yes, in some - the very fact that you have a receiver makes you less than high-end. What's the demographics other than how much money you make? I know multi-millionares and their systems are consideralbly less capable and powerful than mine. They think they're on the cutting edge, but in reality - the systems they've been exposed to are not that great.
Paul Shauffer in Sound & Vison stated that he heard a particular system and said - that's what I want. I believe when people are exposed along with other factors will determie what they are willing to spend - regardless of price. I think this shows itself in the BD vs DVD upconverting battle. What do you guys think. Lets talk shall we?

[richteer]

Originally Posted by prerich

We all know entry-level systems (the famos Onkyo 606 w/polk RM6750's and PS3 - I would have put the Yamaha RX-V663 with the 606 but the Yamaha can compete price wise anymore - it's price has gone up since I bought mine). What would you say is an entry-level High-End system - to include source(s), amplification & processing, and speakers?

Damn good question!

I think the most important criterion for consideration as being high end is this: audio and/or picture quality must be a (if not the) over riding concern. Obviously, most stuff is designed to meet a certain price point, so the quality consideration has to be considered with the budget in mind.

A not entirely unfair yard stick (in my mind) is this: if something can be bought from a mega-chain big box store, odds are it isn't high end. Counter examples are the availability of Pioneer and Panasonic TVs at places like Best Buy.

It's important to note, though, that "high end" and expensive aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g., no one in their right mind would consider Bose speakers as being high end, but expensive they are). But OTOH, high end stuff does tend to be more expensive than mass market stuff. Hey, a Ferrari is more expensive than a Ford!

[kalkin84]

Originally Posted by prerich

We all know entry-level systems (the famos Onkyo 606 w/polk RM6750's and PS3 - I would have put the Yamaha RX-V663 with the 606 but the Yamaha can compete price wise anymore - it's price has gone up since I bought mine). What would you say is an entry-level High-End system - to include source(s), amplification & processing, and speakers?

the tipping point from common retail audio to high-end audio for me is where the law of diminishing returns starts to show itself pominently; that is to say you spend a lot more money for a lot less improvement. Example: the Denon AVR-3808 does a lot that an Anthem AVM-40 won't; the 40 has no ethernet connection, cannot stream netRadio or MP3 over network, doesn't have as nice a video scaler (though the AVM-50 leapfrogs it). However, the AVM-40/50 (paired with a decent amp) will put out sound that would make the Denon sound like a cheap Sony. The anthem is also hardware upgrade-able. That is what you're paying for; a lot more money for less features but for BETTER performance on core features and continued support down the road.

in part, I consider "high-end" things that:
-do not suck
-A/V seperates
-NO HTIB or anything resembling one
-quality parts, built to last and (where possible) upgrade-able

To that end my "entry-level high-end" system would include the following:
-Anthem AVM-40 processor (maybe 50, but that is above entry)
-Anthem MCA-50 amp
-Denon Blu-player (not the transport)
-Sat DVR (service of choice)
-true control: crestron, amx, etc (or lesser if not a dedicated theater room)
-Paradigm reference (100's, CC-690, ADP-590's, Servo 15)
-AQ mid level wiring (no DBS)

These items made my list because i have owned or coveted most, they do not represent the top of their lines, they do not carry the stratospheric price tag of "high-end" gear (krell, focal, transparent, etc) but kick the @$$ of 90% of the rest of the gear available.

[prerich]

I have yet another question to present without starting a new thread. What are the differences between a High-definition system (on AQ) and a high-end system? Can a high-end non high-definition system sound better than a high-definition system? With all of our terminology (AQ, PQ, HD, Lossless Audio) and emphisis on technology - what really determines if a system sounds good? I think Kingofgrills has an all line source system - I would love to hear that , lets not forget about Brain Sturgeon whoa , Gremal is right in there with em ! Beta has a good setup that more than likely sounds beautiful, and the cat with the all Martin system and RUR - nice . But all of these systems would sound different. Music and audio in general is very subjective. Can a system be a High Definition system and still sound very bad? Can a quality system not include lossless BD audio and still compete with lossless systems? Lets chime in on this! As you can tell - I like to stir the pot and make us think for a while.

[RUR]

IMHO, given a sufficient disparity in gear, a high-end system playing lossy audio will definitely sound better than a lesser system playing lossless. I'll go further and say that even a modest improvement in speakers/room treatment easily will be audibly better than switching from lossy to lossless.

Flamesuit.....on!

[prerich]

Originally Posted by RUR

IMHO, given a sufficient disparity in gear, a high-end system playing lossy audio will definitely sound better than a lesser system playing lossless. I'll go further and say that even a modest improvement in speakers/room treatment easily will be audibly better than switching from lossy to lossless.

Flamesuit.....on!

I'll go out on a limb with you and agree!

[richteer]

Originally Posted by RUR

IMHO, given a sufficient disparity in gear, a high-end system playing lossy audio will definitely sound better than a lesser system playing lossless. I'll go further and say that even a modest improvement in speakers/room treatment easily will be audibly better than switching from lossy to lossless.

Agreed 100%. Here's an example that illustrates this point: you'd get much better quality pictures from an 8 mega pixel DSLR with a decent lens than you would with a 12 mega pixel pocket camera with its built-in plastic lens, even though the former is "more lossy" on paper (due to lower resolution images).

[prerich]

Originally Posted by richteer

Agreed 100%. Here's an example that illustrates this point: you'd get much better quality pictures from an 8 mega pixel DSLR with a decent lens than you would with a 12 mega pixel pocket camera with its built-in plastic lens, even though the former is "more lossy" on paper (due to lower resolution images).

Excellent analogy!!!!

[richteer]

Originally Posted by prerich

Excellent analogy!!!!

Thanks!

[Woody]

What a great thread!

1. I agree that lossy on a (well done) high-end system will most of the time sound better than lossless on an inexpensive system.

2. I think we can have fun discussions about diminishing returns on PQ and AQ for days, and debate will be highly subjective based upon who we are discussing with.

3. To answer the OP, a VERY general rule I go by for "entry level high-end" would be someone spending 20-30k on a dedicated HT. (speakers, electronics, projector, screen, room treatments, seats, calibration, design, etc)

The problem is that many spend out the wazoo for all of that stuff and it is then poorly implemented, calibrated, and designed and don't get a chance to experience what their gear is capable of.

4. IMO the point of diminishing returns doesnt take long to reach with decent gear. The decision to be made is how much is a slight PQ/AQ improvement worth to you?

[Beta Man]

I couldn't have a dedicated home theater without costly accoustical treatments, wiring, and renovations to my basement........

so I bought a house that I didn't have to do all of that to

Parts of the room (if they include bass traps, and acoustical panels) can add to the cost, as well as professional calibration, etc...... I will be able to accoustically treat my "new room" myself, with wall-hangings, plants, throw pillows, and maybe a couple of home-made bass-traps..... Had I tried to build my theater in my old/current house, I would have had to put SERIOUS money into it.... much more than would be allowed by the wife (probably what Brain put into his room on Accoustical Panels alone and I wouldn't have achieved the level of success he did)

the possibilities are ENDLESS.

[Scooby Blu]

This question brings me back to college where I studied philosophy with monks out in the middle of nowhere. There is a great book called Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The whole premise of the book is what is quality. This question drove the writer completly mad, enduring elctro-shock treatment and all. Quality is what we are talking about with high end systems. Subjective indeed to say the least ! Be it a watch, a car, a shirt a HT system quality is an elusive element that defies logic. However, when seen or heard we have an inner knowing of what quality is.

Oh well, the short downlow would be if you have a local high end dealer you are more than likely to see a multitude of levels of A/Q and P/Q . Priced at very different price points. Budget is the only contraint on getting the best of the best !

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Woody

What a great thread!

1. I agree that lossy on a (well done) high-end system will most of the time sound better than lossless on an inexpensive system.

2. I think we can have fun discussions about diminishing returns on PQ and AQ for days, and debate will be highly subjective based upon who we are discussing with.

3. To answer the OP, a VERY general rule I go by for "entry level high-end" would be someone spending 20-30k on a dedicated HT. (speakers, electronics, projector, screen, room treatments, seats, calibration, design, etc)

The problem is that many spend out the wazoo for all of that stuff and it is then poorly implemented, calibrated, and designed and don't get a chance to experience what their gear is capable of.

4. IMO the point of diminishing returns doesnt take long to reach with decent gear. The decision to be made is how much is a slight PQ/AQ improvement worth to you?

Great thoughts, and you are correct about people who spend tons of cash but have little to show for it sonically (if I spelled it right ). Room Calibration is definately a must in a high-end system, the room is just as important as the gear - good gear in a bad room can sound bad. This is a poor example but I will use it anyway - we all know that Bose speakers are overpriced, but when they are in their individual show rooms people do not realize how much Bose has acousitcally treated that room to make their speakers sound better. In the begining days of HT many people didn't believe in EQ's anymore. While working at a high-end salon part-time I told a coulple of the salesmen that I had eq's on every channel. We discussed and came to the conclusion if a room has deficiencies - it needs EQ. Well what do you know months after this discussion Rane and Audio Control come out with guess what...THX and surround sound eq's for each channel. Next to speakers - the room is the loudest component in a system.

P.S. I love talking about this! Gives a break from the Onkyo ect questions (no offense to anyone that makes those threads...over and over and over). I personally see (to me) a point of dimnishing returns on speakers that cost over 6,000 a pair - but that's just me - its very subjective.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

.....Parts of the room (if they include bass traps, and acoustical panels) can add to the cost, as well as professional calibration, etc...... I will be able to accoustically treat my "new room" myself, with wall-hangings, plants, throw pillows, and maybe a couple of home-made bass-traps..... Had I tried to build my theater in my old/current house, I would have had to put SERIOUS money into it.... much more than would be allowed by the wife (probably what Brain put into his room on Accoustical Panels alone and I wouldn't have achieved the level of success he did) ...

If?

http://www.realtraps.com/index.htm My favorite and has numerous articles on proper room treatment. Ethan and Jim are happy to discuss treatment for one's specific room.

http://www.acoustimac.com/index.php Great source for DIY stuff

and other, well-known suppliers
http://www.echobusters.com/pages/descriptions.html
http://www.sweetwater.com/shop/studi...tic-treatment/
http://www.acousticsciences.com/tubetrap.htm
http://www.gikacoustics.com/index.html

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Scooby Blu

This question drove the writer completly mad, enduring elctro-shock treatment and all. Quality is what we are talking about with high end systems. Subjective indeed to say the least ! Be it a watch, a car, a shirt a HT system quality is an elusive element that defies logic. However, when seen or heard we have an inner knowing of what quality is.

Oh well, the short downlow would be if you have a local high end dealer you are more than likely to see a multitude of levels of A/Q and P/Q . Priced at very different price points. Budget is the only contraint on getting the best of the best !

You will destroy the paradox of this thread ! However great thinkers are thinking very similar in this discussion ! Its like saying you've met the best pool player ever because they beat the tar out of you, and you consider yourself to be pretty good. The fact is, the pool player (the one that beat you) doesn't consider himself to be very good because he's played better - that consistantly beat the tar out of him - that's why he's soo good - he constantly challenges himself with someone who's obviously better and then gives "lessons" or exposes those who are not that good to another level of playing (his current level). I hope everyone understood my little ramble