I like this article, so I thought I would share a little. Doesn't answer one dam question in this thread but it's still a good read. The last paragraph is by far and away the best! Take the word objectivists and put in scientist.
Robert Harley Stereophile:
In reply to:
What high-end products do that mass-market products mainly do not is to produce a powerful intimacy with the music. The mediocre product never passes the threshold from good sound to creating magic in the listening room. Why not? Because in their development, the designers didn't listen, tweak the design, and listen some more. Other projects needed their attention. The circuit measured well, sounded acceptable---why beat it to death? The mid-fi designer may enjoy music, but he lacks the obsession that drives the high-end designer to push the limits of performance just a little further.
Conversely, the caring designer continues his quest until he is absolutely sure that no more improvements can be made. His mind is at peace only when the product satisfies his high expectations of how it should convey the music. At the last stage, he will often include an expensive part that adds to the raw materials cost, even though he knows the retail price won't increase. The additional cost will come off the bottom line, but the designer can't bear to think of the product performing below its potential. He knows how much better the music will sound to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of music lovers. And that matters to him.
High end isn't a prestigious brand name, or the type of store in which it is sold, or cost, or faceplate thickness, or a positive review. It is the relationship between the designer and his product---a relationship that produces a similar relationship between the user and the product. High end can be an inexpensive product, provided that the designer's goal was to best convey the music. Indeed, a modestly-priced product that squeezes the last drop of musical performance from the parts cost is more high-end than an elaborate design that isn't fully realized. Again, the difference is in the designer's attitude: how much he cares about music determines how good the product is within the cost limitations. These qualities can exist within an individual designer in a mid-fi company; we wouldn't call the resulting product high-end, but maybe it will be a little less mid-fi.
The antithesis of high end is the designer who purposefully makes a product---such as an inexpensive loudspeaker---that will impress during a brief showroom demo, knowing full well that it will disappoint musically in the home. Similarly, the mid-fi ethic may call for making the component look good on paper, without regard to how it sounds. Another technique, anathema to the high end, is overly compromising a design. Rather than use a better part that makes the product far more musically satisfying but slightly increases the retail price, the designer cuts corners and compromises musicality to meet a "price point" determined by the marketing department. All designers must be price-conscious, but this last technique is definitely not part of the high-end ethos.
The term "musicality"---often associated with high-end components---bears discussion. The word has become a lightning rod for criticism by audio "objectivists" and the mainstream press because they erroneously believe that musicality implies some sort of euphonic coloration. Moreover, musicality can't be measured, quantified, or communicated by linear symbols, thus making its existence questionable to some who haven't experienced it.
That last sentance is so true!!!!!!!!!!!
