Mid-fi, Hi-fi... Difference?

[similost]

Around here, I see people call things mid-fi, and then of course we all want hi-fi... so what is the deciding factor if a piece of gear is mid-fi or hi-fi?

Is there some kind of number? Or a sound? or the price? or what separates them? Personal preference?

Please don't turn this into a cut-throat debate, I'm just trying to figure out how the seperation of the two is made.. and if there is a real or percieved seperation between the two..

 

[Dan ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]

I always felt it was more personal likes and dislikes. But, if YOU like it, that's all that matters! (IMHO)

 

[similost]

Kinda what I was thinking too, but I just had to wonder if there is a real distinguishable difference, or a perceived difference..

 

[willyrover]

I've discovered the following....

1)If it's YOUR system, it's hi-fi. If it's someone elses it's mid-fi.

2) If you listen to "music" you have mid-fi. If you listen to "equipment" it's hi-fi.

 

[Snade]

Hi-Fi has become a very generic term that covers most stereo gear, although it began to be widely used in the 50's when quality radio and record players made their way into many homes.

Mid-Fi is a more recent term that I think means middle-of-the-line stereo gear. The term "mid-fi" is not widely used, just sometimes in forums like this to make a point that the gear is between the very expensive setups and the cheap bottom of the line gear.

I never use the term mid-fi, but I like hi-fi as a great term to reference most of the quality stereo gear we all use.

Cheers, Snade

 

[Bluesbassplayer]

For me with mid-fi - you get clarity in two dimensions and with hi-fi you add the third dimension.

Let me explain -

Mid-fi:

in mid-fi you can really get a good enjoyable sound, in fact if you have any sense, you will not want to ever hear a hi-fi system and get bit by that bug! Mid-fi is good - you can tap your foot to it. You can get a chill up and down your spine with the right song. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet, etc. It sounds MUCH better than your boom box, etc. Bass will be pretty good. If you have this system, enjoy! It's a good system.

Hi-fi:

Want to hear the difference between hi-fi and mid-fi fast? Listen to some expert cymbal work, especially jazz, with brushes, etc. You will notice a lot of "space" around that cymbal. It seems to float in the air, and you almost feel like you can see the brush touch the cymbal because the illusion of it being there is so great. In a nut shell you get more of the third dimension, that sound stage is more real. A great recording on this system not only sends the chill up your spine, but it makes you want to quit your job and remain in that chair 24-7 with your breath being taken away. You will only come back to reality when the power company cuts off your power for forgetting to pay the bill. The same thing happens with vocals, instruments, bass, etc. But those cymbals really make it easy to hear the difference, I think. With classical, you will be arguing with your buddies on whether or not you are in the third row or the fourth row of the performance. With hi-fi you get more of the "you are there" feeling. Also you will feel your money walking out of your wallet, but try not think about that while listening. :yes:

Hot tip --- if you have never listened to a hi-fi system, don't ever listen to one. Just enjoy your decent mid-fi system and enjoy going out to a live performance. Remember I tried to warn you... Once you get used to hi-fi, the bar is forever raised and the bug will have bit! It is a world of beauty, but it is highly addictive.

 

[Bluesbassplayer]

I like the comment above that we are all pretty much listening to hi-fi systems here. AKers love their music, systems, etc.

Maybe it would be better to call it degrees of "hi-fi"..... for me the highest end gets you closer to the "you are there" (or "they are here") feeling to the experience.

I think the less you hear the system and the more you enjoy the music tells you if you are going up in the hi-fi curve - for your own preferences.

Know what I mean?

Another "hi-fi" dimension to consider is all the cool lights and dials and glowing tubes you get on a good 'ol vintage set. That's hi-fi for sure to many here - that's kind of like another branch of the hi-fi experience I think.

 

[vinyldavid]

By Bluesbassplayer's definition, mine is ALMOST HiFI, because I can hear the spaciousness, but the bass is still a little thick, to my ears. If I play with the placement, I might get it to be REALLY HiFi.

 

[dmusgrave]

For me with mid-fi - you get clarity in two dimensions and with hi-fi you add the third dimension.

Let me explain -

Mid-fi:

in mid-fi you can really get a good enjoyable sound, in fact if you have any sense, you will not want to ever hear a hi-fi system and get bit by that bug! Mid-fi is good - you can tap your foot to it. You can get a chill up and down your spine with the right song. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet, etc. It sounds MUCH better than your boom box, etc. Bass will be pretty good. If you have this system, enjoy! It's a good system.

Hi-fi:

Want to hear the difference between hi-fi and mid-fi fast? Listen to some expert cymbal work, especially jazz, with brushes, etc. You will notice a lot of "space" around that cymbal. It seems to float in the air, and you almost feel like you can see the brush touch the cymbal because the illusion of it being there is so great. In a nut shell you get more of the third dimension, that sound stage is more real. A great recording on this system not only sends the chill up your spine, but it makes you want to quit your job and remain in that chair 24-7 with your breath being taken away. You will only come back to reality when the power company cuts off your power for forgetting to pay the bill. The same thing happens with vocals, instruments, bass, etc. But those cymbals really make it easy to hear the difference, I think. With classical, you will be arguing with your buddies on whether or not you are in the third row or the fourth row of the performance. With hi-fi you get more of the "you are there" feeling. Also you will feel your money walking out of your wallet, but try not think about that while listening. :yes:

Hot tip --- if you have never listened to a hi-fi system, don't ever listen to one. Just enjoy your decent mid-fi system and enjoy going out to a live performance. Remember I tried to warn you... Once you get used to hi-fi, the bar is forever raised and the bug will have bit! It is a world of beauty, but it is highly addictive.

OK... I'd definitely classify my system as the low end of mid-fi... but... and this only applies to a REALLY good recording...

I totally understand what you are saying. Drums are a big part of what I listen to when I'm trying to hear if a recording sounds "right." On a good jazz recording I can hear what the drummer is doing on the head of the snare with his brush. I can almost hear the if he's dragging the brush straight across the head, or twisting his wrist... cymbals don't just chick, crash, spash and ping, they wash, shimmer, I can hear the overtones and decay of the cymbals. I can tell you where he's playing on the ride cymbal. I've been 3 feet away from cymbals being played on stage, and they sound, well, real on a good recording.

Is this because I played music for so long I know what I'm listening for and hearing? Or do I suspend my dis-belief in some way that I hear what isn't there, simply because I know it should be there? Or is my humble system approaching SOME of the performance of hi-fi sound?

 

[thedelihaus]

I believe one of the stereo "gurus" said the goal of hi-fi was to reproduce musical recordings naturally, as close to the real thing as possible.

This includes any musical "warts" and "blemishes" it may have.

Of course, records heavily played with in the studio or electronic music- well, it's hard then to quantify "natural" anymore.

Nowadays the term seems more to focus on cost expenditure. A no-compromise system would be deemed hi-fi, and more affordable, mid-income, relatively affordable "mid-fi".


Maybe a more correct terminology should be "Mid-priced hi-fi" or "affordable hi-fi"?



Oh- as things age, seems yester-year's hi-fi can become today's "mid-fi" due to advances in gear and the aging of older technology.

Just helps to muck it up more.

 

[Bluesbassplayer]

By Bluesbassplayer's definition, mine is ALMOST HiFI, because I can hear the spaciousness, but the bass is still a little thick, to my ears. If I play with the placement, I might get it to be REALLY HiFi.

Would it be safe to say that if something is "bugging" you about your system, that it is not fully "hi-fi" yet to your ears? I'm a bass player, so the "bass is a little thick" would be eating at me.

From my perspective if you play an instrument, it will sound more "natural" to your ears the higher up you go on the hi-fi end of the curve.

 

[dmusgrave]

Would it be safe to say that if something is "bugging" you about your system, that it is not fully "hi-fi" yet to your ears? I'm a bass player, so the "bass is a little thick" would be eating at me.

From my perspective if you play an instrument, it will sound more "natural" to your ears the higher up you go on the hi-fi end of the curve.

I think we ARE harder to please than non-musicians, but I also think we listen for things that non-musicians dont.

Poorly recorded guitar, electric, acoustic, whatever... if it's poorly recorded it drives me nuts. I loathe overly compressed guitar. I loathe overly compressed ANYTHING actually. My girlfriend, on the other hand, can just listen to the music and enjoy it.

I also tend to have an SPL problem... I want to FEEL the kick drum and bass guitar locking in together, not just hear it... but that's a different thread for a different day :lmao:

 

[Bluesbassplayer]

Some say that a bad recording sounds "unlistenable" on the "hi-fi" system.

On the system I have now, I can listen to an MP3 and enjoy it or a great LP or HDCD and enjoy it. The last two have a lot more detail and soundstage, but I think another test for a true "hi-fi" system is that you can still enjoy everything from old blues (poorly recorded, etc) to the best of the best. You just simply get what is on the media. Of course if it is a truly bad recording, no system is going to make it better.

I think mid-fi is more likely to make a lower fidelity recording "unlistenable" than a hi-fi. Maybe because of over/underemphasizing or coloring of a particular spectrum of the music. I noticed that when I got closer to what I call hi-fi, ALL of my recordings sounded better, not just the best ones.

 

[uofmtiger]

I think the definitions are different depending on who you ask. Would the guy with the $6 million system (that has been in several threads) consider a $10,000 system hi-fi? I doubt it. Would a person that was raised on low bitrate mp3s on ipods consider a $10,000 system hifi? Probably... I think it has a lot to do with personal perspective.

 

[vinyldavid]

Would it be safe to say that if something is "bugging" you about your system, that it is not fully "hi-fi" yet to your ears? I'm a bass player, so the "bass is a little thick" would be eating at me.

From my perspective if you play an instrument, it will sound more "natural" to your ears the higher up you go on the hi-fi end of the curve.

it IS bothering me, BUT, I don't know what is expected of JBL 4311's...

and I have ha horrible room mode that I have worked with, and helped a little, but it is still bugging me. I don't play, but I have heard some GOOD sound live at my school (our theater has INSANELY GOOD acoustics), so I kinda have a reference of what I love. It's getting there, but I know that I am 16 and I cannot expect a perfect system at this age.

I think we ARE harder to please than non-musicians, but I also think we listen for things that non-musicians dont.

Hear hear! my musician friends can deal with so much crap that I cannot stand for one second! I listen for so many other things.

Poorly recorded guitar, electric, acoustic, whatever... if it's poorly recorded it drives me nuts. I loathe overly compressed guitar. I loathe overly compressed ANYTHING actually. My girlfriend, on the other hand, can just listen to the music and enjoy it.

Only thing I can stand like that is King Crimson's In the Court Of the Crimson King. BUT most people just don't care.

I also tend to have an SPL problem... I want to FEEL the kick drum and bass guitar locking in together, not just hear it... but that's a different thread for a different day :lmao:

I also want it to be REALISTIC. Not insane, just realistic! Like now, It's not insane..yet....just realistsic.

but a couple words on what's realistic.

John Atkinson went to Royal Albert Hall with a SPL meter, and measured Timpanis at 104 or 106db LIVE. Mine does NOT hit those kinda SPL's, but I have never measured.

 

[whoaru99]

I think mid-fi is more likely to make a lower fidelity recording "unlistenable" than a hi-fi. Maybe because of over/underemphasizing or coloring of a particular spectrum of the music. I noticed that when I got closer to what I call hi-fi, ALL of my recordings sounded better, not just the best ones.

I dunno? A lower fidelity system seems more likely to mask poor recordings.

Afterall, even the compressed crap they sell these days sounds OK on some systems, but put it on a nice system and you can tell right away it's seriously squashed.

As far as Mp3 goes, some are just plain unlistenable. I used to be more oblivious to the artifacts, but since I became more aware of them, it bugs the heck out of me to hear them. I can tolerate 160 VBR with a good encoder like LAME, 192 VBR or better is OK. But, those 128s just drive me nuts for any remotely interested listening.

 

[goraman]

at least $250.000 is the differance.

 

[thedelihaus]

Some say that a bad recording sounds "unlistenable" on the "hi-fi" system...

I've found that to be the case with me.

...I think another test for a true "hi-fi" system is that you can still enjoy everything from old blues (poorly recorded, etc) to the best of the best...You just simply get what is on the media...

Indeedy. But if a recording has flaws, it may become tough to overlook 'em. for example, KISS Destroyer is a fun album but can sound horrible on a revealing system, through Maggies, ect...

Same with some of the later RHCP releases, with bass boost on 'em to sound good in a thumpity car system.

Those old blues recordings, though lo-fi, have lots of character and personality to them, and even if not hi-fidelity, are charming in their own way. At least I feel. And to me, are fine on a revealing system, as it's not offending me- it's an act of omission.

...I think mid-fi is more likely to make a lower fidelity recording "unlistenable" than a hi-fi. Maybe because of over/underemphasizing or coloring of a particular spectrum of the music...

I found the opposite. I found a more forgiving system, one less revealing and not as detailed, a bit more relaxed and not as scrutinizing, allowed the music, if a bad recording, to edge by a bit better, and remain tolerable.

... I noticed that when I got closer to what I call hi-fi, ALL of my recordings sounded better, not just the best ones.

Again, I found the opposite. The more accurate, the more unforgiving of the system, well, if it's a bad recording, the more apparent and revealing the flaws.

However, the good recordings, recordings done well, were pushed up a notch or two in enjoyment- benefitting from more clarity, detail and overall satisfaction from a system that was able to wring out a bit more from the music.

Just a difference of opinion we have- not trying to be arguementative. You did say that's what you felt, when you got closer to what you call hi-fi, so that's cool in my book. Your opinion matters as much as mine. :thmbsp:

 

[Bigerik]

I dunno? A lower fidelity system seems more likely to mask poor recordings.

Afterall, even the compressed crap they sell these days sounds OK on some systems, but put it on a nice system and you can tell right away it's seriously squashed.

As far as Mp3 goes, some are just plain unlistenable. I used to be more oblivious to the artifacts, but since I became more aware of them, it bugs the heck out of me to hear them. I can tolerate 160 VBR with a good encoder like LAME, 192 VBR or better is OK. But, those 128s just drive me nuts for any remotely interested listening.

You know, I found that to be true, up to a point. When I did my most recent upgrades, especially to my TT, I found that a lot of old vinyl I had sound an incredible amount better. Not the really crap ones, but the average. They all started sounding like 180 gm audiophile vinyl sounded on my old setup. Now the audiophile stuff sounds shockingly good. Surface noise dropped like crazy too. ALl around a good move.

 

[Juniperlater]

I know that for me, mid-fi has only been explained by salespeople. They have told me that Marantz is the upper end of mid-fi, and Music Hall is the lower level of hi-fi (audiophile).

Speakers it would be Polk vs. Vandersteen
Turntables it might be Denon vs. Rega

But what do I know? Word definitions are always hard to nail down. This discussion could be postmodernism at its best. Derrida would be proud!