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

[dmusgrave]

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.



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.



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 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.

Dynamics man, Gordonw explained it this way to me... dynamics ARE a part of realism, just like soundstage, etc. etc.

106dB is pretty darn loud. I'd say an average ROCK show pushes about 110 to 115dB. Somebody on another forum measured ZZ Top at 115dB. I think the Who did over 125dB back in the 70's. That wasn't at one meter, that was in the CROWD I believe.

I'm not telling you to listen at those levels (my HPM's would probably go nuclear if I had enough wattage to drive them that loud, just guessing I probably peak at about 100dB, I don't have many watts and they aren't super efficient?) but in my opinion you've got to get some volume going to enjoy realistic dynamics :thmbsp:

The crescendo of an orchestra doesn't move me unless there is some volume behind it. That is the way it would sound if I were in the audience, and that sort of performance pulls me into the music, I'm not just a passive listener. At that point I'm emotionally involved with the music and the performance. The crack of a snare, the punch of a kick drum, the thump of a bass... it's just what I dig. I guess we need to start a hearing aid fund now :scratch2:

 

[vinyldavid]

The crescendo of an orchestra doesn't move me unless there is some volume behind it. That is the way it would sound if I were in the audience, and that sort of performance pulls me into the music, I'm not just a passive listener. At that point I'm emotionally involved with the music and the performance. The crack of a snare, the punch of a kick drum, the thump of a bass... it's just what I dig. I guess we need to start a hearing aid fund now :scratch2:

With a lot of rock recordings, there is NOT any snap, crackle, or thump, and ya just have to live with that, not wind it up so much that it DOES go boom.

I have different levels for when I actively listen, and when I passively listen. my active listening level is pretty darn loud, and my passive one is a LOT softer...
I don't actively listen a lot either. Just no time. :tears:

 

[dmusgrave]

With a lot of rock recordings, there is NOT any snap, crackle, or thump, and ya just have to live with that, not wind it up so much that it DOES go boom.

I have different levels for when I actively listen, and when I passively listen. my active listening level is pretty darn loud, and my passive one is a LOT softer...
I don't actively listen a lot either. Just no time. :tears:

I agree, a lot of rock is recorded in a less than ideal fashion. That said, with the "good stuff" the dynamics just blow me away :thmbsp: Steely Dan, Dave Matthews Band, Bowie... those are some of the recordings I can cut loose with :yes:

I'm a lot like you... I don't get to "actively" listen nearly as much as I'd like... when I AM at home day to day stuff, my girlfriend, etc. prevent me from settling in with my speakers. My "normal" listening volume is fairly low, low enough that my girlfriend and I can converse, etc.

 

[vinyldavid]

I agree, a lot of rock is recorded in a less than ideal fashion. That said, with the "good stuff" the dynamics just blow me away :thmbsp: Steely Dan, Dave Matthews Band, Bowie... those are some of the recordings I can cut loose with :yes:

I'm a lot like you... I don't get to "actively" listen nearly as much as I'd like... when I AM at home day to day stuff, my girlfriend, etc. prevent me from settling in with my speakers. My "normal" listening volume is fairly low, low enough that my girlfriend and I can converse, etc.

I had today off from school, and am having TOMORROW off from school, so I will try to listen a LOT more, actively, than normal. I was planning on school these days, and I have not had it, nor have I had any Home Work, so I have been listening a LOT to some GREAT music, both from the radio, and from New and old vinyl. Right now, the dynamics of Vangelis' Mask LP taped on my R2R ar 7.5ips is blowing me away!

 

[thisOne]

Isn't price the difference? The more money you spend the higher you think the fi is. Imagine you spend $500.00 on a system and it sounds terrific then it hi fi.

But then you join an audio discussion board and read about all of the wonderful hi fi systems you haven't got, and you spend $5,000 on one, and it sounds just sooooo much better (?). Or you think it does, because for that kind of money it has to, doesn't it????

Chances are you will convince yourself that your $5,000 system IS better (or you'll have to admit you're a fool for spending all that money).

Take me for example. I have a $1,000 vintage system which sounds SUPERB. But then I went and spent 5K to have the more superior system.

Now I'm A/B 'ing both to see which sounds better. I don't know yet (I'm trying real hard to be objective), but I suspct I will end up a lucky owner of TWO hi fi systems, one I paid reasonable amount of money for (and which sounds REALLY great), one I paid five times as much (an I know I will eventually learn to hear how great it sounds).

The Sound is in your head. If you want to hear the difference, you will (whether there is one or not - and so I'm on my way there...).

I think after I finish A/B 'ing the two systems I will have to ask the Admin to let me change my screen name to thisTwo...

So I guess Hi Fi is what sound Hi Fi to each of us.

 

[dmusgrave]

I had today off from school, and am having TOMORROW off from school, so I will try to listen a LOT more, actively, than normal. I was planning on school these days, and I have not had it, nor have I had any Home Work, so I have been listening a LOT to some GREAT music, both from the radio, and from New and old vinyl. Right now, the dynamics of Vangelis' Mask LP taped on my R2R ar 7.5ips is blowing me away!

I've been home with a virus since Tuesday so I've been lucky enough to sneak a little "active" listening in here and there the past couple of days.

I'm headed back to work tomorrow despite Doc's orders, can't afford to miss any more work.

You just keep talking about reel to reel... and I haven't even found my turntable yet. I guess I'll wind up with a R2R player eventually as well :thmbsp:

 

[davidb1]

mid vs hi fi

Emotional involvment is the key.
I once went to a guy's condo in Buckhead to see if I could hear differences between cables, which I could, but not to the extent in short listening to give a preference. I can tell you this- I HATED his high dollar system- shrieking little mini monitors, expensive tube amp, etc. My cd of Nine Objects of Desire sounded so "crappy" to him that he took it off right away. I'll grant you that the first few songs have a weird bass distortion that for some unknown reason Suzanne and her producer liked and left in.
I got much more enjoyment out of my little JVC boom box w/ the internal "subwoofer" (which does have it's own little amp chip) set up with the speakers separated on little plastic stands. I was using a JVC single disc cd player to feed the little boom box, which sat on a small metal frame from a kid's chair. It got just loud enough in my tiny little one room apartment I had at the time to get you involved. I still have that little boom box hooked up to my tv.

His system was certainly high dollar, and most would call it hi fi, but even he admitted that lots of his favorite music was unlistenable. More of an audio lab than a music playback system.

IMNSHO, dynamics are the key- the little start I get when Cat Stevens gets just a little bit louder at the end of "Moonshadow" for instance.

Dave
ADS 710, Nad C 370, Marantz CD 63SE, JOB DA 48, JBL 12" powered sub

 

[sauuuuuce]

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.

Your description of Hi-Fi reminds me of when I used to smoke pot and listen to ANYTHING! LOL!

 

[Ski]

For me it's not about the cost, but about the sound. In reality though, the sound doesn't come without the investment. I love my system and think it sounds good, but I've heard some hi-fi systems that I appreciate.

 

[bowtie427ss]

Great thread/topic Simi, with lots of great POV, here's mine on the broad and loose term "hifi":

"Fi" or fidelity is the scale on which we judge the faithfulness or realism of what we hear from a sound recording. It's a product of not only the quality, but as well the SYNERGY between the system components AND the source media.

As has been pointed out by previous posters, a highly accurate and revealing system(by it's measured performance) can and does render many recordings unlistenable, while at the same time it takes a few recordings up to levels we've not before experienced. For some of us that is "hifi".

By the same token, there are many many systems which are made up of mediocre(by measured specs and consensus) components that can render true hifi synergy and presentation with that same recording.

How many of you have multiple systems in your domain? .................... and how many have certain music that only gets played on certain systems?

I think a lotta folks automaticaly associate "hifi" with high price. That's definitely NOT the case IMO. There's a difference between "high end" and "hifi". Snobbery and social status don't play a role in hifi, it's all about what the listener hears, and the ultimate judge of if it's hifi or not............................ is YOU the listener.

Just my .02 y'all understand......................

 

[philcib]

I don't know what is expected of JBL 4311's...

JBL 4311s have the classic "smiley face" frequency response. Boosted
highs, boosted lows, and recessed midrange. This is also referred to as
the "california" sound. This got better about 10 years ago with the
LSR series. Now they are pretty flat.

 

[similost]

I've got to look at these for just a few minutes. Some sounds like what I was thinking, and a lot of really cool ideas about it...

I'd like to comment on some things, but pretty busy today at work and don't have the time. Hopefully tonight or over the weekend I will get some time for this...

 

[thedelihaus]

J. Gordon holt termed Fidelity of High order this way- "...a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space."

He readily admits it was found difficult to achieve.

His lament- "...Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said, fidelity is irrelevant to music..."

Interesting stance- I read this as Holt would prefer honesty of the recording, even if it's a bad/unpleasant recording- the possibility that in the pursuit of hi-fidelity, occasionally one must suffer the honesty of a bad recording. Hi fidelity will reproduce a well-done performance that's well-recorded in all it's magical glory. And if the performance is poor, and the recording is done in a terrible fashion, than all the scars, blisters and warts will be unpleasantly exposed and "heard".

In the traditional sense, the pursuit of "Absolute sound", of "Hi-Fidelity", was to expose the recording for what it was. No emperor's clothes.



Modern Hi-Fi may be taking a turn in it's ultimate direction, it's acheiving goals. As stated above, many feel nowadays, high fidelity is irrelevant to music.

So, if fidelity disregards the honesty of the music, and substitutes it with a manipulation in order to sound more pleasant, it's no longer the original goal of the hobby, but maybe "the new way".

Maybe High Fidelity of the modern times is a goal at fidelity of sound at all costs, even if it shuns honesty of the recording, of the performance, of the musical sounds itself.


This is a tough one. If some modern recordings suffer poor production, we have a choice- either sit through the recordings and find them unlistenable, unenjoyable, but maybe more "honest", or we can take the approach and learn how to harness the unpleasantries, and pasteurize, purify, distill and/or filter them out.



J. Gordon Holt has become an angry man, and it's tough to embrace him in a loving hug as he turns around and metricates on the hobby, but see through this anger and disappointment he harbors, and there are in his words, words of intelligence and wisdom rife in his dialogue.

I'll stand by the old terminology.

I'd rather find a great recording that's magic is brought out by an honest and revealing system. and if not so good, I want to see it for what it is.

If I find I'd prefer to listen to the recording and want to filter out the nuances that are causing the unpleasantries, indeed I'd like the option of a system that deviates from this original goal of high fidelity, but what to call it?


Maybe high-quality. But high fidelity, not if it's glossing over the tunes. I'm still allowed to enjoy it, though.

What's this mean in the original terminology of hi-fi? Well, honest sound reproduction, or the attempt of it, can sometimes be unpleasant.

 

[Glen B]

In the high-end camp, I understand mid-fi to mean equipment made by your average mass-market electronics manufacturer and its perceived performance level (not including their upper end lines like Marantz Reference Series, The Denon "S" series, Sony ES, etc. which are built to a higher qualitative and sonic standard). In the same high-end camp, I understand "hi-fi" to mean high-end equipment and its perceived higher sonic performance. In the days before there was a high-end (1950s and 1960s ?) IMO "hi-fi" referred to any electronic audio equipment for (what was considered high fidelity at that time) playback of records and tapes. Hi-fi is a term I don't use but I must confess that I use the terms mid-fi and high-end if for no other reason but for the sake of conformity. I own, love and use equipment from both, so there is no discrimination on my part.

 

[bordeno]

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

Perception is reality. It's whatever fi you think it is.

 

[bordeno]

Your description of Hi-Fi reminds me of when I used to smoke pot and listen to ANYTHING! LOL!

And as far as dimensions to the music, various compounds altered/enhanced those as well.

Ah the good ol' days...glad they're over, don't regret 'em....

 

[bordeno]

JBL 4311s have the classic "smiley face" frequency response. Boosted
highs, boosted lows, and recessed midrange. This is also referred to as
the "california" sound. This got better about 10 years ago with the
LSR series. Now they are pretty flat.

Whether true or not, and I suspect it is, this is analogous to comparing the "Pioneer" receiver sound to the "Yamaha" receiver sound.

And I like both.

 

[nosirrah]

Hi Fi

Great thread/topic Simi, with lots of great POV, here's mine on the broad and loose term "hifi":

"Fi" or fidelity is the scale on which we judge the faithfulness or realism of what we hear from a sound recording. It's a product of not only the quality, but as well the SYNERGY between the system components AND the source media.

As has been pointed out by previous posters, a highly accurate and revealing system(by it's measured performance) can and does render many recordings unlistenable, while at the same time it takes a few recordings up to levels we've not before experienced. For some of us that is "hifi".

By the same token, there are many many systems which are made up of mediocre(by measured specs and consensus) components that can render true hifi synergy and presentation with that same recording.

How many of you have multiple systems in your domain? .................... and how many have certain music that only gets played on certain systems?

I think a lotta folks automaticaly associate "hifi" with high price. That's definitely NOT the case IMO. There's a difference between "high end" and "hifi". Snobbery and social status don't play a role in hifi, it's all about what the listener hears, and the ultimate judge of if it's hifi or not............................ is YOU the listener.

Just my .02 y'all understand......................

Well put Bowtie, and it isn't about the price of the gear, in my Sansui collection an 881 receiver I got in trade, value under $50 sounds better than an AU 717/TU717 combo valued at over $500.
And it's also true that certain genres sound better on differant sets, hard to beat Stevie Ray Vaughn "Riviera Paradise" heard on the AU 999 and SP 300's in my living room, way better than the BA3000/CA3000 right next to it.
Another definition is the gear itself, look about your gear, how much of it has 3 tone controls? Is 3 a definition of HiFi? Sometimes.....
Casey

 

[wineslob]

Excellent subject, and great responses!
My 2c.

Mid-Fi, most of the "stuff" you see as all-in-one "systems at BB CC etc. The same can be said for many "vintage" electronics/speakers (no difference between now and then). Usually low on detail, one-note bass, makes all recordings sound the same. Can still be enjoyable to listen to.
Hi-Fi, now you are starting to get into good, well defined soundstages, better detail, more top to bottom extension (frequency). Gives an inkling-to a very good "picture" into the recording, IE: window into the music. Can be small to large. Think, "looking into the recording" from the outside. No too many "mistakes" across the spectrum, forward midrange, ill defined bass, etc, for example.
Audiophile: No speakers (you don't hear them). Either a HUGE "bubble" of a soundstage, or you are IN it. Players are in the room with you. Strong 3-D sonic fleshing out of the players. Like others said, on classical recordings you are there in the 3-4th row. Incredible experience when you hear it.

 

[titanstats]

Just dusting off my old London Calling and spinning up Spanish Bombs as I type. Sounds pretty damned hi-fi to me, but others just might disagree. That's the point, and that's why it's just not an answerable question, or a definable list of gear: one man's killer hi-fi is another's POC.

My old neighbor loves his music, and swears by his Linn and Naim babies, but they're not my cup of tea. My vintage Macs weren't his cup either. Vive la difference.!