• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

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

It's really simple. Two steps.

Step one: Mid-fi

Mid-fi - When you stop hearing the resonation of your equipment and the music is floating in the air. When cymbal hits or S/P/F vocal sounds don't resonate your speaker and bring you back to reality. That's what I call the 3D stage, your record is floating in the air. Since I only build hi-fi setups for vinyl, I'll stick to that here. You have your stylus and cartridge perfectly configured, sibilance is null and the sound flows into your system in a liquid state. Mid-fi is absolutely hi-fi in the original sense. You've reached "mid-fi" when you stop hearing your equipment and start hearing the recording floating before you in incredible detail. That moment when you realize that all of the records in your collection have a whole lot more detail and nuances than you ever knew.

Step two: Hi-fi

Hi-fi - Not really such a massive step, this is the realm of perfectionists. And many would correctly argue is a matter of signal processing. A 10,000 dollar amplifier is also a signal processor, it does something very unique. It creates a "space" for your music. Now even when you listen to a crappy recording, this hi-fi amplifier will powerfully and masterfully create an auditory soundstage for it. It will sound really good. All of the details of the recording will be there in proper balance and it will sound unbelievably clear, even if the recording isn't. For me, these systems are essentially signal processors, the best of the best, and they create a soundstage even if the record you are listening to doesn't really have one.

Issues and conclusion: A very good "mid-fi" system is what it should be, a signal amplifier. If the record you are listening to was produced amazingly, and the pressing is impeccable, you will be in absolute nirvana. A mid-fi system produces an honest sound and a realistic one, probably very close or exactly like the band heard in the studio. A hi-fi system has its own soundstage, can create its own headroom, it's like an electronic cathedral in a box. No matter what recording you are playing, it will be both accurate and at the same time recreated in the fancy tube stages and such.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that Mid Fi and HI Fi can both be accomplished with the same price point? Hi Fi is Mid Fi + tweaking, listening, and perfecting until the sound that comes out is "right".
 
IMO, mid-fi is a system that has true synergy, where all the components work well together, and can overcome any room interactions and equipment shortcomings after you reach a certain volume level. The DYNAMIC POTENTIAL of the system CAN be reached.

Hi-Fi would be a system that doesn't REQUIRE these high volume levels to achieve its dynamic potential, the combination of equipment synergy and room acoustics overcome any noticeable shortcomings at much lower(read NORMAL) listening volume.

I consider my system to be mid-fi, as my listening space is rather open, and no amount of room-treatment can make up for that. Speaker positioning and volume CAN do remarkable things in my space, and I can tell that my vinyl sounds better than my cds, IF it's loud enough. Would better speakers make a difference? Maybe, even probably. Would putting my system in another room that is not as open make a difference? Maybe, even probably. Do I feel I NEED to do one or the other to enjoy my time listening? Nope. I just turn it up...
 
hi fi was invented as a concept at a time when normal-fi was pretty lo fi

mid fi doesn't mean anything really except hi fi culled from low-cost commercial products.
 
without having read all the posts... when you hear a DRAMATIC leap in the fidelity of reproduction, whether in your own system or another's, THAT is hifi or high end sound.

when i went from my old adcom gfp565 to my audio research sp3a1, my jaw dropped down about two floors. THIS is why you buy ARC or VTL, or D'Agostiono.
 
Mid Fi

You keep changing your setup....



HiFi

You get stopped in your tracks putting some music on when you had all good intent to change something.

However the above is subjective as some people have never heard HiFi so a mid Fi system can be HiFi as to their reference point. If that's their interpitation and limiting factors of HiFi that's cool. Point being enjoy what you have.
 
Last edited:
As a teen in the mid 70's, I had a 14 wpc Akai receiver, Montgomery Ward two way speakers and a BSR turntable.
Mid-Fi.
 
I had a similar set-up. Decidedly Lo-Fi, but it seemed like Hi-Fi to me. Everything's relative. I agree with the poster who said something on the order of: "When the term Hi-Fi was invented, Lo-Fi was REALLY Lo-Fi and Hi-Fi was a vast improvement." More recently, the lines of demarcation have become a little blurrier.
 
Considering the number of listeners of old rock that has long lost its appeal I figured mid fi is one hit on the bong, hi fi is more than two hits.:D
 
If you add up the prices of the gear in my main system (not including the TV), it comes out to around $1800 U.S.D. It sounds very revealing and 3 dimensional to my ears. The sound stage and image are great. It sounds like the Dave Brubeck Quartet is playing in my living room right now. A lot of time was spent on speaker and subwoofer placement with a cheap area rug making a contribution. There are NO equalizers, dynamic range expanders, etc and the receiver is in pure direct most of the time.


Not very many AKers seem very impressed with my system, but they have never heard music played on it. People, including fellow audiophiles who have are very impressed and many of the audiophiles have much more expensive systems.

So, to me, it's more about the right combination of components, speaker placement, room acoustics, treatments if necessary, and your ears than it is about how much you spend on gear.

My one cent.
 
SuperjazzyJa said:
So, to me, it's more about the right combination of components, speaker placement, room acoustics, treatments if necessary, and your ears than it is about how much you spend on gear.

My one cent.
Click to expand...

I would agree ... kind of sort of.

From my perspective, my way of looking at audio reproduction is the same as yours. Maybe I would refer to ears as ear/brain (critical listening skills) ... that stays w/ you even when you age. Also add the criticality of good original source material.

BUT ... trying to divide audio rigs based on how good it sounds to the individual is like trying to herd cats.

blog_herding_cats.jpg


Money wise is much easier. Based on what I paid ... I've always considered all my audio rigs ... Mid Fi (based on old school Audiophile definition) ... but on "the street" John Q public... it's high fidelity.

Always been proud that I could get the sound I do out of my Mid Fi rig. :music:
 
I started seeing that phrase when I use to audition different headphones from vintage flagships to modern day flagships in all sorts from dynamic, planer, and electrostatic... I found it odd and annoying when I use to hear term mid-fi and low-fi...I mean I understand it in a way if describing quality of something cause I heard thousand dollar headphones sound very low-fi or mid-fi..same with dacs/amps and speakers.. There is many terms to it lot people throw around in my opinion cause lot people associate quality with price while others in different ways. You can even say something looks very mid-fi or hi-fi based on appearance and so forth...I think it's just overall matter of preference and perceptions.
 
Condorsat said:
I would agree ... kind of sort of.

From my perspective, my way of looking at audio reproduction is the same as yours. Maybe I would refer to ears as ear/brain (critical listening skills) ... that stays w/ you even when you age. Also add the criticality of good original source material.

BUT ... trying to divide audio rigs based on how good it sounds to the individual is like trying to herd cats.

blog_herding_cats.jpg


Money wise is much easier. Based on what I paid ... I've always considered all my audio rigs ... Mid Fi (based on old school Audiophile definition) ... but on "the street" John Q public... it's high fidelity.

Always been proud that I could get the sound I do out of my Mid Fi rig. :music:
Click to expand...

Good points. I don't, at least not intentionally "divide" systems. The way I look at it, a system needs to sound good, or better put, present good sounding music to the listener. If that somehow qualifies as dividing, okay. I won't argue that point. It can only do this with recordings that sound good. A crappy recording will sound crappy and the more revealing the system, the more the short comings of the recording will be revealed. To me, it's all about how pleased an individual is with the system that matters. It doesn't have to impress anyone else. If it does, that's fine, but not required. I sure as heck hope this makes sense. :scratch2:
 
SuperjazzyJa said:
Good points. I don't, at least not intentionally "divide" systems.

To me, it's all about how pleased an individual is with the system that matters. It doesn't have to impress anyone else. If it does, that's fine, but not required. I sure as heck hope this makes sense. :scratch2:
Click to expand...

Makes sense ... it's my choice of verbiage ... by dividing up systems ... I'm trying to convey the idea ...

like American Philosopher Simon says "one mans's ceiling is another mans floor".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdegC2p8ek

Everybody has a different idea of what good sound is. Money is just a way to keep score ... like a mile marker. But I agree ... ultimately, you just have to impress yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom