Mid Fi to Hi Fi threshold

[lini]

Michael: Basically you can only define that for yourself. Personally I've never quite liked the term, 'cause to me it always seemed a somewhat derogatory arrogant high enders' term to denouce less expensive hifi gear as not really worthy of being called hifi - which simply doesn't fit to my personal quality scale from my own listening experience. But of course like with pretty much anything, the more one's into it, the more one personal/subjective demand/requirements may increase, which may 'cause an understandable shift of perceiption, so that what might seem the last 5 % in quality to Joe Average may easily turn into 50 % of a difference for the enthusiast.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[M1chael]

The dividing line is something that moves depending on who you are discussing it with. Some see high end and the true top units out there. Others might think there is a price point where the change happens.

I quite like this response. From it one could argue that the answer to the question: what is HIFI? is purely subjective --it's in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If I like it and think it sounds good it's HIFI to me.

I guess the only problem with this approach is that it takes any objective standards out of the equation totally. Is it the case that there is some objective set of musical standards that we should all be striving for? Music itself has an objective set of rules, e.g., notes, timing, keys, octaves, etc.

 

[restorer-john]

High Fidelity existed pretty much as soon as we had full range, linear amplification at at low inherent distortion and speakers that could reproduce the audible range without significant response anomalies. As such, it existed in the late 1950s.

There is nothing 'subjective' about high fidelity reproduction. Nothing whatsoever. It is about waveform accuracy and that is easily quantified. How it makes you 'feel' however IS subjective- and that's where the facts stop and BS starts..

High fidelity equipment had exponential improvements in the 50/60/70/80s, although the rate and significance of improvements in real terms has diminished to a trickle in recent decades.

There is no such thing as MidFi. It was and continues to be a pathetic attempt by purveyors of overpriced small volume gear to separate consumer audio electronics into tiers they arbitrarily decided to put themselves at the top of. As High Fidelity gear had gotten so good, at such bargain prices, they decided on another stupid term "High End" gear- gear that mostly is about the price and less about its intrinsic technical abilities.

If I had to draw lines between Mid and Hi Fidelity gear, it'd be based on technical minimum standards and the "high end" fraternity would then be calling foul.

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

 

[M1chael]

High Fidelity existed pretty much as soon as we had full range, linear amplification at at low inherent distortion and speakers that could reproduce the audible range without significant response anomalies. As such, it existed in the late 1950s.

There is nothing 'subjective' about high fidelity reproduction. Nothing whatsoever. It is about waveform accuracy and that is easily quantified. How it makes you 'feel' however IS subjective- and that's where the facts stop and BS starts..

High fidelity equipment had exponential improvements in the 50/60/70/80s, although the rate and significance of improvements in real terms has diminished to a trickle in recent decades.

There is no such thing as MidFi. It was and continues to be a pathetic attempt by purveyors of overpriced small volume gear to separate consumer audio electronics into tiers they arbitrarily decided to put themselves at the top of. As High Fidelity gear had gotten so good, at such bargain prices, they decided on another stupid term "High End" gear- gear that mostly is about the price and less about its intrinsic technical abilities.

If I had to draw lines between Mid and Hi Fidelity gear, it'd be based on technical minimum standards and the "high end" fraternity would then be calling foul.

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

This is an intelligent response. It makes we want to ask you for a brand recommendation? I have a budget of 5k. What brand(s) would you direct me towards?

 

[musichal]

Look at my signature. Is that a hi-fi system? Damn right. Is it high end? Not really, though a handful of folks might think so. Semantics.

 

[Djcoolray]

High Fidelity existed pretty much as soon as we had full range, linear amplification at at low inherent distortion and speakers that could reproduce the audible range without significant response anomalies. As such, it existed in the late 1950s.

There is nothing 'subjective' about high fidelity reproduction. Nothing whatsoever. It is about waveform accuracy and that is easily quantified. How it makes you 'feel' however IS subjective- and that's where the facts stop and BS starts..

High fidelity equipment had exponential improvements in the 50/60/70/80s, although the rate and significance of improvements in real terms has diminished to a trickle in recent decades.

There is no such thing as MidFi. It was and continues to be a pathetic attempt by purveyors of overpriced small volume gear to separate consumer audio electronics into tiers they arbitrarily decided to put themselves at the top of. As High Fidelity gear had gotten so good, at such bargain prices, they decided on another stupid term "High End" gear- gear that mostly is about the price and less about its intrinsic technical abilities.

If I had to draw lines between Mid and Hi Fidelity gear, it'd be based on technical minimum standards and the "high end" fraternity would then be calling foul.

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

I get what your saying...

But why do you place the standards of HIFI at such a low bar ?

 

[Mobin]

My 2 cents.

Good, cheap amps are not to hard to find. Speakers and source are a little more important, there are good speakers that are not too expensive. Then again the speakers in my set-up are the most expensive part of my system.

The new Elac speakers look nice.

 

[darkblue94]

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

This line in the sand would exclude the First Watt J2 amplifier from Nelson Pass simply because it's rated at 25 watts per channel pure Class A operation and being a separate amplifier only having the customary one input ( usually occupied by a pre-amp. ) No way in hell does that relegate it to a mid-fi or 'sound system' designation ( not sure that has any real world meaning. ) Basically what I'm suggesting is that your definition doesn't hold water.

 

[darkblue94]

My new perspective is, if it sounds good, it's Mid-Fi, and if it sounds really good, it's Hi-Fi.

This is about as close to a practical answer that anyone has ever come up with.

 

[BMWCCA]

High Fidelity existed pretty much as soon as we had full range, linear amplification at at low inherent distortion and speakers that could reproduce the audible range without significant response anomalies. As such, it existed in the late 1950s.

There is nothing 'subjective' about high fidelity reproduction. Nothing whatsoever. It is about waveform accuracy and that is easily quantified. How it makes you 'feel' however IS subjective- and that's where the facts stop and BS starts..

High fidelity equipment had exponential improvements in the 50/60/70/80s, although the rate and significance of improvements in real terms has diminished to a trickle in recent decades.

There is no such thing as MidFi. It was and continues to be a pathetic attempt by purveyors of overpriced small volume gear to separate consumer audio electronics into tiers they arbitrarily decided to put themselves at the top of. As High Fidelity gear had gotten so good, at such bargain prices, they decided on another stupid term "High End" gear- gear that mostly is about the price and less about its intrinsic technical abilities.

If I had to draw lines between Mid and Hi Fidelity gear, it'd be based on technical minimum standards and the "high end" fraternity would then be calling foul.

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

I was wondering when someone would "get it". I still think of myself as young at just over 60-years old. I remember when everything was called a hi-fi and that was before we had stereo. My favorite shops used the term in their names—Hi-Fi Showroom was my JBL, Mac, and Crown dealer in St. Louis. It wasn't thought of as being a snobby "audiophile" term. Instead it described how close the sound came to the original source or performance. And, it's what we strive for today.

I use the term quite often to describe a real sound-reproduction system as opposed to a Bose radio my neighbors think is a sound system. I don't confuse High-End with High-Fidelity, though one wouldn't be incorrect in assuming the more you spent the better fidelity you should be getting. High-End relates more to cost while High-Fidelity describes the sound. If you can get High-Fidelity with Low-End components, good for you. I achieve it with vintage gear that maybe once was High-End, but it's certainly still High-Fidelity.

 

[Djcoolray]

High Fidelity existed pretty much as soon as we had full range, linear amplification at at low inherent distortion and speakers that could reproduce the audible range without significant response anomalies. As such, it existed in the late 1950s.

There is nothing 'subjective' about high fidelity reproduction. Nothing whatsoever. It is about waveform accuracy and that is easily quantified. How it makes you 'feel' however IS subjective- and that's where the facts stop and BS starts..

High fidelity equipment had exponential improvements in the 50/60/70/80s, although the rate and significance of improvements in real terms has diminished to a trickle in recent decades.

There is no such thing as MidFi. It was and continues to be a pathetic attempt by purveyors of overpriced small volume gear to separate consumer audio electronics into tiers they arbitrarily decided to put themselves at the top of. As High Fidelity gear had gotten so good, at such bargain prices, they decided on another stupid term "High End" gear- gear that mostly is about the price and less about its intrinsic technical abilities.

If I had to draw lines between Mid and Hi Fidelity gear, it'd be based on technical minimum standards and the "high end" fraternity would then be calling foul.

Let's say 0.1% THD at rated power and a ruler flat response (+/- 0.25dB, 20-20k), 30 watts RMS (min) per channel at 8ohms, at least 4 inputs, etc for a HiFi and above amplifier. Anything below is midfi down to a point where it drops into the 'sound system' category.

Shouldn't the definition of HIFI be based on a broad spectrum of reproduced frequencies at the lowest possible distortion ? Equipment is only a tool used to recreate sound...

 

[darkblue94]

Sometimes gear that measures real well doesn't really sound all that great and vice versa. In the end it's the sound that really matters.

 

[4-2-7]

I like High-End High-Fidelity

It sounds way better than Low-End High-Fidelity

 

[twiiii]

Anyone who wants their ears plugged, have their hands tied behind their backs, and depend on some studio fanatic to determine the sound they like to listen to have pre-amps with out tone controls, and other functions that allow flexibility. Some folks will spends multi thousands of dollars to get the acoustics of the listening space right, but aren't willing to buy pre-amps that allow them to get the balance correct in that beautiful listing space. Now I suppose some might have not had the opportunity to train their ears by being a musician them selves performing in and experiencing live un amplified performances. All recordings need help, but if you can't perceive the need then I guess tone controls are un-necessary. I admit some pre-amps without tone controls are fantastic a C1000T and C-500T come to mind, I haven't heard the C-1100T yet, but imagine those same units with graphic tone controls maintaining the same parameters. If you have line array speakers you easily can recognize recordings where mics were used with an elevated shelf high end, or where a mic with bright hi end,like some Neumanns or Telefunkens , were used for solo voice mics up close which was never the intention of the original design. So unless you have tone controls to take 6 db away centered around 10 Khz, you are not hearing the natural sound of the performers voice. Without tone controls, how do you correct those errors. Some mics have serious proximety issues with the bass. How do you correct that? Don't tell me the engineer and the producer wanting it to sound that way makes it right. Have you heard some of the CD reissues of beautiful LP analog recordings that aren't even close to the original sound. How do you fix that? What if your analog turntable pick-up has a tendency to be to bright. You have parameter adjustments for MM and MC cartridges to correct that in some form, but why not have tone controls to correct the bass? How many equalization curves were required for early lp's, 5 or 10, look at Mac C-20 Pre-amp or older C-8. How do you correct for those today. Now I know in the world digital there is no way to get things wrong, is there? With all the teeth gnashing over different digital processors, some to bright, some to thin, some with suppressed midrange, etc etc, maybe a db change here or there might be the answer. I compare recordings off the internet all the time against Cd's and SACDS and maybe 1 out of 20 does the internet get it right. Tone controls help, they may not make the perfect match, but close is better than not. Your hearing sensitivity changes with time exposure and levels you listen over the audio spectrum, so unless you listen all the time at 95 db and above levels: How do you correct for your hearing change with change in sound levels. You don't with out tone controls. You can train yourself to recognize the changes. But what happens when you go hear a live concert of the Dallas Wind Symphony, or the LA Symphonic Orchestra, for example and you buy one of their CD's as a remembrance and you come home and play the recording on your system and it doesn't sound like what you heard live in person???? Tone controls will really help. They may not be there perfect answer.

One time Doc Severinson and Clarke Terry with the Tonight Show dance band came to UTEP and I made a recording using Altec M20, Omni and M-30 cardioid, Neuman KM-86, and AKG C-60 mics using an Ampex 300-4 with AmE Equalization. It took a little bass emphasis and a touch of correction on the solo channel to get close to the original sound. When I got the final mix finished and took the recording home, I had to use the tone controls as I found the Altec 604E's I was using as monitors weren't producing the highs correctly. Tone controls were the answer.

 

[sqlsavior]

At what point do we leave the realm of mid-fi and enter the realm of hi-fi?

The dividing line is something that moves depending on who you are discussing it with.

I agree. It may also move as one own experience changes. I guess for me mid-fi means sound quality that wouldn't satisfy me for long. Since that level of SQ is certainly satisfying lots of other people, making "mid-fi" pronouncements of specific gear in mixed company is usually rather rude, imo.

And what are the determining factors that make it so? Price? Real discernable differences in sound quality?

Not price, to me at least. Sound quality, sound quality and sound quality. Real discernible differences, but, to whom? Certainly not everyone.
Linearity, (meaning output in direct proportion to input, not "flat" frequency response) is the measure. To me, in subjective terms, this translates to transparency, with the ol' "lifting a veil" metaphor as apt as can be.

I mean at some point isn't good enough sound quality good enough? I've never listened to 30k speakers though so maybe there really is a clear line of demarcation between mid-fi and hi-fi. Maybe it's a whole other realm that I simply have not experienced.

One would think so, for the sake of practicality. In my experience, the recording itself is the limiting factor, along with the playback room's impositions on the sound. It doesn't keep getting better and better and better forever. YMMV.

 

[Poultrygeist]

There's a level I call "Higher-Fi" which few experience. It doesn't come from commercial companies where

bean counters rule supreme but from cottage industry artisans who are unencumbered by price points.

You never see them at audio shows as their advertisement is primarily word of mouth. They do one off's

and custom designs for select customers. The best example I've seen so far is Jim Dowdy's 3 chassis

GM-70 amp ( bottom and middle of picture ). There's no need for bling ( form fits function ) as his

customers are beyond that and are only interested in the best sound possible. I doubt he sells more than

one a year but the one he sells might be to an oil sheik.

 

[darkblue94]

There's a level I call "Higher-Fi" which few experience. It doesn't come from commercial companies where

bean counters rule supreme but from cottage industry artisans who are unencumbered by price points.

You never see them at audio shows as their advertisement is primarily word of mouth. They do one off's

and custom designs for select customers. The best example I've seen so far is Jim Dowdy's 3 chassis

GM-70 amp ( bottom and middle of picture ). There's no need for bling ( form fits function ) as his

customers are beyond that and are only interested in the best sound possible. I doubt he sells more than

one a year but the one he sells might be to an oil sheik.

I'll bet it's fantastic. I'm acquainted with the guys that engineered and built the Whammerdyne Truth single ended 2A3 amplifier, 4.2 watts of pure audio bliss.They did premier it at the 2015 "The Show Newport" in California to much acclaim and won an award at the New York Audio show last November I believe.

 

[davidb1]

If a system produces a palpable soundstage, not just imaging, it's hi fi. Expensive equipment or cheap, hi-fi is the sum of the parts and the room.

 

[woodj]

The operatie word here is "Fidelity".

 

[whoaru99]

True high fidelity is always the next step up from where you are now.