You're arguing for subjectivity. I agree. To me Rotel is Hi Fi because it sounded good to my ear coupled with the Paradigms. But the day may come when I may listen to a better amp and move on from Rotel. Rotel sounded good to me because it was the first real amp I had owned. All I had to compare it to were mass marketed receivers --no comparison. I suspect to get noticeably better than Rotel I'll have to be willing to part with quite a bit more cash. Perhaps Mcintosh (did I spell that right?) would get me there --that is, to a whole other level.
Mid Fi to Hi Fi threshold
- Thread starter M1chael
- Start date
You're arguing for subjectivity. I agree. To me Rotel is Hi Fi because it sounded good to my ear coupled with the Paradigms. But the day may come when I may listen to a better amp and move on from Rotel. Rotel sounded good to me because it was the first real amp I had owned. All I had to compare it to were mass marketed receivers --no comparison. I suspect to get noticeably better than Rotel I'll have to be willing to part with quite a bit more cash. Perhaps Mcintosh (did I spell that right?) would get me there --that is, to a whole other level.
lini
just me...
(...) I use both mid-fi and hi-fi systems in my home. Quite frankly, I don't understand the emotional response such elicits from some folks. Go figure.
Oh, it's completely ok, if one applies that term to one's own stuff. Whereas that term becomes more problematic, when people apply it to others' hifi equipment, as that may cause hurt feelings (at least unless one puts it into perspective...).
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
DougMac
Super Member
I've heard some systems that would be regarded as hi-fi based on price and manufacturers. They truly did sound nice, but ranged in price from what I recently paid for a new crossover SUV to what I've paid for all the cars I've bought over 40 years.
We all have price points and time budgets. I think I've arrived at a balance that suits me. I could get a better sounding system, but to make an appreciable difference would require an order of magnitude jump in cost.
Nowadays I've been putting my audio money and time in collecting records, mostly from crate digging. It's the thrill of the hunt, stumbling on rare and desirable records in great shape and buying them at a bargain. The bonus is getting to hear great music. It's easy to be adventurous at 75 cents a pop.
We all have price points and time budgets. I think I've arrived at a balance that suits me. I could get a better sounding system, but to make an appreciable difference would require an order of magnitude jump in cost.
Nowadays I've been putting my audio money and time in collecting records, mostly from crate digging. It's the thrill of the hunt, stumbling on rare and desirable records in great shape and buying them at a bargain. The bonus is getting to hear great music. It's easy to be adventurous at 75 cents a pop.
lizard84
Abider
Actually, although the above may be true, in actual practice what I posted is more correct to our point here, doing a google search shows the term to be used as an audio descriptor at 90%+ or so rate so I'll not only stand by my post but double down...
Some of those nose elevated/pinky finger extenders (myself included at times) would have people believe only their Hi-Fi components of choice have the resolving capability that permits them to hear the differences between recordings, USB cables, wall socket plates, speaker cables, cable elevators, sort cones, power cords and brilliant pebbles taped to interconnects. Systems that cost more than what would feed dozens of homeless family's of 4 or more for one year who are currently picking dinner out of a dumpster throughout San Francisco.
The truth is, much of what they/we call mid-fi would blow the doors off much of the gear from yesteryear. We could all be happy with such a system, we're just music loving gears hounds who choose not too and who have an overabundance of disposable income.
But hey, I'm ok with that...
You are relentless with this socioeconomic thing! Maybe we should all have the same exact audio gear? That way everything is fair and nobody will feel superior in any way.Actually, although the above may be true, in actual practice what I posted is more correct to our point here, doing a google search shows the term to be used as an audio descriptor at 90%+ or so rate so I'll not only stand by my post but double down...
Some of those nose elevated/pinky finger extenders (myself included at times) would have people believe only their Hi-Fi components of choice have the resolving capability that permits them to hear the differences between recordings, USB cables, wall socket plates, speaker cables, cable elevators, sort cones, power cords and brilliant pebbles taped to interconnects. Systems that cost more than what would feed dozens of homeless family's of 4 or more for one year who are currently picking dinner out of a dumpster throughout San Francisco.
The truth is, much of what they/we call mid-fi would blow the doors off much of the gear from yesteryear. We could all be happy with such a system, we're just music loving gears hounds who choose not too and who have an overabundance of disposable income.
But hey, I'm ok with that...
PAGS
Super Member
Meh. I'm not bothered or offended by lizard's posts. Just a fellow AKer's opinion.
My stuff definitely would be considered midfi by AK standards. However, the common man (normal person) likely would consider it exotic hi-fi gear.
Good example comes to mind when you started talking cars. Hi-fi vs. mid-fi for sound reproduction is like offroad truck vs. crossover SUV for navigating through wilderness.
I don't label my stuff, nor do I blow my horn too much about it. It simply is, and at least on good nights it makes me want to stay up late listening. As for the common man, when someone does come over and look at my getup they just sorta stop mid sentence. I think the size of the speakers gets to them! They ain't fitting on any bookshelf!
It seems that veiw is very hard to avoid around here. A site that should welcome all gear is really a site full of inferiority complex. Can't even show photos and vids of very nice equipment without members jumping in saying it's subjective, sound quality can be just as good with a $100 setup. I personally have never used the term midfi till this thread, or hifi for that matter, and generally only read it from a member who feels they own midfi in describing their system.
There it is there...
Last edited:
True and also give one more power to experiment with all levels of equipment.
Hell you'v seen me drive $11.00 compact system speakers with mac gear, sick a $500 MC cart on a $25 table, add a $2000 sub to a $30 compact system. If someone never tried something how can they judge it, it's all audio and the plan fact is the better it gets the more it cost.
That is pretty accurate, even in the used or "vintage" market. One gets what one pays for, be it new or used..
Yes, it is.
To a certain extent, that is also true. It is unfortunate there are those who haven't experienced better who say that those with more exotic systems are just buying audio jewelry. While that may be true for some, I can assure you that is not the case with me. I wish everyone could have spent as many hours as I listening to HP's phenomenal systems at Sea Cliff. Having done that over a thirty year span recalibrated my point of view on more than one occasion.
Is there a predicate to that clause? Consider the cost of the jet fuel that is in Katy Perry's budget for concert appearances. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. Audio quality is not determined by how many starving children there are in Bangladesh.
At the low to mid end, yes. And?