2. misc-audio
  3. 176887-2487

What defines mid-fi versus high-end?

I’m in my mid fifties and I recall 30 years back mid-fi to me fell into the NAD, Adcom, B&K…. For high-end I considered Mac, some of the Counterpoint offerings, Cary…. so forth.  I had another post going where I mentioned I acquired an Onkyo  home theater receiver that retailed new for $1,100.   Yet another agoner responded that it does not rate as mid-fi.   We all have our opinions of course.   So right or wrong here.
How do you define the parameters of high-end versus mid-if?  By money range, by brand…?

 

pdspecl

Showing 2 responses by noske

noske
783 posts
 

Isn’t hi-fi simply short for high fidelity?

If so, then what is mid-fi?

Once that is sorted out, and should there be some meaningful discussion about mid-fi versus high end that is agreeable, then what about a discussion about hi-fi versus high end?

Failing any of that, what is the logical conclusion?

 

noske
783 posts
 

a product that reproduced music with limited fidelity,

{I’m deliberately going to ignore the remainder of the quote for now to stay focused}

That’s a pretty good general definition, appreciating exactly what high fidelity means - the reproduction of what is on the medium (eg, a CD) with inaudible noise and uncolored by non-linear distortion, and a flat frequency response in the human hearing range (paraphrased from Wiki).

On this basis, I’m gunna be presumptuous and suggest that high end can then be mid-fi or it may be hi-fi.

Because high end (as I understand the term from people like Robert Harley and others) often does not conform anywhere close to that definition of high fidelity for reasons, but rather can often have limited fidelity.

I’ll leave a discussion of brands and money to those with abundant experience with either or both of those two virtues..and the remainder of the quote which I am not qualified to address without speculating.

 

More to discover