If anyone bothered to listen to the one hour 45 minute YouTube interview with founder of Merrill Audio that user danager posted above, they would be treated to a discussion of real High Fidelity as he advertised. A discussion of how “I did it myself because I didn’t see anyone else doing it” (paraphrasing Merrill), “the weaknesses of other’s approach is . . .” (again, paraphrasing), and “with my approach, the challenges were ‘a,’ ‘b,’ ‘c,’ which we met by doing ‘x,’ ‘y,’ ‘x.’” (Once more, paraphrasing). Really intelligently laying out the challenges which every audio engineer must meet and overcome. We have our transformers custom made, and our supplier won’t tell us how they do it, but they meet our specifications. One of our competitors (and friends), has his capacitors made to his specifications and tests each one. What are the plates on top of the case? They help with the vibrations in the case— I could go on. But, the point is, the ultimate product is sound like no one has ever heard before. That is High Fidelity, because someone cares, because everything matters. And yes, it costs five figures (but not six), so yes, it is expensive, like it always was, it it is attainable, given a lifetime, or the greater portion of it.
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…?