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…?
Depends on the individual’s ear as well, as everyone has different preferences as well as levels of expertise on how to listen. But if my way were the hifi-way, hifi simply means holographic. Natural and detailed in presentation to the point that it is believable that the musicians are in the room playing for you, and the images are completely vivid and communicate everything they are supposed to for you. Anything less is less than hifi.
The most important thing here is that the room and setup have as much to do with the sound as the gear does. For example, I’ve heard high-priced gear that does not sound hifi whatsoever because of poor setup or synergy.
Mid-fi to me is gear that is a gateway to hifi sound but is unable to image or resolve to the level of fidelity I describe above.
Lg1 made a good point. I recall going to various audio stores in CT. There would be the ‘high’ end room having all separate components, exotic brands that were out of my price range. Then there would be one or more mid-fi rooms with NAD, Adcom…. separate components and receivers……. So the dealers certainly had a hand in planting this mindset by segregating brands and price points.
I first heard the term “mid-fi” in the late 70s into the mid 80s whilst haunting several Houston area audio destinations that tended toward Magneplanar/Mark Levinson/Linn/Nakamichi/Acoustat/B&W/KlipschHeritage…later Apogee/Vandersteen/Stax, et al. “Mid Fi” at that time, was used to describe products from the Pioneer/Kenwood/Sony/Sansui/Technics et al strata and there were a couple of brands that sort of inhabited a grey area between mid and hi hi, notably Denon/Marantz/Sony ES series/NAD. Just an observation peculiar to those times.
I'm going to link to a video presentation from Merrill Audio talking about his GaN amps. To me it's about how he talks about audio that's important. Things like he doesn't have a power switch because it affects the sound.
These are the intricacies that mid-fi just doesn't address. As I said in the last time this was question was posted. You'll know the difference between mid-fi and Hi-fi when you hear it.
I recently jumped back into audio and put a system together for under 1k. Tekton Lore speakers, Rega Brio integrated amp, Schiit Modi dac via and older NAD dvd/cd player I already had. Definitely not high-end but the combination works well and I’m not wanting for more. Mid-fi fits me fine I guess.
Nowadays, lots of so call low budget speakers, amps, cd players, turntables, etc that are very very good, that actually produce High Quality sound. What is High Fidelity? That is very subjective. Some of this so called hi-end stuff sounds like crap. To me, it is more fun seeking out the lower cost stuff that performs way above its price. A few examples would be, the Sphinx integrated, the wharfedale diamond 225’s, Elac b-6 (the original one), the music hall mmf-7, the Marantz cd players (take your pick), mine is the hd-cd1, Akg k550’s, Graham slee novo, Musical Fidelity v90 dac, audioquest type-4, etc etc etc...you are getting a good slice of the High Fidelity pie for not an insane amount of money. I mentioned just some components I have first hand knowledge of, those that I have heard. I'm sure there are many many more.
The best I can do is an analogy with the video world: mid-fi is 720p and hi-fi is 2k and up. And that is still being simplistic. You still need to know how to set it up properly in a suitable environment.
Money is just a part of it but you also need knowledge, lots of it. So be ready to hire a professional if you have the dough but not the know-how. Thinking it’s all about money is tantamount to going to a restaurant and ordering the most expensive dish because it’s going to be the testiest.
We also need to stop comparing hi-fi to sport cars and mid-fi with SUVs. If I am going out of town with my wife, I would rather drive a Lexus RX350 F-sport with a Mark Levinson audio system than an uncomfortable, stiff Lamborghini. In fact. I would pick a luxury SUV anytime unless I am going to the race track with the boys.
Finally, it’s not totally subjective. We know what we want: we want the picture in our TV to look like what we see when we look through the window and we want our hi-fi system to sound like what we heard in that concert hall. Is it attainable? You decide.
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.
In the bad old days when someone used the term “mid-fi” audiophiles knew exactly what it meant – a product that reproduced music with limited fidelity, designed to be sold a particular price-point to less discriminating customers. A plastic Yorx boombox with built-in cassette and CD player would be a prime example.
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?
I think you’ll find many different answers to this question. My opinion is that a home theater receiver used for two channel only gear enjoyment, is like the difference between a sports car vs a SUV on a race track. Yes,the SUV will get you around the track, but it probably won’t be the best tool for the job. Other than that, Hi Fi is probably different for everyone. We are all at varying commitments to this hobby. I’ve personally found more enjoyment as my budget increases, but that is certainly not true all of the time for everyone. There are always exceptions.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
