When are speakers considered Hi-Fi and not Mid-Fi???

Mid-Fi is a term that is used by audio snobs.

Don’t worry about what kind of “fi” it is…it’s what you like that counts!

When you or I SAY SO. 

Some think Hi only refers to the money spent, and not to the fidelity. Hency the abundance of gear that is priced at $1000 and costs $10 to make (or $100,000 costing $1,000). 

If I had debate team, I would try to recruit holydean as the lead. As for hifi/midfi, I only know what makes me happy within my budget and hifi/midfi be damned. Seems the OP left this thread to float like a big ol’ turd in a tub.

Glad we all mostly agree on the ridiculous nature of the terms, and the overall view of what moves us from the mid level to the higher end. The way I figure it, if a set of speakers is delivering the full range of audio (not always 20-20k from mains as we can use subs) then the rest of the package will be the quality of the build and the quality of the components. For me the measure is the sound first of all. We are in the year 2023 and we have countless companies that are able to deliver dynamic full-range sound from relatively inexpensive gear, and frankly if they are delivering it, it's what high fidelity is all about. Past that the cost would be because of the use of better or more expensive components, higher cost for a niche brand, etc. I think if we did a bunch of truly blind tests, there would be a lot of disappointed folks as some of the lower end makers may come out as winners when sound is the only measure :-) I never stated what I owned so not to color the conversation. My current main speakers are Polk SDA-1C (driven by Yamaha M85) from about 1987, and a pair of McIntosh LS340 (driven by McIntosh MC462). Have not had anyone listen and tell me that I did not have a hi-fi system :-) Still looking at the next pair of speakers however, and all the input and advice is welcome!

Speakers as well as equipment becomes hi fi as soon as it sound good to YOU! This hobby is full of people who think $ is the qualifier for hi fi. My whole system would be considered by most here the high end of mid fi but that does not matter I like the way is sounds. Great sound stage great dynamics and zero fatigue. All I need for the most important part of the hobby to enjoy the music!

“Mid-Fi”:

A musically satisfying component/system where the owner recognizes the existence of a strata of performance well above the current level and may, or may not, feel compelled to pursue it.

Isn’t anything above a Boombox Hi-Fi? 

Trying to create a definitive line between Mid Fi and Hi Fi is a fools errand. At best I may consider the following... 1. The listeners intention, and 2. The type of equipment being assembled. Cost of equipment is not a determining factor in my opinion. As far as intension goes, if you are assembling a system for the purpose of listening to music and during this process you are making decisions to the components used to produce the most life like reproduction, then I would consider what you assembled to be a Hi Fi system. Now, and this is where I get to my second point, you are just purchasing an all in one component (say a BT speaker) this doesn't qualify as Hi Fi to me.

 I've had people over my house who have been amazed by my outdoor speaker pods playing on my deck with a subwoofer that looks like a rock in my yard. Then I bring them into my home to listen to my very modest Hi Fi system and they are just blown away. The same thing seems to happens to most people when I show them my Hi Fi system. They go from just casually hearing the music to actually listening to the music. Suddenly they are aware of the soundstage, the instrument placement in front of them, the ambient sounds in the recording like fingers sliding up guitar strings and the singer taking a breath while he's singing. When you assemble a system that produces that detail, it drags most people in. A Beats Pill isn't going to do that... 

@dekay must have been the stupidest thing I said last week! (Probably not)

I consider my Cornwall IV’s hifi, although I considered them higher hifi before I changed my system around and upgraded to Magico A3’s. Some might say those are not hifi as they are at the bottom of Magico’s line. Both are wonderfully entertaining but for my ears the A3’s are ahead, maybe it’s because I paid 3x the price of the CW’s. What really tells me the Magico’s are hifi is the fact I have no desire to replace them. Let your own ears decide what hifi is, who really cares what others think anyways? 

I just watched a YT video on photography and one man's rational for buying a Leica M11 monochrome camera. He loves shooting in Black & White. His rational is to buy what really moves you and forget the rest. As he's gotten older, he's simplified his life, reducing it to just the essentials and avoiding the all encompassing. 

I've said something similar in my rational for keeping my present speakers and to just stop looking for something else in previous posts. I listened to some new music yesterday and simply loved the sound, again with not analyzing it but reveling in it. That's when it becomes hi-fi for me. I'm older, more settled in my ways, and not into bragging rights or audio envy. 

Now that the obsession is out of the way, there's only the music to attend to.

All the best,
Nonoise

LoFi < MidFi < HiFi < SciFi. Just as it's better to drive a slow car fast, it's better to listen to good music on a bad system, than bad music on a great system.

I'm just in this for the music.

Mid-fi is what I can afford.  Hi-fi is what I can't afford.  

When classifying mid fi vs hi end you need to look at the system as a whole. I might be in the minority but loudspeakers are where one can cut cost. Why? Speakers are the most flawed component and most room dependent. Two of my favorite speakers at different price points Magico A5 $27k and Acoustic Energy AE520 at $5.5K. Can you build a true HEA system around an AE 520? My answer is yes but one cannot cut corners on electronics/source and cables. If a Magico A5 is properly set up it can rival many $50k loudspeakers in an appropriate sized room.

"Too many blame it on the room. A really good speaker will show itself despite the room. Fine tune things after if that’s your thing."

Couldn't disagree with you more.  That is a very short-sighted statement.  EVERY speaker is affected by the room it is in, and can greatly, adversely, make a fantastic pair of speakers sound - meh.  How many of us have attended a major show and come out of certain rooms thinking, "That should have sounded much better", and I'm not just describing the setups in the small hotel rooms.

Couldn’t disagree with you more either. I’ve been in this hobby for about 40 years and have heard many great systems in untreated rooms. I’ve had the same living room for 30 years and have heard great, good and bad speakers having no room treatment.

I’ve had a recording engineer over to my place who pronounced my room perfectly fine, as is. Same with a high end dealer. Both have been over more than a few times.

Too many makers of "high end" gear blame the rooms on the bad sound they get yet there are other makes in the very same type of rooms getting great sound. What’s the single underlying factor in all of this? It’s the gear and not the room.

Granted, some rooms are nightmares, but I know of no one who lives/listens in a perfectly square room or a rectangle where the width and length are perfectly divisible by the same number. A great sounding speaker will still sound good in a bad room, letting you know of its potential. Not that hard to figure out.

As for going into a show of unknown quality expecting it to sound good, well you just laid bare your expectations of it supposing to sound good when it doesn’t. Sounding bad is more a matter of associated gear and cabling and people just fooling themselves.

Just try moving around some in a "bad" hotel room and you’ll hear the differences. That, or you’re tone deaf.

I’ve been to shows where a dealers set up sounded sublime and at the next show, literally sucked. Yes, the room was different but much more importantly, the surrounding gear was all different. System synergy plays a really big role in maintaining great sound. It's not plug 'n play.

All the best,
Nonoise

I am amused that people didn’t mention the inconvenience of Hi-Fi compared to Mid-Fi. 
 

Picture this: you go to a big box store and immediately walk out with a pair of Polk speakers and a Denon or Marantz integrated amp with a DAC/Phono Stage/Streamer. Everything is under warranty and immediately available for the same price everywhere. 
 

OR 

You can go to a dealer. The service is terrible. The prices are marked up. The unit isn’t technically new. Or you have to wait months for your amp and speakers to get built out of exotic materials. When the item is shipped it gets damaged or there are huge defects. You have to wait some more and deal with more people. 
 

I mean there’s something inherently convenient with mass produced equipment with factory specs. Hand made stuff is very inconsistent and overrated. 
 

@kokakolia Your making many silly assumptions regarding HEA. Audiophiles accept and even some embrace the challenge, time and effort needed to achieve synergy within their systems. A lower fi (plug n play) system also needs room treatment which could end up costing more than the entire system.

I prefer my glass walled triangle room with Ocean views all the way to Hawaii, the effect on the sound will be negligible...

https://www.thealtmanbrothers.com/listing/9826-la-jolla-farms-rd-la-jolla-ca-92037/

@dean_palmer 

I believe it’s been said many times before, that ‘hi-fi’ comes from the term high fidelity, and that high fidelity is about bringing the original signal from source to ear with as little added and taken away as possible….with as little added or taken away as possible.

There are many different facets to our amazing hobby, and to deprecate or belittle any fellow hobbyist for spending too little or too much is to miss the point - there are simply too many ways we enjoy and love our hobby of music appreciation! However, in very much the same vein, if adjusting the original signal, either by intention or through lack of knowledge, to our individual preferences and likes by way of bass and treble controls as example, we cannot, in all self-honesty and good conscience, refer to what is being done as high fidelity. It should by no means exclude anyone from the hobby in its delightful entirety; it merely basically and honestly means that one does not then engage the hobby with high fidelity as the heart and soul.

High fidelity obviously isn’t all about spending huge amounts of money, but the path to adding or taking away as little as possible from the original signal is a very difficult task, and one fraught with the use of technologies and materials that allow the best flow of current/signal with the least amount of degradation, while not adding colouration - this balance is what makes the search for high fidelity relatively expensive, terribly debatable, contentious, confusing, frustrating, and ultimately, exciting. 

How does one know when a signal one hears, the original content of which one is usually unknowledgeable about, is close to its origins? I have found that it is gained through a lot of experience listening to many many different kinds of music and equipment in the chain of one’s own system in the specific context of one’s own listening space, but with a vital proviso  - that our musical choices also include source recordings recognised by sound engineers and other experienced or professional individuals associated with the field as being the most accurate, well-recorded samples of all musical genres available. With these as the gauge of excellence, we test equipment in an acoustically appropriate space that brings those recordings ever closer to reality in our ears, in relation to the entire spectrum of what realism means - frequency range, detail, timbre, soundfield,  the rest of it. 

The argument that denies an objective perception of reality due to the fact we each hear reality in different ways is a flawed argument - while we each may hear differently, the sources for what each of us identifies as ‘real’ from unrecorded and direct experience, is all the same - it does mean that we all have the same aural foundations for what we each individually hear as ‘real’. The innate understanding of what constitutes reality has been cultivated within each of us from completely shared sources from the moment we are born. 

With a good range from various musical genres of universally accepted as acclaimed exceptional recordings, coupled with our innate abilities to identify realism, we can thus begin the journey of recognising equipment, cables, listening environments, that bring us closer to what we can each sufficiently accept as high fidelity. There will be a huge range of what this constitutes, nonetheless, as we each have different priorities, budgets, experience levels, equipment chains, and listening spaces to allow for. It is what makes any degree of consensus over what truly constitutes high fidelity so very difficult.

The questions it all boils down to is this - how many of us have had the privilege of actually listening to more than 10 kinds of, say, speaker or interconnect cables ranging from five hundred to a hundred thousand dollars, one a a time, in the same equipment chain in the specificity of each our listening spaces? Or the same for a variety of DACs ranging from five thousand to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars? Or amplifiers? Or servers? Or preamps and switches? Or fuses and isolation devices?

It is neither fair nor knowledgeable to claim an absence of difference or a law of diminishing returns purely on the basis of how good each our systems already sound or on what theory tells us, if our listening skills have not been exercised to a sufficiently high level, or we have not actually heard any item under discussion in our own systems, in our own listening spaces, under controlled conditions. 

A golden rule I learned, is that things never ever sound half as good as what we already have, when heard in an unfamiliar environment. I try never to fall prey to dismissing any one thing just because it sounded awful in someone else’s space, or showroom, if nothing else, for the simple fact it is an entirely unfamiliar system and listening space to me. There may be one or two items in an unfamiliar system I may have had experience with, which under certain circumstances, may be determined to be either unrelated or be contributing to the cause of a systems performance, but it is very rarely the case that I can fully know, until specific items under study are heard in my own system and listening room without any change to any other part of my system.

I love this hobby, and being especially in the pursuit of high fidelity, I encourage any one in search of a skill to better, to be that of listening, because the joy it has given me the past four years in my slow but steady climb to getting lost in the music, has been greater than almost anything else I have ever experienced. Just know what it is you seek, what it is you can afford, what it is you may not honestly know, and what it is you do know through direct experience in your own listening space; and you will not fool yourself into blindly following or being caught up in a dominant paradigm of belief. Simply because, while beliefs are predicated on singular viewpoints or opinions, deeper truth, being based on the relationships between multiple viewpoints, allows one to access greater perception of entirety and thus, a more balanced understanding of where high fidelity sits in the pantheon of our wonderful hobby.

Few things in life are more demanding or exhausting as building a system of high fidelity - It takes tremendous effort, passion, and a toll on time and expenses unlike anything else. It’s the easy way out to claim that top of the line nordost or any other cable makes little to no difference to sound quality just because it was too difficult or costly to audition it in one’s own system. There is no short cut.

The trick in the journey of high fidelity is to find occasion to forget it all in being in the moment, when all that time, effort, money and the trained ear vanishes, because both conscious and unconscious has been lost in the music.

In friendship - kevin

Question one could ask is why would anyone care what someone else labels a system? Personally, if I hear a piece of equipment that brings me closer to what I hear live and in an unamplified setting, I don’t really care what the label is that someone else attaches to that piece. If that label happens to be ‘mid Fi’, or happens to be entry level ‘big box’ gear and that same piece brings me closer to the sound I am looking for, then to me, that is a very desirable piece of gear…regardless of the price. Unfortunately, I have not had that experience too often, but it has happened occasionally, and I have immediately bought the piece in question. 
( usually for what I consider a great price).I suspect we have all had that fortuitous circumstance. Next question, would it not be also accurate to state that a nomiker like ‘mid Fi’ or another detrimental description, is used most times to describe a piece that does not perform up to the listener’s expectations, again regardless of price?YMMV

In Google, High Fidelity

: the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original.

Only Wavetouch audio sounds very faithful to the original music and natural. All other audio systems in the world sound bright, veiled, and un-natural. Only Wavetouch audio is Hi-Fi. All others are Low or Mid-fi.

Listen to WT audio. There you can comprehend people’s voices and WT audio sounds at the same time (like an audio sound is live). Wavetouch audio

**compare to the original music (Dominique Fils-Aimé | Birds)

Listen to others recorded on same day. You can’t hear and understand audio sound and human voices at the same time. Your ears must switch listening mode between audio and human voices to comprehend. Human voice is a distraction to your listening audio music. The dog barking, car noise, voices, etc (all natural sounds) are all distraction. That’s why a’philes listen the audio alone. Also, mid-fi sounds bright, laid back mid-range, and veiled sound. They satisfy no one. So, upgrade merry-go-round forever. Other audio systems.

Alex/Wavetouch

Okay Alex. You have solved this mystery, once and for all. I bow to your knowledge. 

High fidelity to what in relation to which source? The recorded analog or digital source or the real musician playing which anyway did not exist in an absolute sense acoustically because each location of the listener will give rise to different timbre experience and in relation which very different room or hall...

High fidelity is a marketing term...Not a scientific one...To justify and qualify speakers, amplifiers and dac and recording device as microphones design or reel magnetophone design etc...

Before the gear components and even before the recording engineers trade-off, there is the real violin or piano or chorus playing in a small chuch or in a very small hall or in very big one with each one displaying  his own acoustic properties...

Recording that is an ART  with all different trade-off possibilities for the recording engineer who will decide to pick one set of these and recording that choice on vinyl or cd is not  so much "high-fidelity", it is an optimal fidelity, which we will listen to in some room/speakers relation optimally or not...

High fidelity is a concept in marketing gear electronical design not in acoustic, except to speak about the necessary listener impression...

No recording sound the same in one room /system and in another one...

Acoustic basic knowledge is the ground for optimal experience, not the price tag of products who exhibit yes a dinminushing returns relatively low treshold...

One word:  Thiel

"I can hear music...."

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=y0ZGnwVfX4o

Stupid argument. Who cares what anyone says. I think it is fair to day what is garbage though. You know it when you see it. Crosley anyone?

The Best Buy haters should differentiate between ones that have a Magnolia department and ones that lump whatever stereo equipment they happen to have with the regular stuff. The Best Buys I've been to have Magnolias, and always have at least one guy who knows about 2 channel audio and a very nicely designed demo room. Maybe not turntable experts since they don't sell many of them, but they do carry them. I wouldn't want them to set one up though.  

They carry McIntosh, KEF, Rega, Rotel, B&W and maybe some other manufacturers that are financially strong companies that can afford to give Best Buy a deal on outfitting these Magnolia stores with demo equipment. 

Interestingly enough, you can usually get a better deal at a mom and pop (usually Pop) stereo store that typically has worse return policies. Except when there is a close out at Best Buy when I expect them to blow out their demo equipment.

I fully agree with @2psyop it’s all relative and a matter of your personal perspective. And keep in mind that much of what is dismissed as “mid-fi” on this and other forums produces better stereo sound than what 99% of the population has ever heard. 

It takes exposure to "quality" "properly set up" systems to be able to build a point of reference. If someone doesn't have the practice or trained ear it kind of becomes a series of judgements on top of marketing hype (or always is). 

After experience comes preference, and once you find your preference people will either agree or disagree with you. If every audiophile listened to 100 systems and rated them for 20 characteristics you'd have some people start picking apart the time of day and the power grid conditions.

There's no simple answer- Miller would argue he had hi-fi and the majority of people told him it was low-fi.    

Simple : there is no Hi-Fi without dedicated acoustic room....

Price tags means not optimal soundfield...

The only reason why people think otherwise, they had no personal experience of a room acoustically tailor made for specific speakers...I thought the same BEFORE i tune a room...

Small room acoustic obey other principle than great hall acoustic ...

Sorry, but not a useful parsing. There are speakers under $1500 a pair that would embarrass most golden ear audiophiles in blind A/B test. HiFi vs MidFi is only about price and perceived brand value. Companies make ROI decisions based on volume of sales vs unit mark up. IAG in China has been a brilliant vertically integrated force with the market-changing products they engineer and produce under the venerable British brands they purchased.

Whoever says Cornwall speakers are not Hi Fi needs better hearing aids. Many people supplement with high quality subs to makeup for the low-end issue. I guess all the rant about LS 50 bookshelf would apply too. All that matters is your happy with the sound. Don't let snobbery spoil your joy.

@Mahgister what if you are like tubebuffer and have a $400k system in your tool shed? Classy but not hifi? 

i concur totally with retrocrownfan...

Most people had no experience and no idea about acoustic coupling of speakers with a specific room and the reverse...They then thougtht that price tags will spare them the need to experiment and learn basic acoustic....

My Mission Cyrus with a lesser high quality design were way better than my Tannoy dual gold ONLY because they were coupled to a dedicated room...Alas! when i learned basic  acoustic i had already sold my Tannoy...I can only dream of them in a room tailor made for them...

No speakers beat their room...

Sorry, but not a useful parsing. There are speakers under $1500 a pair that would embarrass most golden ear audiophiles in blind A/B test. HiFi vs MidFi is only about price and perceived brand value. Companies make ROI decisions based on volume of sales vs unit mark up. IAG in China has been a brilliant vertically integrated force with the market-changing products they engineer and produce under the venerable British brands they purchased.

I am not sure that i understand your question...

There is one thing in life exciting and interesting and it is NOT what you bought, but what will you do with the purchase...

The other thing exciting and interesting is being able to do the MOST with the less ....

Another thing interesting and exciting is KNOWING exactly why you will purchase something...And knowing you will never need MORE, not because your system will be a makeshift, but because it will be among top in the world by the ratio for the higher possible S.Q. for the less possible price...

Purchasing a 100,000 dollars speakers or amplifier or dac make no sense at all for me , why?

Because being there you will be in the obligation to buy a 50,000 bucks dac instead of a 10,000 one and the same for the amplifier....And they will not necessarily be the best.... The end results will be as in any uninformed purchase by faith in the price tags if not a mediocre system , a system which ca be rivalled at a way, way less price with basic knowledge or informed purchase...

With knowledge Hi-Fi can cost if not peanuts , not so much.... For me the top system i dream about is : under 15,000... And i know it will rival anything or it will not be too far behind...and i know exactly why this will be so...

The only thing costly in audio that impress me are room acoustic designed by pro...the price of any components passed a certain amounts is more snobism and ignorance most of the times, but not in all case for sure some people can afford the best and know how to purchase it...... Some TOP design are costly for a reason... But i can make something not far behind for less anyway...

When i begun my journey i was sad because i did not have any money to create my Hi-FI heaven... Now i know it was real luck , because i learned a lot... People with money most of the times dont learn instead they buy...

i dont feel frustration because i dont own a 400,000 bucks system, i dont need it at all ... The only case i will be envious is a dedicated acoustic room well designed ... This will cost at least 100, 000 bucks... And you dont need to put a 100,000 bucks amplifier and 100,000 bucks amplifier there AT ALL... I say all this not to criticize people who can afford that, why not? i say that for the people who cannot and feel frustrated... My message and recommendation is feel empowered by studying a bit and experimenting... This is way more rewarding than any purchase...

To answer your question :

For sure a 400,000 system IS HI-FI in principle, because at this price the design is at least good and better than most low cost systems ...But the room matter if not equally even more.... Then i need to experience this system in a room to decide if it is mediocre, good or TOP for the EARS...The room decide not the price tag of component in my experience...

The best system i listened to now is mine with 100 bucks headphone ... But think about that: do you think one of the best amplifier in the world in 1980 and one of the best headphone of all time and the flagship of AKG in 1978 is completely mediocre and without anything special ? You are wrong if you think so.... A stax Omega system in 1978 is always a top system... And my headphone rival them and beat them for the bass completely, i felt Baoch organ works with my body and feet... ... And the holography is to die for... Then ?

No one can make me envious because i know what i do with the components i pick...There are not the best in the absolute , only a fool can claim such a thing; but they are unbeatable in the ratio S.Q./ low price ...

Give me 12,000 dollars and i will upgrade and THEN  compete with anything almost...Nowadays anyway there is a revolution in DSP and dac, and most people dont even know about it... Then they pay MORE for LESS....

@Mahgister what if you are like tubebuffer and have a $400k system in your tool shed? Classy but not hifi?

If you like them, that’s all that matters 

An early definition of high fidelity may be found on pages 630-632 of the Radiotron Designers Handbook, 4th edition.  Too long to copy/paste here, but e copies of the book are out there.....it's a wonderful resource for those who enjoy tube gear.

Back in the day, a unified box consisting of a turntable, tuner and likely a couple of full range drivers was considered “hifi”. I’m sure many here recall the consoles of yesteryear 

Like everything else in this hobby, hifi is whatever works for you.

It looks like it was a marketing term from the early 50s which was superseded by the term ‘stereo’.  More recently another nebulous term, ‘audiophile’ is used to label equipment that the foolish purchase.

I've been listening to mid-fi equipment and speakers for 5 decades now.  It wasn't until I heard/experienced a few audio systems that blew me away.  The first was 42 years ago at Michael Lane's home with 250,000 records.  He custom built his equipment (he was a genius engineer at Cal Tech) with huge corner speakers (possibly horn-I don't remember).  He played 1903 Grieg at the piano and the sound was like a 50's LP with the frequency response and dynamic limitations of 1903.  He had 25 or more stylii and varied the e.q. per record, obtaining incredibly reduced record noise.  His Remington LPs sounded spectacular, like a Maggie with dynamics.  

Then I heard the Von Schweikert Ultra 11s with my LPs and CDs.  That was a revelation (of $1+ million cost) of sound reproduction I had not experienced in dozens of audio shows.  

In the past 6 years, my goal was to get closer to that sound in my own primary listening room.  It has taken multiple changes in some equipment, mostly tweaks in getting there.  SR fuses, Tripplite voltage regulators for pre-amps (only one plug works to enhance nearest the power cable, the others yuk) and two Shakti on-lines (nothing else works for me, just one above the Tripplite power cable and the other on the power amp plug to wall outlet).  I've removed some SR HFTs and added a GIK Q7D quadradic diffuser.  Tried a half dozen DACs, digital cables and a dozen transports.  Finally got my main system sounding at least half a good and involving as the $1 million system for 1/15th the cost in equipment (the room alone was $150K though).  I kept much of the older equipment such as the VPI TNT VI mod and SME IV mod from decades ago, cabling, speakers, etc.  

Anyone would hear my main system and declare it high end.  It's not perfect (flaws include single seat/inferior diffusion of sound seating and ambiance.  Of course I listen to many 50's and 60's recordings which have left/right recorded sound, ambiance depends on the recording as well.  My 11,500 CDs are now as enjoyable as my analog recordings (about 36,000 various formats).  

By experiencing the best (one of the best) audio systems ever, I knew what to shoot for.  Getting there has taken years though and eventually, I will replace the speakers (after 20 years of stats, I went with a full range, dynamic floor standing speaker for 20 more years).  .  

If you spend more money, you get more hifi....Especially with Dacs and Interconnects. If you don't spend at least $10k on a Dac you're not allowed to even talk about what sounds great.

Just for perspective, the Dictionary.com definition of High-Fidelity is:

noun Electronics.

1. sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies with very little distortion of the original signal.

That leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

There is some interesting information on the origin of the term “High Fidelity” on Wikipedia.

Those Klipsch and Magnepan models listed by the OP should deliver something approaching a HiFi experience as defined above if set up correctly.

My personal definition of when you’ve crossed over from Mid-Fi to Hi-Fi is that your favorite sample tracks you used previously for demoing electronics because they had “good bass” or “tinkling bells” or an impressive “drum hit” or a “powdery woman’s voice” no longer sound so impressive, and may sound downright dull on your system, while other tracks with dramatic contrast in tempo and loudness, interesting or complicated spatial cues, or fantastic pace, rhythm and timing now grab your attention.  YMMV

kn

There is no room for interpretation here...😊

"distortion" is not an acoustic problem first but result from the electronical designof components...

Then as i said, "high fidelity" is not a basic acoustical concept mainly , but a concept related to optimal or not so optimal electronical design... This concept is born with the electronical industry linked to sound reproduction and engineering standards...

Timbre perception and soundfield immersiveness (ASW/LV) conditions are basic problems in acoustic and psycho-acoustic to be adress, ONCE the electronical design noise and distortion is under control and good to begin with...

And even Magnepan can deliver an inferior experience if we listen to it in a non adapted living room...I know that first hand ...My Tannoy dual gold which were potentially way better than my Mission Cyrus design were inferior as the Magnepan superior design was too ,compared to the low price Mission Cyrus IN A DEDICATED FOR IT ROOM...The magnepan and the Tannoy, Alas! were experience in living room and not in a dedicated room... This why my low cost Mission beat them...The relation speakers/room is more important for audiophile experience than just the speakers design blueprint so better it is ...

Then the best audiophile experience is determined by acoustic experience and knowledge not by price tag of electronic components and not even by superior design ... Saying that costlier design is better is not false, it is worst than that, it is an HALF TRUTH... it is consumers marketing conditioning... Not acoustic science nor my experience ....

My perspective is not popular with people owning very costly system...😊 They think that i devaluate their really better design, I did not, I never claimed that low cost gear can replace very costlier superior design, no more than my inferior Mission can replace my Tannoy or Magnepan, i claim that we must if we want to judge a system potential we must listen to it in a dedicated room or at least in a very well treated and acoustically good living room...

Then the room /speakers relation is the KEY... Not the price of a dac, especially nowadays that many dac are really good even at low price... The differential decisive factor to real audiophile experience is acoustic room treatment and mechanical control or virtual room acoustic as with Dr. Choueri BACCH filters...... If people think that in spite of their real perceived differences it is vinyl versus analog, or digital versus turntable or the amplifier price or the speakers price by themselves ALONE ,they delude themselves.....And the marketing of audio want deluded consumers  walking all over the place and upgrading without end searching out of acoustic which only acoustic can give... But it is not a good news: we must learn and work , there is no "buy and ready to plug" audiophile top experience ...

the Dictionary.com definition of High-Fidelity is:

noun Electronics.

1. sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies with very little distortion of the original signal.

That leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Well, IMHO, if you're worried about labels, you're worried about the wrong thing. If the sound from your system is music to your ears, what difference does labeling the equipment make? None.  And irrespective of what other listeners may opine (be they plebe, rube, or Audiophilus Rex) your own preference in sound is simply unassailable in your listening room. Forget the hogwash and get what you like!

Mid-fi, as others have so noted, seems like a marketing term, rather than a term having any use in characterizing quality differential. I never heard of it until now.

Never understood where the midfi term came from? But to answer,  if your speakers are above $100,000 for the audio gurus.  

From the midfi champ.

Labeling MId-fi or hi-fi on audio systems is not important. What is important is you need to know what you are listening. You have constant and expensive upgrade urges. The world is changing quickly nowadays and you need to know what is new and available. Don't waste you money on wrong items. Keep listening the new sound videos and news.

Audiogon is the best place for new information for new potential audiophiles. Also, YT is where they can listen to audio sounds and decide what to buy. Visiting audio shows and stores is not enough to understand audio sounds. Watch as many audio equipment videos. So, they learn what to listen in expensive audio systems. 

Alex/Wavetouch

This is pretty simple. Two “rules”:

1) Buy only what you can afford

2) Buy what you prefer (after personal experience, listening for yourself)

But I have to say: whoever says a cheap box store $50 pair of speakers sounds just like a $50,000 pair of speakers, or some cheap headphones for 50 years ago… I want to have what you are smoking. Please share. It will save me a bunch of money (maybe for a super duper bike, which I obviously don’t ride 😉🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️)

@mihorn : your shilling is unbearable. You must be very desperate. Complete turn off really. I would personally never buy something from you, even one cent on the dollar. And what you said here about listening to YouTube stuff vs. audio shows is outright “intellectually challenged “ (I tried very hard not to say “retarded” for respect of such individuals):

YT is where they can listen to audio sounds and decide what to buy. Visiting audio shows and stores is not enough to understand audio sounds. Watch as many audio equipment videos. So, they learn what to listen in expensive audio systems.