When are speakers considered Hi-Fi and not Mid-Fi???
What determines the status of "Hi-Fi?" I was recently considering a pair of Klipsch Heritage Cornwall speakers. They get rave reviews, have almost a cult-like following, no longer have harshness from the horns, and are very resolving. Other than not reaching down too low into the bass as some speakers do, why are they not considered Hi-Fi? They can clearly reproduce the full range of sound with an incredible image and are not missing any capability in person or on paper. Seems when we follow a thread on here about most any speaker at any price there is always a contingent that feels to need to post that the certain speakers under discussion are Mid-Fi not Hi-Fi. I only use the Klipsch Cornwalls as an example to start. Budget is not an issue, and cost should not dictate. I was also looking at the Magnepan 20.7 for another example, and they are $13k more than the Klipsch, but low and behold someone within seconds pops up and says these are Mid-Fi speakers. I kind of bet I could ask about a Sonus Faber Aida at $130k and within a few seconds someone will pop in and call them Mid-Fi as well. When do we reach "Hi-Fi" these days? Is it simply an endless and baseless dick-measuring contest? Seems like it. If we were talking cars we always have the guy who brags about the 0-60 times of certain cars, but it's clear that the 0-60 time alone does not qualify a car to be a "supercar" as there are so many other things the car must have and do to make it into that class, and like speakers there is not always 100% agreement on what the factors are. When do we reach Hi-Fi status for speakers???
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...
: 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
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.
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
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.
@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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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...
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.
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!
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!
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.
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).
They’re hifi when they sound the way you want and you can listen for hours! I have the Forte III and while not the most expensive speakers I own, definitely hifi.
"You see what is behind your eyes, not what is in front of them". You are going to get 1 million answers and each one is correct in that person's mind. The minds eye.
LowFi, MidFi, and HiFi. It’s just ridiculous terminology to use as a form of price tag gate-keeping. For example, my Klipsch speakers are considered LowFi by some folks because they aren’t made from exotic materials and the brand is too common. I’ve also been told my McIntosh components are the equivalent of Harley Davidson motorcycles. All branding and no substance.
Ignore the price tag gate-keeping and focus on what sounds good to you in your place.
If using a single driver, coaxial ,or even monitor Svs has some excellent powered subwoofers with apps to adjust the Bass from your seat, you can blend the low bass with starting at $499
i have found this to help many speakers to fill in that low midBass,lower Bass range.
The Heritage line of speakers is a fantastic speaker to mod to your tastes. They can easily be customized for any situation and that makes them hi-fi to me.
@audioman58This is why I went with single driver speakers. For the record, I purchased Klipsch RP600M speakers prior. I hated them. Then I stumbled upon GR Research's teardown of the Klipsch RP600M. And yeah, the crossover couldn't be worse. The crossover actively scooped up the midrange with poor engineering design. So I went into the opposite direction towards single drivers without crossovers. And I'm convinced! For moderate/low volumes in a flat single driver speakers are perfect. Most of the music is in the midrange anyways...
Perhaps I am closer to "Hi-Fi" under $2k that way because I don't use an awful crossover? I am using EMS LB5 drivers FYI.
Some of us stumble upon a "hi-fi" set of speakers through good old trial and error. No way in heck is anyone capable of hearing everything out there unless you’re a reviewer, work in sales, and visit many audio shows.
I’m one of the ones who stumbled upon a great speaker which I paired with a great integrated and now I’ve lost all motivation to look for something else. It will just click one day. Like I said, you’ll know it when you hear it.
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.
I think most Klipsch and the MG 20.7/30.7 speakers are not that good. There is no low end in any of these speakers and the 30.7’s sounded so bad when we heard them on their intro tour.
I did have a friend that owned a pair of Klipschorn’s around 40 years ago and they sounded pretty good for their time, I think the wall helped in the lower end. I have heard knockoffs of these types of Klipsch speakers at audio shows and they were decent.
To get the more exotic materials for speakers, it’s going to cost you money. Your more cheaper speakers have drivers and cabinets made from cheaper materials. You will not get Porsche quality from a Corolla, price does matter for the better pieces
Being into audio 40 years and owning a Audio store by far the largest injustice to Audiophiles is theLoudspeakers crossover parts , most people don’t realize
on a $10k speaker for example only $2500 goes-into the speakers per pr including
packaging the rest R&D over head and markup
since I have modded every speaker I have owned maggi have a cheap Xover
sad but true . I have had help with Maggie todo rights external Xover
Klipsch has more room and Chinese Xover yellow caps and cement resistors
I use top notch path audio resistors , but mills are verygood or several others,many decent Name brand capacitors out there mid quality like. Clarity ,or Mundorf Evo which I see in $20k speakers ,which imo should’ve betteras well as inductors likeJantzen , name brand connectors also but manygo cheapgoldover brass
which is bright, purecopper Cardas, or WBT next gen, or Furutech ,or ETI are far better . Being in the retail business even in electronics the same 💩 crap applies
not all but most the 4-1 ratio $$ cost in build to markup,
Keep in mind, the term "Mid-Fi" was invented by gear salesmen to yep, up sale customers on more expensive gear. There is no "Mid-Fi".
It’s all "Fi", some is better than others, some worse. It’s up to you and your own personal preferences to decide what trips your trigger but note others might think you are crazy if you sit around listening to a strident sounding BRIGHT speaker and go on and on about hearing the singer take breathes between each phrase or that you can hear that someone in the studio farted.
Is FM radio with its limited dynamic range and frequency response only 50Hz to maybe 15Khz "Hi-Fi"? Some would say yes, others no. See, it is arbitrary.
If you have a great sounding balanced system with great imaging yet it can’t reproduce 95dB of dynamic range is it still "Hi-Fi"?
This is a hobby, not an exclusive golf club. People at all price points can participate in enjoying the music. People acting like snobs is one reason this hobby is dying, particularly salesmen who won’t demo gear to newbies if they don’t come in driving a $100K car.
Keep in mind, the term "Mid-Fi" was invented by gear salesmen to yep, up sale customers on more expensive gear. There is no "Mid-Fi".
It's all "Fi", some is better than others, some worse. It's up to you and your own personal preferences to decide what trips your trigger but note others might think you are crazy if you sit around listening to a strident sounding BRIGHT speaker and go on and on about hearing the singer take breathes between each phrase or that you can hear that someone in the studio farted.
Is FM radio with its limited dynamic range and frequency response only 50Hz to maybe 15Khz "Hi-Fi"? Some would say yes, others no. See, it is arbitrary.
If you have a great sounding balanced system with great imaging yet it can't reproduce 95dB of dynamic range is it still "Hi-Fi"?
This is a hobby, not an exclusive golf club. People at all price points can participate in enjoying the music. People acting like snobs is one reason this hobby is dying, particularly salesmen who won't demo gear to newbies if they don't come in driving a $100K car.
I think it may be easier to quantify “high-end” by price vs high-fidelity, which may be varied by subjective experiences. Experiencing a Decware Zen Triode mated with some single-driver Omegas may not be considered high-end at roughly under $5k total, but for some, would definitely be considered high-fidelity.
The acoustic relation between speakers and room is the main factor in audio experience... The price tag of a dac or of an amplifier is not the main factor... Except for very bad dac and amplifier..
The other exception is comparing cheap speakers to very costly one...
I don’t know and I don’t think it should be based on price. I’d suggest it’s on performance and ultimately that is likely best for the customer/ buyer to define.
I don’t know and I don’t think it should be based on price. I’d suggest it’s on performance and ultimately that is likely best for the customer/ buyer to define.
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.
