@johnweiss , this is open to debate. In branding you have 3 classes, luxury, standard, and budget. I think you have identified the 3 classes in audio that correspond..
Generally these categories differ by SQ and supposedly by price. I think of budget as boom boxes, low quality headphones, speakers made of low quality plastic, etc.
I think of midfi as gear that sounds better than budget and is sometimes found in big box retailers such as receivers, CD players, and the type of speakers that sound good, but not as good as reference class speakers you would find in a store that specializes in audio equipment.
High end gear is made of high quality parts (hopefully), sounds less like a bad recording and more like what the engineer heard in the studio. Sometimes gear is priced accordingly and sometimes budget or midfi gear ends up sounding closer to the high end category. That is a NEW category often referred to as "giant killer". Most members here like "giant killers" when they can find it. See this thread for examples:
|
Obviously there is no clear answer since synergy, exact components and personal preferences mater greatly.
Let me take a stab at the mid-fi vs high-fi transition. I’m thinking $5K / component. So, assuming just digital… high-fi starts around the $5K… so $5K for streamer, $5K for DAC, $5K for Preamp, and $5K for the amp, and say $10K speakers. There are a lot of caveats, they must be well chosen to find the best available, and synergistic with your other components, and are in line with your personal preferences.
The next category would be audiophile components. A real jump in performance… for these I would say is around $10K per component… so, this time let’s do analog, Turntable, Phonostage, preamp, amp and $20K speakers.
I doubt agreement is likely. But just as a general rule of thumb from my personal experience. I have been at this for about fifty years and have slowly worked up the hierarchy. My current system is around $20K / component and $32K speakers.
|
@ghdprentice , do you think it is possible to get the SQ of a system like you described (10K+ per component) from a headphone rig, put together properly??
Budget necessary?
|
As often the case i agree with ghdprentice 's math and logic with respect to what is high end. With each component in that price segment and above you should notice real improvements if you are moving up from. Decent mid fi gear.
The first real Hi Fi piece I really ever owned was the Zesto Leto preamp. That thing blew me away and set the future bar for performance across my system.
|
High end is synonymous with Hi-Fi, but I’d like to think/hope that high fidelity isn’t compartmentalized just to the high end market.
|
FYI- The Law of Diminishing returns in audio gear is a fact:
|
These are just marketing terms, the most egregious being "high end" - puffery for the moneyphiles to brag about. Musical appreciation and enjoyment doesn't require labeling!
|
@ghdprentice : so for you $30K for streamer, DAC, preamp, amp, speakers is the transition from mid-fi to hi-fi? And the next level up is $10K per component? You must be reading too many TAS/Stereophile articles and ads! See my post above!
|
The other thing is the labels change very quickly, a "high end" dac from 5 years ago can often be thrashed by a more recent "midfi dac" from today.
I like the term Thomas uses in this video about high end dacs vs the new affordable dacs that are, "good enough" which sums it up:
|
the diference is not related just to price
but rather design intent and execution
low fi is generally related to companies using inexpensive parts and lacking a dedication to sound quality usually sold based on features/measurements
midfi companys's pursue sound quality over just cost usually uses better parts then low fi
highfi companys'devoted to sound quality over anything else
Dave andTroy
audio intellect NJ
|
that video was laughably bad
a dacs sound quality is much more impacted on the dacs analog stage then the chip set
|
|
@audiotroy , what did you think of the video by Thomas?
|
@audiotroy +1 The backlash against HEA equipment is approaching a comical level. IMO the Youtube audio community has perpetuated this negative attitude. One must realize this is an important form of revenue for many of the Youtubers that push inferior audio products. Another angle is a form of "brainwashing" the masses that very little money is needed to create a "state of the art" audio system. To create a true HEA system takes knowledge/time/flexibility(open mind) and unfortunately a sufficient amount of financial resources are needed.
|
I look at it this way: at what point do I hear a difference in SQ between two products. So there a multiple levels, not just three. I had a $500.00 DAC, and although the $1-3k DACs sounded different, and in some cases better, I was not really impressed until I went a little past $5k for a new DAC. I expect I’d have to go to $10-12k to get a profound difference from there, and so on.
So the jumps are less ‘digital’ and more ‘analog’…just depends on where and when you started the journey.
|
@kota1
Good link.
When someone like Andrew Robinson, who has owned all kinds of high priced gear tells you that in performance level there is little to nothing extra sonically to be gained by going the extra mile (or extra $100,000+) then perhaps we ought to pay him some attention.
Robinson has been there and done it and despite describing himself as a recovering audiophile, he has lived to tell the tale.
No doubt his marriage to the lovely Kristi has been of a great help to him in getting his priorities straightened.
In his own words:
I have three passions: my wife, filmmaking and music.
|
@audiotroy
+ 1 ….. well said, sir! It is not - and never has been - a primary segregation based primarily on an ad hoc variable assertion of arbitrary and highly biased price points.
Rather, It’s all about ascending strata points vis-a-vis the ascending quality of the parts used, then the ascending superior design and actual build assembly quality, and topped off with added attention to the features and like details,
THUS … the sequential audio performance improvements at each strata that is clear and significant at each step.
With it comes the inescapable and progressive matched step-up in price… sure… it’s gonna cost you progressively more , but it is encapsulated best in the the following metaphor:
”… “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” - Warren Buffet.
|
I would enjoy hearing the audio science review crowd responses
|
One area where it is EASY to go from lowfi to hifi on a beer budget is treating your room. Stick high end components in a bad room and they instantly sound like midfi or worse. In a good room, whatever gear you have has the opportunity to perform at its best. So, in order to GET true hifi your room must be acoustically excellent or why bother?
|
@kota1
On headphone systems.
Headphone systems are much less expensive to put together than main speaker systems. In general I fine about 1/10th the cost… obviously with lots of variation. I am not sure where I would make breaks on headphone systems. I should… I spent several years trying to get “magic” into my headphone system. I think, for me it was about $3K / component for audiophile… which to me kicks the bar up to more than great sound… but something that transcends just well executed… sound that is compelling and difficult not to pay attention to.
Actually, I ended up with my current system by starting by upgrading my headphone system to a really high level… so about $5K per component. It was so incredibly good that it put my main system to shame. while it had the limitations of headphones… it is simply stunning.
The performance of my headphone system got me working on my main system. I basically upgraded everything and went for all tubes. Incredibly well worth it… fortunately I was able to afford it.
|
@dayglow : "To create a true HEA system ... a sufficient amount of financial resources are needed." This is more moneyphile spin perpetuated by the TAS/Stereophile editors/reviewers. They have set up a class system of peons/aristocracy where only the rich can afford the best audio gear - similar to the automobile industry. The most costly gear becomes status signifiers, rather like a Porsche compared to a Toyota.
|
@kota1 : thanks for the Thomas Utube video about the iFi DAC! He is correct that today’s design/production can deliver a product at reasonable cost that is practically indistinguishable from so-called "high end" DAC’s! This is good news for the budget- conscious in search of excellent SQ!
|
@jasonbourne52 , I really liked that video too, i made me consider ordering an iFi dac out of curiosity. I have experienced the difference in going from a receiver to separates, huge benefit. I have experienced going from an untreated room with speakers adequately placed to being in a well treated room with speakers at the precise placement per dolby specs, huge upgrade. Power, cables, and source upgrades have been incremental. I know better performance is out there, the sad thing is no matter how much money you spend, it still isn’t a live performance and there is ALWAYS going to be better gear available in the future. Through exchanges on this forum I find many of the people who have achieved what they wanted did it through meticulous attention to every detail of their system, not necessarily an all out assault on high ticket items. The DIY experts here will likely blow away what is available in a lot of stores (see @phusis), but not many people have that same passion to build. Its funny because DIY and "high end" seem like at two ends of the spectrum.
|
There is another channel where the host reviews what I consider to be luxury items which is interesting as he compares a lot of the gear that is priced among the top 20% of the industry. If you watch this video use headphones:
|
“Where does "MidFi" differ from "HiFi" or "LOFI"”
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am…..
|
|
@ghdprentice , that was a really interesting experience how your headphone system raised the bar. When I was considering adding a tube pre to my HT system I took your advice to keep systems that are different separate. You made a great call and all I did was improve the signal going into my processor (iFi SPDIF iPurifier, being fed by a Pangea toslink and Pangea ethernet cable). This was inexpensive, simple, but what it did was raise the performance of my multichannel/stereo listening on that system by reducing jitter and noise.
This is what led me to the headphone question I asked. Black Ice audio is releasing Jim Fosgate designed headphone amp this summer, its tube based, has a dac, and I think THIS is how I get a tube based system. Thanks for posting.
The title of this video is misleading, Jim goes into how he developed his new headphone amp here:
|
Only you know the answer.
|
@ghdprentice , I pulled the trigger on a headphone amp/pre/dac by Sony Signature Series (their "high end" line). I can also use it as a DAC and/or as a preamp connected directly to my active speakers:
|
Let’s looks like fun. I’ll take a shot at it:
Low-Fi:
"Perceived value" driven with emphasis on features and/or convenience. Provides minimal performance with just enough "information" tossed out in the space for listeners to recognize the basic elements of the performance or, in the case of "home theater", deliver decernable dialog -- if you have excellent hearing. Wide distribution enables economies of scale and manufacturing efficiencies making the item competitive with other "like" products. Zero consideration for service/support in that repairing the item would cost more than producing (and, shipping) a replacement. Sonic attributes include: one note bass, "pinched" midrange (fundmentals are anemic), sound coming from 2 channels but not a "stereo presentation" as we understand it. Unable to answer the bell when dynamic passages require it.
Mid-Fi:
Legitimate attempt to provide some level of audio performance, given budget constraints. Often teathered to "brand recognition" where some familiarity of the manufacturer is desired. "Nitch" pieces and obsure brands often do not play well in this space but can be successful if they perform well above their weight class and are good at making themselves visible in the marketplace. Features and convenience are usually strong considerations here in that "mid-fi" users are not programmed (yet) to abandon the "cool stuff" on the front panel or remote control. Some level of service and support exists, often with good-to-excellent communication with needed resources. Audio attributes would include the ability to provide a strongly emotional experience with mimimal listening fatique. Some "warts" in the sonics are acceptible and given a "pass" due to cost of the equipment. Parts and build quality are limiting factors to "affordable" price ranges, while relatively high volume provides good manufacturing efficiencies and access to new (and, often expensive) technology amortized over many units. Good-to-excellent "bang for the buck" is a common attribute in better examples of the "mid-fi" price/performance range. There are rare instances where ’mid-fi" priced gear can be a world beater, and history has demonstrated that this over many decades. Yet, other examples of "mid-fi" priced products, regrettably, have Lo-fi performance (or, worse).
Hi-Fi:
The differentiation between Hi-Fi and "high end" is a subtle, but important one. It has also been said that "high ticket" is neither "Hi-Fi" or "high end" because it could ungloriously fail to satisfy the goals of each.
Hi-fi asserts a loyalty to the original. In those "suspension of disbelief" moments, we are emotionally and intellectually transported to another place -- temporarility suspending our belief that we are engaged with a substitute for that reality -- a mere facsimile, and not the "thing" itself. The "price of admission" can be rather daunting. The level of precision required, robustness of parts, manufacturing inefficiencies, and engineering costs spread over a relatively small number of units can reach the sky pretty rapidly. However, as mentioned above, all the stars CAN line up and a product can be greater than the sum of its (humble) parts.
Reaching the highest plateus of audio performance is often accompanied by a high degree of attention to esthetics, a impressive credibility story attached to uncommon attention to details -- or both. Exceeding the price point of affordablity above mere mortals does provide a level of prestige and exclusivity to the brand. The assumption here, of course, is that many dollars spent will pay sonic dividends and, a wild degree of emotional attachment to the esteemed brand.
Hi-fi is not necessary a "this AND this" proposition but rather a "this OR this" proposition. Performance CAN be the strongest consideration and delivered in full glory with a very strong cost/performance relationship. So, obtaining stellar SQ with a minimalist approach is still "Hi-fi". And, yes, beautiful pieces with stunning great looks can sound spectatular as well. They’re just going to cost (much) more.
Each listener will determine what "exit" they want to get off on. Hi-fi to some may be Mid-fi to others. The term "intelligent ignorance" comes to mind here. Not knowing what you "don’t know" can be a blessing. And, save you a lot of money.
|
"The ear hears from a range of 20-20,000HZ, but mid-range is certainly not at the 10,000HZ level.".
You need to think in terms of octaves, not the full frequency range. 20Hz to 40Hz is an octave, 40Hz to 80Hz is an octave, 80Hz to 160Hz is an octave. 10KHz to 20KHz is one octave.
Regarding the Lo-Fi, Mid-Fi and Hi-Fi terms, @jasonbourne52 got it right. Those were terms not invented by electrical and audio engineers, but by sales people to make sure they could upsale customers and make them feel bad if they bought the cheaper alternative.
They are arbitrary and not related to price much at all. Consider this: Someone listening to a $300 CD boom box might think it is Hi-Fi compared to a "Lo-Fi" $10K turntable playing a vinyl record with snaps, crackles, and pops.
|
@kota1
Cool. Look forward to hearing how this works out for you.
|
seems to me that much of the "high end" world of audio products tries to impart a "luxury" feel and sound. the feel part is attention paid to aesthetics [the way a knob turns, switches flip/sound, heft etc. the audio part seems to be extra attention paid to reducing odd-order harmonic distortion [since the human hearing mechanism uses odd-order harmonics to determine overall volume], resulting in the familiar [to millionaires] sensation of turning up the volume and the sound just getting bigger and bigger, rather than merely louder/brasher. once heard, it is never unheard, it becomes one of those "jeez, how would i ever be able to afford anything like this unless i win big on the lotto?" kind of deals. it renders more plebian audio rather like eating cold audio leftovers rather than a banquet of sound. my experience "experiencing" a golden-eared setup of huge class-A monoblock room heaters powering [barely] a giant room-dominating pair of magnapan tympani III speakers. i have not heard anything to equal that assortment of ace audio.
|
@moonwatcher
Nice post, especially for non musicians like myself.
There never seems to be enough easy to digest information on musical frequencies. Where exactly does bass start, and what's the difference between bass at 60Hz and that at 40Hz?
To make matters worse there's also the dreaded Fletcher-Munson curves.
According to the article linked below:
"Beyond just understanding this curve, it’s necessary to pay homage to the brilliant minds behind this phenomenon; Harvey Fletcher and Milden A. Munson.
In the 1930’s, the two researchers accurately measured, produced, and published a set of curves that showcased differences in the human ear’s sensitivity to loudness in relation to frequency.
The conclusive result of these curves also demonstrated that the human ear is most sensitive to frequencies between 3kHz and 4kHz."
I would have thought it would be a little higher, but there you go. It's amazing to think this work was done almost 100 years ago.
|
@cd318 indeed. This Fletcher-Munson curve has been discussed on here several times. Hence the need (if we are honest) for either an EQ or what used to be termed a "Loudness Button" that would compensate for how the human ear perceives the frequencies below and above that critical 3KHz-4KHz range.
We all know there are budget components, midrange components, high end components, and cost is nearly no object components and manufacturers try to hit those ranges depending on what market they think they are serving.
But there is much overlap between many of these devices, and of course a diminishing return as you go up the food chain from midrange to high end.
If you can get good sound quality with a system costing $15K and you have to spend $30K or more to hear a slight difference in sound, it is up to the individual how much it is worth to them to get that last 5% and whether or not it will ulitmately make them enjoy listening to music more. That's just it. As noted by others, there are two extremes of audiophiles: Ones who appreciate listening to the music and what the artist is conveying sonically that causes an emotional response, and the others who are listening to their equipment and how it is performing, with most falling somewhere between those extremes.
It's like DACs. It seems we have those who are just fine and happy with good quality chip-based sigma-delta DACs and those who think anyone calling themselves an audiophile HAS to have an old school architecture R2R DAC. Well, maybe.
|
I have a totally different take on this. Breaking down these categories by price point is basically another kind of objectivist approach. The High End or whatever you want to call it differentiated itself originally by its focus on sound quality and I'm sticking with that.
High Fi - companies that place primary value on how their equipment sounds
Mid Fi - companies that focus on marketing features, cosmetics, prestige
Low Fi - PA gear, generic soundbars & portable speakers
I'd say pretty much everybody on this forum is philosophically High Fi; just being here is sort of self-selecting. Note this definition allows you to spend over a million or under a thousand, believe solely in measurements or listening or just reading the brochures to choose. We all have this one thing more in common with each other than with the vast majority of people, who are happily Mid or Low Fi
|
it differs in the ears of the beholder ...
|
As others have noted, ignorance is bliss, but once you've heard the good stuff it can't be unheard, so now the bliss is gone. And yet: 4 of every 5 remain perfectly satisfied telling their "smart speakers" to play X. The fifth one becomes the audioholic.
Same thing happens in relation to wine. You give them their first taste of the good stuff -- well-aged grand cru Burgundy, single-vineyard ancient vine Albariño, etc., -- and they can tell it's special, yet they remain perfectly happy with same-day, grocery-store plonk for the rest of their lives. Only one in five is smitten. So it's not torture for all. Those posting here are the ones who got the bug.
|
Interesting thread. I’d like to see what brands everyone thinks should go into each category.
|
Midfi is where I am, Hifi is what I can't afford, Lofi is where I started.
|
|
@ronboco
Interesting thread. I’d like to see what brands everyone thinks should go into each category.
If we’re talking solely about performance then I’d say it’s a question of comparing a manufacturer’s entry products against their top of the range ones - level matched and blindfold on.
When it comes to performance even the modest NAD 3020 was able to hold its own against stuff that costed 30 times+ more.
If we’re talking about price only a few manufacturers can afford to ignore all sections of the market.
Companies like Audio Research, Harbeth, Magico, Wilson etc don’t do budget gear.
On the other hand companies like iFi, Magnepan, Polk, Rega and Q Acoustics, Wharfedale etc have somehow managed to deliver fantastic sounding products for next to nothing.
When it comes to sonics it would appear that price guarantees nothing in the audio world.
|
hi-fi starts at 1 dollar below what the responder spent. Anything just below my system is mid-fi
|
|
@cd318 +1 for Andrew Robinson
more folks ought heed his "recovering audiophile" wisdom
|
@audiotroy - 100% agree that a DACs sound is almost entirely derived from it's analog stage, however, the philosophy of the digital-to-analog conversion does play an important part and the execution of the philosophy is very important.
As far as LowFi | MidFi | HiFi - I feel I land somewhere between Mid and Hi depending on the component. That being said, I have stumbled into a system that now has good synergy and I really like listening to it after years of buying this and that or the next big thing only to be disappointed in the end.
I think someone else commented on this and synergy is the key. You can use older components or LowFi components and end up with pleasing sound that you enjoying listening to as long its it has good synergy. I wish I would have learned this long ago.
|
I really hate the term “midfi” it’s so hard to determine what that is. There’s so many price points for audio gear and levels of performance. Also price is also not commensurate with performance in many cases. In my opinion it’s either hifi, or not, there’s no middle ground.
|
@dinov , reviewer Andrew Robinson put his personal classification based purely on price:
budget: under $1K
midfi- $1K to $3K
hi-end- over $3K
His product of the year for ALL categories in 2022 was the Polk R7 speaker, in the mid fi category. You don’t have to cost the most to be good.
|
When Andrew Robison says, "The delta to get that last 5% improvement costs thousands upon thousands of dollars.."
I would agree in that you could spend tens of thousands of dollars on more expensive components or spend tens of thousands of dollars experimenting with components to close the gap. Either way it's not cheap!
|
Eyes of the beholder. Or ears. Many people would call my stuff hi fi. Probably as many would say mid fi.
Who cares?
|
