@kota1 I understand the question and concept and I wasn’t criticizing in any way, just my opinion that I think it’s either hifi or it’s not. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Where does "MidFi" differ from "HiFi" or "LOFI"?
Given the vast range of product and costs thereof in this industry, I'm curious where the "break points" are between levels of fidelity? Equipment can range from $100's to $100,000s+, so where is "MIDFI" vs. "HIFI"?
The ear hears from a range of 20-20,000HZ, but mid-range is certainly not at the 10,000HZ level.
just curious what you all think.
78 responses Add your response
@grislybutter my bad |
@johnweiss This is an interesting question indeed. That's what I have found so far (quotations) "The abbreviation hifi stands for High Fidelity, describing in a narrower sense, a normed standard of quality for audio playback devices. The term "hi-fi" — or "high fidelity" — dates back to the 1950s when it was used to describe audio equipment that was able to faithfully reproduce music." "What counts as "hi-fi" today? It's not so easy to say." For myself, I do like some of the comments found in the above link, particularly this: "The bottom line [is] we’re all fortunate to have ways to enjoy music at many different levels – there’s something for everyone. The answer is really in 'the ear of the beholder." Trust your ears (as other members of this forum often advise). Very nice, isn't it? Happy holidays, eagledriver
|
I have two systems, both equally musically involving. My best friend does as well. My first system is lower high end, in a very expensive custom built listening room. My second system cost $5,000, almost all used equipment and is borderline lower high end and upper mid-fi. My friend's system cost about $15,000 and is upper mid-fi or lower high end. These are systems with no defects, just differences of presentation capabilities. Full range, highly dynamic, colorful with great body like real vocalists and instrumentalists. My first system has two issues which prevent it from being more enjoyable. The speakers don't permit more than 1.5 seating for the sweet spot/optimal imaging. My intended future speakers (Von Schweikert probable) through an enormously wide seating capability. The second issue is 3D depth. The third issue is imaging (my speakers image well enough but the size and locations are just not accurate to the recording as VS speakers). As to DACs, I've tried inexpensive and expensive ($9,000) DACs. My friend redesigned a Benchmark HDR1 as you can see in my equipment profile. He replaced the analog board. That made a significant difference as the analog board does as noted by several prior posters. The $5K DAC was sweet as could be with frequency extreme and resolution limitations. The $10K DAC had it all but lacked body. Everything sounded lean, which some audiophiles prefer, despite having ample deep bass. I tried over 15 transports, no luck. Also, those two expensive DACs had depth limitations which my current DAC does not. Price for equipment is not determinative of quality. After hearing over 500+ systems, I've heard too many bad expensive systems and quite enjoyable mid-fi systems. However, it is my belief that quality used audio gear can provide an audiophile with highly discounted excellent, enjoyable sound. Low-fi systems (under $1K) just have too many limitations. The problem in addition to the room is the synergy of equipment. This is a difficult and trial and error problem which can be costly (as were my failed DACs and transports). I've found that if I hear enjoyable systems which use the same equipment such as a cartridge or a speaker, it is probable that if it fit into my system, it would sound just as enjoyable.
|
@kota1 Right, for me, for all my audiophile friends that system is inadequate. We listen to LPs and CDs, so no way can an analog system of low-fi cost achieve great sound with the SVS system included in the $1K. Used CD players like a Kyocera 310 or 410 can be purchased and upgraded caps and belts for a reasonable price. That’s pushing it to get it to a $1K system. Streaming will just not get me going with the SVS system generally (many observers find that only 15% of streamed music sounds as equally as good as well mastered CD or LPs). Sure, I have Audioengine computer speakers and they sound very good but are not fulfilling especially on rock and symphonic music. Plus, they need a computer. |
@fleschler , take $1000 budget (low-fi) and try and replicate an active system like that, going old school, one component at a time. Inadequate at MSRP, yes. You take an active system like SVS, Paradigm PW, etc. and you catapult right into "adequate" (office, bedroom, second system) mid-fi performance. You are an expert with high audio IQ and a custom built room, that is inadequate for you, yes. But to buy one component, meticulously engineered, plug and play, lowfi price, solid mid-fi performance = adequate for most people IMO. |
Adequate for most people include some of my professional vocalists friends (older) who are old school and own a Marantz or Yamaha receiver from the 1970s, Advent/Warefdale/JBL speakers, ordinary (cheap) cabling, a Harmon Kardon or Technics turntable and 1980s or 1990s common name brand CD player. Sounds good, not audiophile, but satisfying to them. That group can be purchased just over $1K. |
@secretguy +1 and as Andrew Robinson loves to say, and it's again worth heeding him: "The only person who has to like the sound of your system is you." |
MidFi is almost a derogatory term relative to HiFi being an elitist term. There’s obviously never going to be a consensus on a definition. I don’t think price should be the primary factor. Is budget minded gear automatically excluded from being HiFi? Can too many features exclude a product from being HiFi? My system is absolutely HiFi if judged by any normal person, but is nowhere near the upper echelons within the HiFi community. Examples: I think my Pathos Classic One Mkiii qualifies as HiFi. It is a basic integrated amplifier with separate preamp and power amps within a single chassis. I think my Denafrips Ares II DAC may be borderline MidFi because of its price point, but is only a DAC and does not include extras like headphone amplifiers and such. I think my Focal 836v speakers may be borderline MidFi because they are not hand made. They were the top model in the “production line” products. At the risk of offending some, maybe HiFi starts when you start to pay attention to things like cables because they make a meaningful difference.
|
@mceljo i am very confused about what you wrote "I don’t think price should be the primary factor" and then: "may be borderline MidFi because of its price point" so which one is it? "may be borderline MidFi because they are not hand made" how on Earth is HANDMADE a requirement? |
@grislybutter - A confusing post for a confusing topic I guess. I don’t know that I can clarify, but will try to add context. I don’t personally think that a specific price point is a fair way to define what is MidFi vs. HiFi, but it’s always going to part of the discussion. My DAC is the entry model for Denafrips and with retail price around $1,000 US would be disqualified from being HiFi based on these factors. My Focal speakers are the top of the assembly line products, but with a retail price around $3,000 when the company has a flagship speaker that retailed for $180,000 it seems like my speakers are on the entry level of the spectrum. As is all things audiophile, it’s all relative. I don’t know anyone personally with a better system than mine, but it’s not hard to find single cables that retail for more than my entire system. I think HiFi should be defined more by intent than price point, but there’s always a point where that perspective loses its validity.
|
@grislybutter yes, Robinson's been following the evolution of the soundbar tech. Soundbars make a lot of sense for a lot of people, and the best ones perform very well indeed for the task at hand, as they are designed specifically for that task... with the bonus of playing music well enough for "most people" too. Myself, I'm using my Marantz Ruby amp and Klipsch Heresy IV speakers for audio to my video, and it works nicely for that but really it's my music system and honestly I could imagine a properly designed soundbar might beat it for both dialogue clarity and height effects. However, if my significant other moves in, then a soundbar would make the most sense because he wouldn't want to navigate my hi-fi gear, would rather have a "turn on the TV and watch some Netflix with the bonus of upgraded sound" situation, so I'd probably get something like a Sonos Arc. It's unlikely he'd care about true surround sound, and I don't either, and the Arc will give excellent sound for the task at hand, arguably better in some important respects than my Ruby/Heresy. The Arc has modes like dialogue enhance and night viewing, both of which I can imagine would be very useful, based on my experience with both full surround and with two-channel through my amp. I'd guess at the very least, the Arc will have more clear dialogue than my current stereo setup, for movies and TV. The Arc is just one example, as soundbar tech based on psycho-acoustics is rapidly evolving, and Robinson is right there in the mix and reporting his findings. |
Wow @waytoomuchstuff , that’s actually pretty good stuff. |
Hi-Fi: High fidelity. Close to the original recording. A neutral or linear presenation that is free from (most) colorations. Nearly a mirror image of the music, but not exactly. You can hear fine details with ease and pick them apart easily. Mid-Fi: Mid-fidelity: Like Hi-Fi but with more pronouced colorations such as treble sparkle, midrange forwardness, and low-bass rumble etc. Rather tasteful colorations that can be easier on the ears; while still providing adequate detail retrieval. Low-Fi: Low fidelity: An abundance of colorations that detract from the efforts of live sound or well recorded music. Detail retrieval is not found here. Overall, a poor replication of the original that cannot compete with the above at all. |
Audio is a hobby like many others it has tiers like beginner, novice, advanced, expert and master. Think of it like flying. Piloting an airplane is like a live concert but many hobbyist enjoy piloting R/C aircraft. It is a much more affordable and a safer way to pilot an aircraft and affords much more opportunities for flying. The most basic in this hobby is a simple aircraft with styrofoam wings, very limited power and capabilities but can range to slightly larger aircraft that can carry a small camera. This tier can range from $5 to about $1000, weigh an oz to a pound and require an increasing level of skill to operate but generally it is a self taught skill. Larger aircraft, either self built or mass produced come with more complex controls, virtual cockpits with more capability and range. Piloting skill levels are much more advanced to handle these heavier craft as well as require the hobbyist to have a good understanding of aerodynamics, engine/motor technology, radio technology and mechanical design. Thousands of dollars are spent at this level of the hobby. And then in the upper range of the hobby are the elite drones that have some level of AI. Capability to fly under almost all conditions with hundreds of miles of range and carry significant payloads. These range in cost from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars with significant R&D budgets. I think that parallels well with audio. Don’t forget that in spite of the criticism about the cost of hi end hifi a lot of manufacturers spend R&D money to develop new products. Since Audio is such a subjective hobby, the product developers must try to control the environment as much as possible with repeated listening tests. But once that product leaves the factory it is subjected to wide variation of environments in people’s homes as well as a nearly infinite combination of interacting complementary components. Combine that with subjective listeners with varying abilities and experience and the final experience and opinions can easily range from “hate it” to “love it” to “snake oil”. If you think about it you can see why it ends up taking hundreds of thousands of people to make a computer operating system. When it comes to audio, like any other hobby or industry, performance correlates to cost. It has to because the materials used for higher performance generally cost more. Higher performance generally takes more effort to achieve which means more resources involved. As the costs go higher the market becomes smaller. A smaller market reduces the economies of scale. Perceived value decreases as the price/performance ratio decreases. A $200 quartz watch looks good at a glance and keeps much better time than a hand made $100,000 mechanical watch. But the mechanical watch provides a level of pleasure and feel to the wearer that cannot be matched by the less expensive watch. Most people wouldn’t know the difference. Audio is like that. Most people can hear our systems, our special love of labor and sacrifice, our most grand of sand castles on the beach and think, “meh. I like the bass in my car radio better.”
|
@waytoomuchstuff I think you've nailed it. |
| Post removed |