@waytoomuchstuff I think you've nailed it.
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
| Post removed |
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.”
|
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. |
Wow @waytoomuchstuff , that’s actually pretty good stuff. |
@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. |
@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.
|
@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? |
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.
|
@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." |
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. |
@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. |
@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. |
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.
|
@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
|
@grislybutter my bad |
@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. |
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!
|
@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.
|
@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.
|
@cd318 +1 for Andrew Robinson more folks ought heed his "recovering audiophile" wisdom |
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. |
@wlutke me too! |
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. |
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 |
@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. |
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.
|
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. |
"The ear hears from a range of 20-20,000HZ, but mid-range is certainly not at the 10,000HZ level.". |
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.
|
@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:
|