Where does HIFI begin? Introducing the high-end to the masses.

[wower]

I'm digging this idea for a thread out of a recent Rega Saturn thread because I think the topic deserves the attention of all head-fi'ers (and the OP is proabably a bit annoyed at the thread jacking). I have been pondering this topic myself as I have searched for a way to bring together the spralling head-fi community.

Where does mid-fi end and high-fi begin?

To get the ball rolling:
I don't like to lean on semantics and thus I feel strongly the defination of hifi should be as inclusive as possible. Thus I offer the the idea that one strays into hifi territory anytime we see mention of sonic characterists (such as transparency, dynamics, efficiency, etc). It's all hi-fi to me: 3000 word sub-$100 DAC reviews to the latest impressions of uber-high-end headphones.

This is a completely open question, so all should feel welcome to share their thoughts regardless of prespective. Where will this thread go? Let's see if we can all have a nice group hug.

[TheMarchingMule]

Well, first you should define what Mid-Fi is.

[wower]

Smilie right back at you. That is for the masses to decide.

[vcoheda]

i think for the most part it is based on brand recognition and although not determinative price as well.

[Icarium]

I think where the exact borders of low/mid/hi lie are a personal preference and a personal decision. However, I think in general we can agree upon the bulk of what is low, mid or hi-fi. And this answer, even though it isn't much of one, is about as good as you are going to get, because it's right ;p And right in this case means fuzzy.

[catscratch]

This will be vague.

Hi-fi to me is where you stop hearing the system and start hearing the individual instruments. It's the point at which overt system characteristics disappear, either because the system is realistic to the point that it has no glaring faults, or because it is so engaging and dynamic that you stop caring about the glaring faults. In the realm of hi-fi, most differences are merely differences in sonic presentation. There is very little ground to objectively consider one hi-fi system to be better than another.

The HE90 is definitely hi-fi; it makes music. The HD600 sounds hi-fi with some music but not with other music. My K340 is sounds very hi-fi with a lot of my music, but more sibilant recordings make the treble rather painful. Other, better balanced K340's are hi-fi with nearly everything. The ES2 is clearly hi-fi; it makes music even out of a lowly mp3 player. No universal-fit IEM is hi-fi; they all have serious colorations that impede the flow of the music, and none have been driving/engaging enough to make me not caring about them, except in the case of the E500 driven by the Hornet. This combination has glaring faults, but it is dynamic enough to make me overlook them.

The vast majority of headphones discussed here on head-fi aren't hi-fi to my ears; they all have their problems in one way or another. I'd consider them mid-fi. They all sound pretty good, but I can still hear the system and not the music. The HD650, SR-404, SR-003, A900, HD595, and the SR-003 are just some of the headphones that I've owned (and still own for the most part) that I would consider mid-fi. In the right system, a lot of them (especially the HD650) have the potential to sound hi-fi, but it takes work to get there; they don't do it by themselves.

Low-fi, to my ears, is anything that doesn't sound good and has glaring problems which mask whatever virtues the system has. Examples are... just about everything, really.

Vague. Yes.

[wower]

Really? Cause I guess what I am trying to say is that we can throw out the words "low-fi" and "mid-fi" (except for completely practical uses of comparison that would lead to confusion without).

[Aevum]

Hi Fi is when your wallet is empty but your ears are full,

and the song in your heart bothers you becuase the instruments arent well defined,

[boomana]

Originally Posted by wower

I'm digging this idea for a thread out of a recent Rega Saturn thread because I think the topic deserves the attention of all head-fi'ers (and the OP is proabably a bit annoyed at the thread jacking). I have been pondering this topic myself as I have searched for a way to bring together the spralling head-fi community.

Where does mid-fi end and high-fi begin?

To get the ball rolling:
I don't like to lean on semantics and thus I feel strongly the defination of hifi should be as inclusive as possible. Thus I offer the the idea that one strays into hifi territory anytime we see mention of sonic characterists (such as transparency, dynamics, efficiency, etc). It's all hi-fi to me: 3000 word sub-$100 DAC reviews to the latest impressions of uber-high-end headphones.

This is a completely open question, so all should feel welcome to share their thoughts regardless of prespective. Where will this thread go? Let's see if we can all have a nice group hug.

It's an interesting question, but I don't understand your reasoning or maybe I'm just missing something. Mention of sonic characteristics, as you say, doesn't necessarily equate to hi-fi or mid-fi anything. People that can use those terms to describe the presence, lack of, and all the qualities within are usually more interested in hi-fi gear, but that's about it as far as I can see. I do understand, from a general view, the point you're trying to make, though. If something is being discussed by people who use that terminology, it's closer to hi-fi than a cheeseburger.

I know and know of serious, deep-pocketed audiophiles who would consider any headphone mid-fi at best. Who gets to determine if that's true? Some consider the Rega Saturn hi-fi. I don't. Some people consider an ipod hi-fi. Most here wouldn't, but again, if you want it to be about the masses, the scales change. Just look at Bose. Ask anybody who doesn't haunt audio mags, sites, and stores for fun what hi-fi is. Pretty sure Bose will be in their answer somewhere, and we can talk about the sonic characteristics all we want. Who is right?

Sticking to headphones, I think it's even more interesting. I own two pair of what most here would consider hi-fi: R10s and K1000s. Their price reflects that. Yet, I also have HD650s and HD600s and think of them as hi-fi, even though you can pick up a new pair for around $300 or less if you're lucky. Some people would call them mid-fi (those who were using the wrong sources and amps ). I think the Denon D5000s are solidly mid-fi though they cost more. Many people have disagreed with me on this one. I'd put the SR-60s in mid-fi category, yet the Proline 2500s in the low-end of the same category. I can list all my reasons for my opinions, but before I go on, since my flamesuit is in the washing machine, all I'm really trying to point out that there are some headphones that most can agree on when talking about high-end vs mid-level vs cheesy phones, but like so much else around here, any such designation for most will be based on preference and level of exposure to better gear.

You want to bring the masses in? Anything over $100 for headphones would probably be considered hi-fi. You want to make age a factor? Any thing over $100 with killer bass. I think the same can be said of amps and sources. Masses: any headphone amp is hi-fi. Sources: etc. and on. Who gets to decide? I personally will let others who know more than I do guide me and then make my own call, and just so you know, outside of the headphones I mentioned, I happily consider all my gear high-end mid-fi.

[wower]

As boomana wisely commented, I failed to put into words that I'm treating hi-fi not as gear but as group of people. As soon as someone starts picking up sutble sonic difference between Grado pads, say, it's hi-fi. I'm still working through this, so forgive me, but for example, if you are posting in this thread (or have ever wondered about the extisential rammifications of hi-fi in general), your gear magically becomes hi-fi equipment! Isn't that great news! One can see how this kind of thinking would bring the hi-fi community together instead of getting bogged down in sematics. It gets everyone listening to the music again, which was my original aim (apart from honestly being intested in others' responses).

[MaloS]

I'll agree with catscratch here and strongly disagree with boomana - the former has a clearcut definition, while the latter does not.

Unfortunately on even very high end systems I can hear issues with hd600/650, I still feel it is doing something to the sound. All of the systems I would classify as hi-fi exhibit a clear effortlessness in delivery, and the presentation seems to be for the most part a matter of the recording.

There are headphones that can exhibit qualities of hi-fi even while standing in the mid-fi ground, but depending on the recording. Top dynamic Senns, Prolines (you hate them too much boomana, comes back to your 'wrong system' issue, my mere e-mu 1616 can make them sound better than Senns can say on a 7-800 dollar systems). Alot of headphones can be placed in mid-fi, and it is a good place to be nevertheless.

I'd say mid-fi begins when we do not have considerable issues with headphones. If you can describe at most 3 problems - it is probably mid-fi. If you can't really say anything about problems in the sound, just about preference of presentation - then we reached hi-fi.

But then also - should we consider the headphone or the system on different fidelity levels? I do not think people have much to do with it, that is more being a connoisseur. But overall systems will always vastly vary in the quality of the delivery, and unless the system exhibits total transparency to the music, it should not be considered hi-fi in my book.

That being said - enjoy your music, stop thinking about the cans xD.

[boomana]

Originally Posted by wower

As boomana wisely commented, I failed to put into words that I'm treating hi-fi not as gear but as group of people. As soon as someone starts picking up sutble sonic difference between Grado pads, say, it's hi-fi. I'm still working through this, so forgive me, but for example, if you are posting in this thread (or have ever wondered about the extisential rammifications of hi-fi in general), your gear magically becomes hi-fi equipment! Isn't that great news! One can see how this kind of thinking would bring the hi-fi community together instead of getting bogged down in sematics. It gets everyone listening to the music again, which was my original aim (apart from honestly being intested in others' responses).

Hate to break up what you're obviously trying to bring together, but I couldn't disagree more. My Darth Beyers will never be hi-fi no matter how much I like them. They don't possess the qualities, that others have stated here and in numerous other threads, that allow them that name. A Go-Vibe is not a hi-fi headphone amp even though it's an okay portable. Koss KSC75s will never be hi-fi even if Wes Phillips owns a pair. The gear does matter if that's what were talking about. We do agree on one thing: listening and enjoying the music is the only thing that really matters. Right now, I'm in bed with Yuin PK1s on. I could care less what class of anything they are or what anyone else thinks of them. They sound good enough so that I forget about them and just enjoy. That's good enough for me.

Originally Posted by MaloS

I'll agree with catscratch here and strongly disagree with boomana - the former has a clearcut definition, while the latter does not.

Exactly. Perhaps I didn't do it well, but I was trying to make the point that leaving such definitions in the hands or...uh...ears of the masses, including some who like to play in that sandbox, can leave messes of subjective sliding scales, depending on who is considered to be "the masses."

Unfortunately on even very high end systems I can hear issues with hd600/650, I still feel it is doing something to the sound. All of the systems I would classify as hi-fi exhibit a clear effortlessness in delivery, and the presentation seems to be for the most part a matter of the recording.

There are headphones that can exhibit qualities of hi-fi even while standing in the mid-fi ground, but depending on the recording. Top dynamic Senns, Prolines (you hate them too much boomana, comes back to your 'wrong system' issue, my mere e-mu 1616 can make them sound better than Senns can say on a 7-800 dollar systems). Alot of headphones can be placed in mid-fi, and it is a good place to be nevertheless.

I'd say mid-fi begins when we do not have considerable issues with headphones. If you can describe at most 3 problems - it is probably mid-fi. If you can't really say anything about problems in the sound, just about preference of presentation - then we reached hi-fi.

But then also - should we consider the headphone or the system on different fidelity levels? I do not think people have much to do with it, that is more being a connoisseur. But overall systems will always vastly vary in the quality of the delivery, and unless the system exhibits total transparency to the music, it should not be considered hi-fi in my book.

I agree, mostly, with your categories, but find your post lends itself more to the point I was trying to make, for if using the exact qualifiers you listed for hi-fi and mid-fi, I include the Senns in hi-fi and the Prolines in mid-fi as there were too many problems with the treble and hi-mids regardless of the recording, but far worse with some.

Your mention of systems and syngery brings up another interesting point. My Exemplar modded Denon as a redbook source is about as high mi-fi as you can get and my Extreme Platinum with a few extras added is in about in the same category. Yet, though my Senns sound as good as I've ever heard them single-ended here, the Prolines didn't (btw, I actually liked them, but, as you mentioned, the glaring problems as I heard them ousted them from hi mid-fi for me). If your e-mu 1616 gives something to the Prolines my gear can't, does that make my gear lesser? If the Prolines sound better in your system, does that make that sound card suddenly better? Visa versa if the Senns were involved?

That being said - enjoy your music, stop thinking about the cans xD.

At the end of all this gabbing about, that's the most sensible statement that may come out of this thread. Touché.

[tourmaline]

In the early days you had mono recordings, when stereo came, they called those system hi-fi. Nowadays it's almost used for anything that is stereo. It has nothing to do with the QUALITY of the product anymore, just a phrase of old times.

Most audio magazines over here don't use the term hi-fi but generally another system;

Reference grade/ high end
upper class
lower class
beginner

[HiWire]

I think people are searching for the definition of high end, not hi-fi (everything above your Best Buy/Circuit City offerings) - to me, high end means a cost-no-object approach to design and production. I'm not looking for high end, since I'll never be able to afford or justify something like an EMM Labs, dCS, or Esoteric product, but I am looking for high quality music reproduction.

The recent forays by consumer-level manufacturers is interesting to me - witness the success of NAD's Master series, Arcam's FMJ line, or Marantz's Reference products. It's not a new idea, but I think that these big companies offer more value for the dollar because of their mass-market manufacturing experience.

High end headphones, to me, are the flagship products of each manufacturer. They may not make sense on $$$ value, but they are the best available. This obviously includes products that are no longer in production, since I haven't heard of anything recently that has unequivocally bested the Orpheus, for example.

[wakeride74]

While tastes will always vary when it comes to the Senn vs. Grado, tubes vs. SS, etc. my personal opinion is that midfi is people recognizing the importance of a good source and need for proper amplification (speakers or headphones). Hifi is entered when people start to grasp the importance of synergy and are able to hear the differences and point them out when it comes to properly matched or mismatched gear.

For instance the Stello DA100 and Grado GS1000's are both what most would consider hifi but put the two together and you get overwhelming bass to the point of ruining what is good about both pieces of gear. I think this is true with many audio components. An untrained ear could probably point out somethins so obvious but the person those ears belong to would not be spending the $$ on that stuff.