[wgb113]

How do you define it?  
 
Around here and on some other audio forums it seems to be weighted very heavily by $$ with varying imaginary lines drawn in the sand.  It's more obvious here perhaps than anywhere else due to the quantum leap of top-tier headphones in the past 5 or so years.  Go back about that far and most flagship headphones ran about $300-$500 and very few people had them.  There were exceptions but very few compared to today.  As we all know Beats used celebrity, design and fashion to raise the bar where now many more average Joes wouldn't bat an eye at a $200-$300 pair of headphones to be seen wearing.  And as most of here would admit, they aren't high fidelity in the traditionally accepted definition of the term - accurate, faithful reproduction of the original.
 
We were discussing it in another thread and rather than take it off topic I thought I'd start the discussion here.  Please keep it civil.
 
To me a  pair of AKG K712s are more HiFi than both a similarly price Sennheiser HD650 and a more than twice-the-price Oppo PM-1.  I'd rate the sound of both of the latter as "Mid-Fi" if you will (really don't like that term - seems a bit of a condescending put-down) or entry-level HiFi.  To me the AKGs are more neutral, hence more accurate, hence more faithful to the original - or to put it another way - they color the sound the least.  The tell-tale sign of coloration for me is if obviously different recordings start to sound the same in one way or another.
 
For the record I don't believe that any transducer is perfect, particularly in the real world where environmental factors can reek havoc.  But I think we can all (hopefully) agree that we've experience that goose-bump feeling at some point in this journey where the music we love simply sounds more real and natural than it did before.  I think in 2015 you can get pretty far down that road for a modest investment.  At that point we start to figure out what sort of path we'd like to like to chase down that last 5-10%.  Some prefer a more laid-back sound that makes everything sound pretty good.  That's what type of headphone I feel the HD650 is.  That doesn't make me think of it as a "bad" headphone at all and I can see why so many like it and still prefer it over more modern (and expensive) flagships.  I do feel that in terms of fidelity however that something along the lines of the HD800 is more deserving of that descriptor.  It's honesty and faithfulness is the path I've chosen with my gear after having begun down the other path and realizing it wasn't for me.  Yet it's that level of fidelity that many can't stand it which is the fun of this hobby.  We may disagree on how to get there but at least our end-goal is a common one - a deeper enjoyment in our music.
 
So what are your thoughts?
 
Bill

 

[money4me247]

The term 'high-fidelity' which used to be applied to the $300-$700+ headphone segment when those headphones offered a significant noticeable sonic upgrade from regular consumer entry headphones.
 
for me as I mentioned on the previous thread, I believe the abbreviated term "hi-fi" no longer has any applicable meaning as it covers a wide variety of headphones from the $99 price range to $2,000 price range. Advertisers further complicate the usage of this word by slapping "hi-fi" onto any pair of headphones they like for marketing purposes.
 
I also disagree with the usage of term 'mid-fi' to be used in the sense to describe a pair of headphones as "middle fidelity" or "average sound quality."
 
More commonly, we are just seeing the usage of that term "mid-fi" just to cover headphones that are not "entry-level" or "summit-fi." I believe that makes the most sense as the majority of the good "mid-fi" and "summit-fi" are all 'high-fidelity.' There are even a few 'entry-level' headphones that measure quite well.
 
The 'true' definition of high fidelity relates to the measurable amounts of distortion (FR, THD, IMD, phase distortion, transient responses). However, measurements need to take into account psychoacoustics, the threshold of audibility, subjective ideal headphone target responses, and equal-loudness contours that all influence how we individually perceive sonic differences. Therefore, I think that there are some aspects of headphone performance that can be measured and easily agreed upon what measurements equal 'better performance.' However, other aspects such as frequency response (which is a huge determinant of fidelity) is subject to individual tastes. It doesn't make sense to have "high fidelity" defined as a word that has a different definition for each individual listener. I really think that the terms: "entry-fi," "mid-fi," and "summit-fi" are more useful as objective describers of how the product is targeted within the overall market the realization that many products from each of those categories can be "high fidelity" or not. There is not really a strong correlation between price and sound quality.
 
edit: I personally endorse the usage of terms like "entry-fi," "mid-fi," and "summit-fi" just to differentiate pricing categories and target audiences. I think it is a bit silly to use the term 'hi-fi' or 'mid-fi' for sound quality. There are a lot more descriptive words that can be used to better convey exactly what you are trying to say.

 

[DrKC]

  How do you define it?
 
Around here and on some other audio forums it seems to be weighted very heavily by $$ with varying imaginary lines drawn in the sand.  It's more obvious here perhaps than anywhere else due to the quantum leap of top-tier headphones in the past 5 or so years.  Go back about that far and most flagship headphones ran about $300-$500 and very few people had them.  There were exceptions but very few compared to today.  As we all know Beats used celebrity, design and fashion to raise the bar where now many more average Joes wouldn't bat an eye at a $200-$300 pair of headphones to be seen wearing.  And as most of here would admit, they aren't high fidelity in the traditionally accepted definition of the term - accurate, faithful reproduction of the original.
 
We were discussing it in another thread and rather than take it off topic I thought I'd start the discussion here.  Please keep it civil.
 
To me a  pair of AKG K712s are more HiFi than both a similarly price Sennheiser HD650 and a more than twice-the-price Oppo PM-1.  I'd rate the sound of both of the latter as "Mid-Fi" if you will (really don't like that term - seems a bit of a condescending put-down) or entry-level HiFi.  To me the AKGs are more neutral, hence more accurate, hence more faithful to the original - or to put it another way - they color the sound the least.  The tell-tale sign of coloration for me is if obviously different recordings start to sound the same in one way or another.
 
For the record I don't believe that any transducer is perfect, particularly in the real world where environmental factors can reek havoc.  But I think we can all (hopefully) agree that we've experience that goose-bump feeling at some point in this journey where the music we love simply sounds more real and natural than it did before.  I think in 2015 you can get pretty far down that road for a modest investment.  At that point we start to figure out what sort of path we'd like to like to chase down that last 5-10%.  Some prefer a more laid-back sound that makes everything sound pretty good.  That's what type of headphone I feel the HD650 is.  That doesn't make me think of it as a "bad" headphone at all and I can see why so many like it and still prefer it over more modern (and expensive) flagships.  I do feel that in terms of fidelity however that something along the lines of the HD800 is more deserving of that descriptor.  It's honesty and faithfulness is the path I've chosen with my gear after having begun down the other path and realizing it wasn't for me.  Yet it's that level of fidelity that many can't stand it which is the fun of this hobby.  We may disagree on how to get there but at least our end-goal is a common one - a deeper enjoyment in our music.
 
So what are your thoughts?
 
Bill

 
The original term "HiFi" was coined by manufacturers over 60 years ago to address the emerging home audio market after WW2.  Back then good distortion figures were in the 5% to 10% range and frequency response over 10kHz was considered excellent.
We are so far beyond that now that I think trying to apply it, especially to headphones, is somewhat of a lost cause.
 
While we consistently dump on Beats here, these phones represent hifi to a large section of people.  They listen to EDM at the clubs and via streaming and those Beats do a fine job for them when listening with headphones.  There's no reason for them not to consider those hifi in their particular circumstance.  It's pointless to try and impress our sense of quality sound with other music.
 
You championed AKG headphones.  I don't care for them.  I've listened to several different models extensively and don't much care for their particular sound profile.  That's my opinion and you have yours.  I have an older pair of Senn HD580s that I think sound wonderful.  I have a couple of pairs of planar phones that sound very good, but different than the 580s.
 
The idea that, beyond price points, one person can objectively assign hifi status to a group of headphones, is somewhat ludicrous.  Two people listening to the exact same pair of headphones, listening to the same music will likely have different impressions. It's unlikely their heads are the same size and their aural canals have the same structure.  These are factors that can't be taken out of the equation.
 
My main stereo system is my hifi reference for headphones.  When I listen to headphones, I have expectations.  Headphones that get close to meeting them are hifi to me.  No single pair that I have has fully met those expectations.  I don't really expect them to either.  I have tower speakers with 10 inch woofers biamped at 200wpc.  I really don't want that spl piped directly into my ears anyway.
 
Just my thoughts on it.

 

[wgb113]

All good points, what got me on the topic in another thread was the comment that echoed a strange attitude I notice here more than elsewhere where a pair of $700 headphones were for those that were budget conscious. It seems that around here today's "summit-fi" is tomorrow's mid-fi, or if a particular manufacturer hasn't produced a pair of $1k+ cans they're not capable of high fidelity reproduction in any way. I disagree with that sentiment and find it strange is all.

Preferences are prevalent everywhere. I'm drinking an imperial double IPA that I got in a beer trade. It'd usually send me running for some milk stout aged in rum barrels but I'm open-minded enough to give it a go. Often times I'm disappointed at the degree of bitterness but this one is really, REALLY good in my opinion.

I agree with you on the stereo being the reference, it is for me as well. My expectations of headphones like you is to get as close as I can to that sound even though I know it never will. I think I'm close though, and where the cans fall short they excel in other ways.

Bill

 

[bigshot]

"High Fidelity" originally meant a "full frequency response recording" (FFRR) specifically the range of typical human hearing. Today, just about everything halfway decent is "high fidelity". Now audiophile folks are trying to redefine the term to include frequencies we can't hear.
 
By the way, you are in Sound Science... for us expectations about what quality is "good enough" have absolutely nothing to do with price. We judge by measurements here.

 

[nanaholic]

   
They listen to EDM at the clubs and via streaming and those Beats do a fine job for them when listening with headphones. 

 
I just like to point out that with today's technology, "streaming" shouldn't be equated to mean "low quality" and be used as some sort of dirty word like how some throws around the word "mp3" to mean low quality when it is not.

 

[RRod]

If we consider the performer as the start and the listener as the end of the HiFi chain, then importance goes from the outside in:
perfomer > venue > mics > pre-amps > adc > sample/bit format < dac < amp < speakers < listening room < listener
 
That's because the outer elements are and have been the hardest things to get right. This is not to say that DACs and PCM specifications aren't important, of course they are. A 4-bit/22ksample music track will just not sound great. But we KNOW how to fix that, just as we know how to make transparent amps and DACs. Getting a living room set up to have anywhere near decent frequency response is a much bigger bear to tackle, which is why many audiophiles keep grappling with DAC monkeys.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Always been a fan of hi infidelity myself.



se

 

[bigshot]

  If we consider the performer as the start and the listener as the end of the HiFi chain, then importance goes from the outside in:
perfomer > venue > mics > pre-amps > adc > sample/bit format < dac < amp < speakers < listening room < listener

 
Like

 

[DrKC]

All good points, what got me on the topic in another thread was the comment that echoed a strange attitude I notice here more than elsewhere where a pair of $700 headphones were for those that were budget conscious. It seems that around here today's "summit-fi" is tomorrow's mid-fi, or if a particular manufacturer hasn't produced a pair of $1k+ cans they're not capable of high fidelity reproduction in any way. I disagree with that sentiment and find it strange is all.

Preferences are prevalent everywhere. I'm drinking an imperial double IPA that I got in a beer trade. It'd usually send me running for some milk stout aged in rum barrels but I'm open-minded enough to give it a go. Often times I'm disappointed at the degree of bitterness but this one is really, REALLY good in my opinion.

I agree with you on the stereo being the reference, it is for me as well. My expectations of headphones like you is to get as close as I can to that sound even though I know it never will. I think I'm close though, and where the cans fall short they excel in other ways.

Bill

 
>I agree that the current climate of escalation seems to constantly redefine what's hifi and what's not.  When I used to keep up with computer stuff years ago, the video card wars were much the same.  Todays smoking hot 3D card would be next years card that was only good enough for web surfing and word processing.  It seems to be driven by what the market will bear.  Not that the continued innovation and improvement is a bad thing, it's just frustrating trying to hit a moving target.
 

  "High Fidelity" originally meant a "full frequency response recording" (FFRR) specifically the range of typical human hearing. Today, just about everything halfway decent is "high fidelity". Now audiophile folks are trying to redefine the term to include frequencies we can't hear.
 
By the way, you are in Sound Science... for us expectations about what quality is "good enough" have absolutely nothing to do with price. We judge by measurements here.

>One of the things (the most important in my opinion) that gets lost in discussions is the quality of the recording and mastering of an album (if I can use that term).  The current state of CDs and remastered vintage recordings do leave a lot to be desired.  As far as measurements go, I don't disagree in terms of initial evaluation, but unfortunately headphones don't fit neatly in that bin.  Look at some of what Tyl goes through to determine frequency response.  Unlike speakers and most other gear, variabilities associated with the listener can't be ignored.
 

   
I just like to point out that with today's technology, "streaming" shouldn't be equated to mean "low quality" and be used as some sort of dirty word like how some throws around the word "mp3" to mean low quality when it is not.
 
>And that's why I never said that it was low quality, only that it represented today's view among a large cross section of folks who use that as a baseline.  How it sounds to someone is a personal choice and certainly not one that I would argue about.
 
 
It would be nice if everything could be reduced to a specific set of measurements.  After being a headphone listener for 20 years and having listened to at least 100 pairs of headphones and dozens of dedicated amps, what constitutes a true HiFi experience is not something that is easily defined.
 
Cheers
 

 

[Ruben123]

Today, HiFi is the opposite of what you say. HiFi is not gone from $300 to $1000. The definition is gone. I will explain why.
I listened today to my $3,30 (!) Awei Q9. Quite stunning for the price. Really check them out. Otherwise give them to some friends.
 
Right now there are quite some cheap IEMs (Im most aware of them) compared to much more expensive ones. For instance, what I know, some KZ, TTPOD T1E, MP8320, Soundsoul S018 etc.
 
Some of them, maybe a bit more expensive (Havi B3 as far as I know, $60), are compared to IEMs costing over $200. So that $60 is now as HiFi as the $200 costing (Sennheiser)? Nothing to do with price, just a label. HiFi is now available at $60, if you want to believe in it. Same as with HD and digital cameras. 15 years ago only the most expensive ones had HD quality (stunning!!), nowadays even mobile phones offer higher pixel counts than just HD. Is every camera sold as shooting HD quality photos? No! Same to HiFi.
 
15 years ago you were playing your cassettes in a Walkman with some earbuds. Now you do have some MUCH better gear than back then, which couldve been your main home gear SQ wise. Quality has gone forward quite a lot. Prices have been gone down. HiFi is just a loose marketing word now.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

HiFi is just a loose marketing word now.

HiFi as ALWAYS been just a loose marketing word. The quality of the products may get better over time but the marketing always stays the same, i.e. loaded with lots and lots of pure BS.

 

[Roly1650]

HiFi as ALWAYS been just a loose marketing word. The quality of the products may get better over time but the marketing always stays the same, i.e. loaded with lots and lots of pure BS.

The new wrinkle is that now the bs includes the delivery format, (software), as well as the hardware. I can see the newest formats including some form of DRM, the recording industries dream of selling the same recording in different formats over and over because they're copy protected. Watch out for a big push to MQA and all the bs attached to that, the previous attempt at copy protection, DSD/SACD failed, but this may not.

 

[dvw]

  Today, HiFi is the opposite of what you say. HiFi is not gone from $300 to $1000. The definition is gone. I will explain why.
I listened today to my $3,30 (!) Awei Q9. Quite stunning for the price. Really check them out. Otherwise give them to some friends.
 
Right now there are quite some cheap IEMs (Im most aware of them) compared to much more expensive ones. For instance, what I know, some KZ, TTPOD T1E, MP8320, Soundsoul S018 etc.
 
Some of them, maybe a bit more expensive (Havi B3 as far as I know, $60), are compared to IEMs costing over $200. So that $60 is now as HiFi as the $200 costing (Sennheiser)? Nothing to do with price, just a label. HiFi is now available at $60, if you want to believe in it. Same as with HD and digital cameras. 15 years ago only the most expensive ones had HD quality (stunning!!), nowadays even mobile phones offer higher pixel counts than just HD. Is every camera sold as shooting HD quality photos? No! Same to HiFi.
 
15 years ago you were playing your cassettes in a Walkman with some earbuds. Now you do have some MUCH better gear than back then, which couldve been your main home gear SQ wise. Quality has gone forward quite a lot. Prices have been gone down. HiFi is just a loose marketing word now.

 
 How true. There are only a handful of manufacturers making the headphones and the driver. The folks that make the Sennheiser and the AKG are probably also making the Beats and the other generic brand. One guy I know that makes a very high end brand uses the same driver and same enclosure design and market as his own brand at 1/3 the price has no taker. It was regraded as an inferior product. It is really all about marketing. The difference in the sound is selected by the marketing folks. The masses want a V shape sound so you have so many phones that have a V-shape. I was at the Sennheiser booth in CES. All demo have the bass and treble turned all the way up.
 
The most expensive part of manufacturing of a Beat phone is the painting. It go through several layers. I have been to the factory. It is as elaborate as painting a car.
 
My take on HiFi vs MidFi is really an argument on ego. My phone is $1000 and yours is not so mine must be better. The strange thing is headphone is the ONLY electronic accessory goes up in price every year. Why? What is the improvement that cost more? Maybe, if there is no exponential price increase, the critic will regard it does not have exponential improvement. The real improvement is because of consolidation of manufacturing in China. We actually have much higher quality now at "LoFi".

 

[money4me247]

 
 How true. There are only a handful of manufacturers making the headphones and the driver. The folks that make the Sennheiser and the AKG are probably also making the Beats and the other generic brand. One guy I know that makes a very high end brand uses the same driver and same enclosure design and market as his own brand at 1/3 the price has no taker. It was regraded as an inferior product. It is really all about marketing. The difference in the sound is selected by the marketing folks. The masses want a V shape sound so you have so many phones that have a V-shape. I was at the Sennheiser booth in CES. All demo have the bass and treble turned all the way up.
 
The most expensive part of manufacturing of a Beat phone is the painting. It go through several layers. I have been to the factory. It is as elaborate as painting a car.
 
My take on HiFi vs MidFi is really an argument on ego. My phone is $1000 and yours is not so mine must be better. The strange thing is headphone is the ONLY electronic accessory goes up in price every year. Why? What is the improvement that cost more? Maybe, if there is no exponential price increase, the critic will regard it does not have exponential improvement. The real improvement is because of consolidation of manufacturing in China. We actually have much higher quality now at "LoFi".

This! The demand in the headphone market is stronger than ever (thanks to beats/bose), so prices are moving up to reflect that demand. Really very few real innovations in this market segment (unlike other electronics: tablets/smart phones/laptops/computers, where you can see at least a tangible upgrade with each new generation of products).