webbie64
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Posts
- 1,642
- Likes
- 13
I've read threads, both here and elsewhere, that define Mid-fi and Hi-Fi in terms of equipment, cost, perpective ("One person's HiFi is another's MidFi"), etc.
For me I've always thought HiFi is about fidelity. It's about the quality of the sound I hear. It's not about the equipment or the dollars but about the sound.
So, for me, Mid-Fi is where the music is all there but it still sounds like a recording of the music.
It moves to Hi-Fi (for me) when it transcends that sense of clinical reproduction and the level of recorded detail gives me a sense of actually being at the recorded event; what Wikipedia tries to describe as that 'Semblance of realism'. (I know this is vague but it depends on the recording and the details within it - echoes, decay, etc).
What's Mid-Fi and Hi-Fi for you?
For me I've always thought HiFi is about fidelity. It's about the quality of the sound I hear. It's not about the equipment or the dollars but about the sound.
So, for me, Mid-Fi is where the music is all there but it still sounds like a recording of the music.
It moves to Hi-Fi (for me) when it transcends that sense of clinical reproduction and the level of recorded detail gives me a sense of actually being at the recorded event; what Wikipedia tries to describe as that 'Semblance of realism'. (I know this is vague but it depends on the recording and the details within it - echoes, decay, etc).
What's Mid-Fi and Hi-Fi for you?