HiFi vs MidFi

+1 for @millercarbon , @jjss49 & @mike

as usual @mikelavigne speaks wisely to the heart of the matter

in this case, @millercarbon as well

i agree wholeheartedly with the key points of 'state of mind', and the idea that real hifi can/does exist at modest price points... one just needs the passion, knowledge, expended effort to bring the pieces together 

If the average masses have it heard of it, it’s probably mid-fi. I don’t see it as derogatory....it can have some useful connotations when trying to explain where Denon and Sony fit into the audio world compared to CAT or Krell. However, I clearly view the latter as high-end vs "hi-fi".

beats Pirelli on a Pinto

can it ( any system of ear/brian, reproduction components and room acoustics )  transport you into the illusion w goosebumps ? 

+1 for @mikelavigne @jjss49 millercarbon , @jjss49

"Mid-fi" is meaningless? Just a put down? Give me a break.

The term "mid-fi" has a clear, useful, and non-derogatory meaning. It indicates that a piece of gear or room treatment or combination has pressed beyond the ordinary bad situation (tubby bass, over-bright, echoing, etc.) and achieved some of what audiophiles strive for. But existing accomplishments can be improved, and missing ones can be added. And flaws can be eliminated.

My Adcom 535L and RTP 400 are perfect examples of mid-fi. Decent bass, soundstage, mids, mediocre highs. They are better but still middling/mid-fi: way better than my old Yamaha receiver but leagues behind my current tube gear, R2R, etc. Plus all my room treatments.

Mid fi comprises gear and room yielding an audio experience *on the way* to hi-fi. Could there be an easier concept to grasp and accept?

And, I agree with jjss49 that the notion this can be accomplished for peanuts is delusory. Bless the person who can live in a shack and call it a castle, but...