What defines mid-fi versus high-end?

The High-end is stuff that costs just a bit more than I want to spend.

Isn’t hi-fi simply short for high fidelity?

If so, then what is mid-fi?

Once that is sorted out, and should there be some meaningful discussion about mid-fi versus high end that is agreeable, then what about a discussion about hi-fi versus high end?

Failing any of that, what is the logical conclusion?

Here ya go!

In the bad old days when someone used the term “mid-fi” audiophiles knew exactly what it meant – a product that reproduced music with limited fidelity, designed to be sold a particular price-point to less discriminating customers. A plastic Yorx boombox with built-in cassette and CD player would be a prime example.

The ladder: low fi, mid fi, hi fi, high end.

Mostly by price and not necessarily by brand.

Audiophile quality from hi fi and up.

a product that reproduced music with limited fidelity,

{I’m deliberately going to ignore the remainder of the quote for now to stay focused}

That’s a pretty good general definition, appreciating exactly what high fidelity means - the reproduction of what is on the medium (eg, a CD) with inaudible noise and uncolored by non-linear distortion, and a flat frequency response in the human hearing range (paraphrased from Wiki).

On this basis, I’m gunna be presumptuous and suggest that high end can then be mid-fi or it may be hi-fi.

Because high end (as I understand the term from people like Robert Harley and others) often does not conform anywhere close to that definition of high fidelity for reasons, but rather can often have limited fidelity.

I’ll leave a discussion of brands and money to those with abundant experience with either or both of those two virtues..and the remainder of the quote which I am not qualified to address without speculating.