Lg1 made a good point. I recall going to various audio stores in CT. There would be the ‘high’ end room having all separate components, exotic brands that were out of my price range. Then there would be one or more mid-fi rooms with NAD, Adcom…. separate components and receivers……. So the dealers certainly had a hand in planting this mindset by segregating brands and price points.
What defines mid-fi versus high-end?
I’m in my mid fifties and I recall 30 years back mid-fi to me fell into the NAD, Adcom, B&K…. For high-end I considered Mac, some of the Counterpoint offerings, Cary…. so forth. I had another post going where I mentioned I acquired an Onkyo home theater receiver that retailed new for $1,100. Yet another agoner responded that it does not rate as mid-fi. We all have our opinions of course. So right or wrong here.
How do you define the parameters of high-end versus mid-if? By money range, by brand…?
- ...
- 76 posts total
Depends on the individual’s ear as well, as everyone has different preferences as well as levels of expertise on how to listen. But if my way were the hifi-way, hifi simply means holographic. Natural and detailed in presentation to the point that it is believable that the musicians are in the room playing for you, and the images are completely vivid and communicate everything they are supposed to for you. Anything less is less than hifi. The most important thing here is that the room and setup have as much to do with the sound as the gear does. For example, I’ve heard high-priced gear that does not sound hifi whatsoever because of poor setup or synergy. Mid-fi to me is gear that is a gateway to hifi sound but is unable to image or resolve to the level of fidelity I describe above. | ||
Exactly....This price tag distinctions are meaningless to a point... Acoustic science know better!
|
- 76 posts total