Mid-Fi, Hi-Fi or.....?

Defining system classification by price tag assimilating quality with price is naive...

I prefer to define it in two level : minimal and maximal threshold acoustic satisfaction...

Acoustics concepts are perfectly definite... Timbre, spatial characteristics if we simplify...

Then we can roughly distinguish a lower design system in a living room , and a high quality design in a dedicated room... we can distinguish system at any price which are not well optimized by adressing the electrical noise floor level the mechanical vibration/resonance problems and the acoustical controls of the speakers/ears/room...

This is not related to price tags but to knowledege...

A system own a relatively natural timbre and the soundfield encompass the listener position with a balanced ratio between the sound sources dimension and the listener envelopment OR NOT AT ALL ...This is the minimal acoustical level of satisfaction, a threshold which can be reach by modest or costlier system OR NOT ...

The maximal level of acoustic satisfaction ask for a dedicated acoustic room and the BACCH filters right now...

Then defending an imprecise and useless classification between high -fi mid-fi and low -fi (and why not chi-fi as some do) grounded in price tags at the end of the day could be an opinion which can be defended anyway for sure as you just did ...

What cannot be defended is insinuating as you did that because we have a motivated acoustic standpoint instead of a high end costlier gear perspective focus we ARE ENVIOUS and jealous of your high end system ...😊

Sorry mate but this is an ad hominem argument ...And a ridiculous one ...

It can easily be reversed in snobism accusation and other stupid claims about you ...I dont play this game... 😁

Because i am not narrow mind enough to use ad hominem arguments, i will answer to your remark by saying that i define satisfaction by ACOUSTIC experience and not by gear price tag , i define it by room controls more than by costlier upgrades of a gear piece...

my claim is that doing so i indicate acoustics as the road to be taken not a race to more and more expanses ...

i Apologize but i feel that i must clarified my perspective...Without ad hominem arguments...

I will add that anybody here appreciated your specific advices because of your gear experiences, me included... I say that to be understood and in a way you will understand that i dont attack you personally......

Classifications like these are often hotly debated because folks that can’t afford upper echelon equipment are prone to deny the categories are valid. They want to think of their purchases as smart, not limited by their financial circumstances. Folks that can afford higher level equipment want to reinforce the classifications as it shows them in a favorable light

@ghdprentice Thanks for the info and makes sense.  Before going to the NAD, my "flagship" receivers have been a Sansui 8080, Sherwood SEL-200, Kenwood KR 7600 among others of the sort.  I do really like them along with the various speakers I have bought including Bozak, ADS, Dynaco, Advent, KLH, KEF, Clement and Solus.  

Now I am moving the NAD and Thiels into a main room to test it all out and see how it sounds.  More fun times ahead!!

Yes. Music / Audio is fun at what ever level you are at. I have had a NAD receiver for over 30 years and gave it to a friend that had a contemporary audio video receiver and it sounded much better… the NAD was about 25 pounds the AVR about four. Definitely better sound and build quality.

Many here would call my integrated midfi....yet, since the day it came out, it’s lived on Stereophile’s Class A list. Rightfully so. So....take this stuff with a grain of salt.

@secretguy  per Stereophile’s 2012 Recommended Components about my NAD:

NAD C 375BEE: $1500
The 150Wpc C 375BEE offers five line-level outputs, two sets of preamp outputs, a front-panel minijack for portable music players, a built-in headphone amp, and an optional phono stage ($199). Like models in NAD’s Masters Series, the C 375BEE uses PowerDrive technology to maximize the dynamic power sent to the speakers. Though its headphone amp and phono stage lacked sparkle and detail, the C 375BEE’s overall sound was tight, dynamic, and fast, with crystalline highs and well-extended bass. “A competition crusher,” concluded Sam. Though he admits the NAD belongs in Class B, he’d choose it over many of the amplifiers in Class A. “So good, for so little money, that few are willing to believe it. Are you, JA?” he asks. (Vol.32 No.10)