What Is An Audiophile?

[lovinthehd]

It's nice to be able to dance on both sides of the aisle. I came from years of tweaking sub-standard equipment to just get past it's inherent, unavoidable distortion, and then to mid-fi, which ended up sort of being the best of trouble free music listening. Enough power, with reasonably low audible distortion.

Mid-fi, taught us to buy enough headroom and learn our way around tone controls/EQ. It ends up working on the audiophile side of things when you don't feel like fiddling with stuff, either. Is also where I had most of my fun with music. I end up slumming there, more often than not.

I can post a pic of budget JBL speakers and tell by the likes, who my people are.

Mid fi is a stupid term, is it "middle fidelity" and compared to what? Is it just lower priced than some doofus' idea of "hi-fi"? More for denigrating lower priced gear IMO.

 

[MrBoat]

Mid fi is a stupid term, is it "middle fidelity" and compared to what? Is it just lower priced than some doofus' idea of "hi-fi"? More for denigrating lower priced gear IMO.

It is a term that I learned from audiophiles who didn't like the furniture store grade stuff from the '80s. I thought it was hi-fi enough back then. Wasn't very complicated.

Either way, don't let it trigger you. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[CMG_ADL]

I like listening to music.

I like quality hardware that brings music to life.

Is that what an audiophile is?

Some recordings though just doesn't sound good no matter what hardware you play it on.

For example, Soundgarden - Fell On Black Days just sounds lacklustre no matter which gear I play it on.

 

[Kingnoob]

Mid fi is a stupid term, is it "middle fidelity" and compared to what? Is it just lower priced than some doofus' idea of "hi-fi"? More for denigrating lower priced gear IMO.

I’ve never seen any audio equipment sold as mid fi , but what the heck And we’re did this term come from ???my cheapos shelf system speakers are considered hifi still the ones I use in my basement . And I can’t imagine anything lower end than those ….

 

[MrBoat]

I’ve never seen any audio equipment sold as mid fi , but what the heck And we’re did this term come from ???my cheapos shelf system speakers are considered hifi still the ones I use in my basement . And I can’t imagine anything lower end than those ….

"Mid-fi" is a term I heard here on AH, as well as other forums around the web. I thought the rack (Pioneer, Fisher, Marantz etc.) systems I bought in the '70s and '80s were hi-fi, at least compared to the Realistic, RCA, Phillips type stuff my parents bought. I was informed that what I had was actually "mid-fi."

As it turns out, those systems were as capable as the mainstream music I pumped thru them for 2 decades or more, and without much in the way of fuss. The Japanese had essentially nailed the sound quality of the most popular music and residential architecture of the time with these systems at a relatively fair price.

It's just a simple way of explaining consumer grade equipment. I had much more fun listening to those systems back then and it attracted a rather large social participation as well, compared to now.

I didn't make it up. It was audiophiles that pointed this out to me and more than once around the net.

A quick google search finds this: "Low fidelity – low cost, rough and quick to build. Medium fidelity – slightly more detailed, still rough but closer to the solution. High fidelity – much closer to final, very detailed and much more time-consuming."

 

[3db]

The topic the OP posted, Analog verses Digital, Cables & Interconnects are one of these "endless loops" topics that keep popping up routinely.

 

[Kingnoob]

The topic the OP posted, Analog verses Digital, Cables & Interconnects are one of these "endless loops" topics that keep popping up routinely.

Lol funny the cable premium vs regular bug is strong in this one lol yoda …

 

[Speedy-Sprocket]

I crafted this just yesterday...

 

[lovinthehd]

"Mid-fi" is a term I heard here on AH, as well as other forums around the web. I thought the rack (Pioneer, Fisher, Marantz etc.) systems I bought in the '70s and '80s were hi-fi, at least compared to the Realistic, RCA, Phillips type stuff my parents bought. I was informed that what I had was actually "mid-fi."

As it turns out, those systems were as capable as the mainstream music I pumped thru them for 2 decades or more, and without much in the way of fuss. The Japanese had essentially nailed the sound quality of the most popular music and residential architecture of the time with these systems at a relatively fair price.

It's just a simple way of explaining consumer grade equipment. I had much more fun listening to those systems back then and it attracted a rather large social participation as well, compared to now.

I didn't make it up. It was audiophiles that pointed this out to me and more than once around the net.

A quick google search finds this: "Low fidelity – low cost, rough and quick to build. Medium fidelity – slightly more detailed, still rough but closer to the solution. High fidelity – much closer to final, very detailed and much more time-consuming."

Just a snobby audiophile type magazine word...the gear is still high fidelity....like your old stuff. Just not expensive enough for some....

 

[MrBoat]

Just a snobby audiophile type magazine word...the gear is still high fidelity....like your old stuff. Just not expensive enough for some....

It managed to forever plant me into this hobby without the upgraditus bug for 2 decades until the foam surrounds gave up and the pots all got dirty. While not as measurably significant as what is designed (mostly via AI) now, the Japanese did a great job matching it to the recording qualities of popular music/architecture available then. It's as if they had nailed (or even standardized) the average/probable in-room response more favorably, instead of the anechoic unicorns we constantly end up chasing now.