 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.140.141.202
In Reply to: RE: Was high-end audio ever a big audience? posted by Budrew on May 23, 2008 at 16:12:10
Well lots of people had hi-fis. Then the marketing people split the hobby into groups according to the money spent. That's when gear previously called hi-fi began to get called mid-fi by certain tastemakers and those pulling their strings.
Follow Ups:
to hear your perspective of the sonic differences between PA gear and far more realistic audio gear. Sounds like you have missed out on a lot.
rw
You don't know what I'm talking about Estat. I'm talking about when many people had hi-fis consisting of things like Sansui or Marantz receivers, a good record player and some nice enough speakers---Advents, ARs, EPIs and such. Then some folks starting calling gear like that mid-fi.
As for your snotty statement I've been around this hobby long enough to have heard and owned alot more stuff than PA gear. That I've come to a different conclusion than you about what sounds good doesn't mean I've missed anything.
Funny thing though, I spent most of Friday playing music (rather than recordings) on some PA type gear; playing my Fender Jazzbass, Yamaha digital drumset amd Yamaha digital piano. Sounded pretty good too.
(well doubles) and listen to them almost daily.
...a good record player and some nice enough speakers---Advents, ARs, EPIs and such.
We all started that way. Nothing wrong with that.
Then some folks starting calling gear like that mid-fi.
Then some folks discovered that much better exists for those who care. There is good stuff and there is great stuff. Similarly, a Taurus is a fine family sedan. On the other hand, Audi/BMW/Acuras are a higher performance level of sedan. Faster. Better brakes. Better handling. Tangible things you know. It has nothing to do with marketing or the notion that the differences rely entirely on image. It relies on substance.
That is the notion I challenge. If you truly believe that a Marantz receiver offers the pinnacle of audio performance, then you have missed out on a lot.
rw
"That is the notion I challenge. If you truly believe that a Marantz receiver offers the pinnacle of audio performance, then you have missed out on a lot."
I don't think I ever claimed modest hi-fis were the pinnacle of audio performence. But they are hi fidelity. I know several people using the hi-fis they bought in the 1970s using things like Pioneer, Marantz and Dynaco electronics, Dual record players and Teac RTRs and JBL, Advent and Klipsch speakers. These systems sound good and serve the music well and are certainly hi fidelity.
In the end each man chooses the level at which he's satisfied; that a man feels satisfaction at a lower level than you doesn't mean he's satisfied for less, it means he's satisfied with less, know what I mean?
is that only *marketing* separates mid-fi from the best available. Such is not the case.
These systems sound good and serve the music well and are certainly hi fidelity.
Sure. High fidelity in this context being a relative term. Middle of the pack.
In the end each man chooses the level at which he's satisfied; that a man feels satisfaction at a lower level than you doesn't mean he's satisfied for less, it means he's satisfied with less, know what I mean?
I do understand and I am not an elitist. I am quite content to listen to MP3s on my Palm phone and Shure earbuds. I spend more time listening to the Advents in the garage than the big stats upstairs. The thirty year old beat-up-utility-cabinet Advents give me great pleasure. Objectively speaking, however, they are simply not as good. Similarly, there are tons of systems better than any of mine. I've had the good fortune to hear and enjoy several. I rather like hearing stuff from my music that I have never before been able to discern. Being able to acknowledge and appreciate what is available is an altogether different concept from being satisfied with what you have. I don't have to own something in order to value its worth.
Modest systems offer modest performance. Fine. To suggest that the finest systems, however, are merely a marketing spin, ignores reality. I don't understand why folks are antagonistic about the pinnacle of performance in any realm. As a motor head, there is no finer music to me than hearing the shriek of an F1 engine running at 18,000 RPM. Will I ever own such? Are you kidding? :)
rw
"that only *marketing* separates mid-fi from the best available. Such is not the case."
Obviously there are some hi-fis better than others. My beef is that the hi-fi world did fine without marketing terms like "mid-fi" and it wasn't until vain and deluded Baby Boomers came into dough that such nonsense (and much other nonsense) started. I don't call a modest hi-fi a "mid-fi". I also don't call patch-cords "interconnects".
"To suggest that the finest systems, however, are merely a marketing spin, ignores reality"
Obviously. I own the finest systems myself and there's no marketing spin involved at all, at least not since 1976 or so.
My beef is that the hi-fi world did fine without marketing terms like "mid-fi" and it wasn't until vain and deluded Baby Boomers came into dough that such nonsense (and much other nonsense) started.
Wow. Such hostility towards progress! And I'm not talking magic dots or rocks, either. Since you continue to repeat the marketing canard, I will continue to point out that an honest, objective assessment of current performance levels is responsible for the "mid-fi" term.
I don't call a modest hi-fi a "mid-fi"
Apparently you have locked the adjective "high" into a particular static level set at an arbitrary time in history. 1976 you say? For me, the term is dynamic. Is a 1976 Corvette a "high performance" sports car? It was three decades ago, but now family sedans regularly outperform it in every way.
rw
"Wow. Such hostility towards progress! And I'm not talking magic dots or rocks, either. Since you continue to repeat the marketing canard, I will continue to point out that an honest, objective assessment of current performance levels is responsible for the "mid-fi" term."
No hostility towards progress where it exists such as the JBL 2435 compression driver.
The first time I ran into the term "mid-fi" was from magazine writers and writers usually have an agenda; being tastemakers and gatekeepers or pushing the interests of the audio business for instance. I didn't hear it talking to my buddies who were into this hobby. I'm not led by the nose, indeed I've a contrary nature that bridles at market speak.
My honest and subjective impression is that damnned little progress has been made since 1976 or 1957 for that matter (you know why I say 1957). I use what I like. Certainly you don't think I should use what you like?
Valid point. Back in the day (early 80's) things were pretty relaxed in my local hifi shop. Today, there's much more exclusivity and appointment making to hear stuff in the hifi world.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]