Am I listening to Hi-Fi ?

$100 Grado Sr-80e headphones are all you need. Anything more and you are just splitting hairs or getting worse sound IMO.

 

I think I'm in the club, but there is a lot of audiophiles here that have $5K+ in their audio systems.

 

Forgo the box, and find a comfortable freeway overpass (with an electrical outlet, of course).

 

You're in the club.

I've got more than $5K in my headphone system. That's not what makes it hi-fi. You can achieve hi-fi with an iPod and $100 headphones, as long as you choose the headphones carefully.

 

Grados do sound good and sound like hi-fi headphones. At the same time, you can argue that they are not hi-fi because they are going to deviate more than +/- 3dB from neutral. Grados are not neutral headphones. Grado did a neutral headphone back when they first started. The HP1000. They haven't done a neutral headphone since. Grados are sold at hi-fi dealers. I could argue they are not hi-fi. A lot of headphones will fail that test. Even expensive ones. I'm pretty sure my Audeze LCD-2 headphones would fail that test. They aren't perfectly neutral and very likely deviate more than +/- 3dB from neutral. They're tuned to sound good and natural to the ear as headphones, perfect measured neutrality was not the goal. So if I'm listening to my Audeze LCD-2 headphones am I listening to hi-fi? The gear I use to play them is over $5K at MSRP. High price does not guarantee hi-fi neutrality in headphones.

 

Does it pass the Edison test?

 

And so it began, over a century of bull$#!+

 

I guess another factor would be the faithful replication of tonality, timbre and sound stage.

My system has very strong sonic output from at least 3o Hz - 18 Kz. It is my faithful companion and I don’t feel anymore is necessary.

 

A social scientist would likely say that hifi is a concept, not a property of technology, and that this concept has proven not to be a universal standard. The social scientist would then explore how groups of people distinguish the concept from other concepts (such as "music playback devices" in mass-market retail stores and "high-end audio" in boutique shops) and investigate the things that define hifi culture (what people buy, how they listen, etc.). Hifi is often used as a very general term, whereas high-end is more specific. Where does the budget for an entry-level system in a high-end boutique store begin? A medium system is probably not less than 30k

 

If you are happy with what you are hearing, surely that is all that matters IMO. I cant bear Hi Fi snobbery. Enjoy the music; that's all

 

The question was essentially "What is Hi-Fi?". Not "What is high end?". They are different questions and different things. Unfortunately in the area of Hi-Fi culture at leat, the terms Hi-Fi and high end are sometimes incorrectly used and interchanged as synonyms. Of course you know this. Hi-Fi refers to sound quality, where high end refers to the price, relative to other items of the same type. So for the benefit of anyone who actually might be confused by the usaga of the two terms in the same discussion, it is possible for example, that an amplifier manufacture make Hi-Fi amplifiers and have a range of models available with some being more affordable to the average customer and some being considered to be quite expensive by that same customer. The more expensive model or models might then qualify for the definition of high end. Just because both terms begin with high doesn't mean that they should be used interchangeably.
-Bill

 

To me, "Hi Fi" is more of a mindset or approach to audio and not so much the gear. This being the desire to educate oneself, seek out well-engineered software, purchase reasonably-priced quality gear, etc. Then there's the often under-valued state of the listening environment.

 

Its easier then it has ever been to get a good quality sound for very little money.

There are many ways to go to get good hi-fi and pleasing sound reproduction.

A little dac added to your laptop and a set of decent headphones.
Second hand CD player/amp/speakers from ebay.

Both options can be had for about £100 .

 

I think that is the definition of audiophile rather than of Hi-Fi. Hi-Fi exists whether anyone cares about it or not. The idea of caring about it and working to better that is what sets the dedicated followers apart from the tourists.
-Bill

 

As good a definition as any - reflective of what clearly was not "hi-fi" prior to the term hi-fi being coined. Equivalent upper limit to FM radio. I believe the emergence of "hi-fi" in the late '50s helped usher in the widespread use of FM radio. As with a lot of things, such symbiotic relationships have mutual benefits: hi-fi gear allows FM to be heard properly and the existence of FM gives consumers a reason to upgrade to hi-fi gear.

 

I agree with what's been posted already in that high fidelity has a fixed definition: "the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original" (according to Google ). This can be achieved within a traditional "hi-fi" setup consisting of two speakers and separate components for very little outlay. £150 for a CDP, a few hundred pounds for a competently designed amplifier capable of driving one's speakers without distortion, and probably £500 for speakers that measure flat through the crucial band mentioned by Steve (+/- 3dB). The price for an all new high fidelity system would be around £1,000 in my opinion. Obviously, this could be achieved for much much less on the used market (about a third of the new cost). The challenge then is in setting up the equipment so as to achieve a sonic result that is "very similar to the original" (see: speaker placement).

 

The definition found on Google is the classic 1950s marketing narrative invented by the industry and it does not help much distinguish between the array of audio playback systems in 2018 How many people listening to music on their phones will say that they hear noise? How many will say that it's close to the original? As unsettling as it might be, sound technology just can't be separated from listeners. The quotation refers to distortion but distortion is completely different in the 2010s than it was in the 1950s. Digital technologies have eliminated distortion to a great extent, but is all digital reproduction hifi? One can play the latest Ed Sheeran pop hit on a laptop and it sounds clean, but full of "holes" in the sound because of the MP3 format and loudness /& compression. If someone wanted to offer a general definition today it might make sense to replace distortion with "free of the MP3 format and of loudness"

 

Depending on room and goals, the used market is the way to approach it. Piece it together like most of us do. I would imagine you could do this with 2 channel or headphones (if in a smaller space) for under 1500 or less if your careful and start with a couple average items and upgrade as desired in the future.

A used tuner with an integrated phono and a used rega maybe 500/600 bucks. Rest on speakers.

 

We can make all sorts of suggestions what could be considered 'Hi-Fi today. I think in reality there is none that works, and using an old DIN-norm won´t help much. Is it Hi-Fi if a lot of frequencies are missing? How much distortion would be accepted, and what type? If I change 0,5dB in mid range output it can easily be heard. Are both settings Hi-Fi? Etc.

 

Mission of Burma says This is Hi-Fi:

 

You're mixing the 'audiophile' approach to high fidelity with the definition of the two words. If an MP3 is the master, or if the mastering is incredibly loud and brickwalled, then reproducing it faithfully is still high fidelity. That's the separation of sound technology from listener.

 

I agree. I do not know what Hi-Fi is beyond better than average sounding. And, a lot of audiophiles here own systems that sound a lot better than just better than average.

 

I am sorry to disagree, Robert, but if the MP3 of Ed Sheeran is the master, the original (in the logic of the marketing statement you quoted) is still his performance in the studio

 

Yes. But.
I think it was probably a revelation for people to hear sound reproduced on those things-- what was commercially available before? Music boxes? Automated instruments that used rolls or metal perforated discs, like an orchestrion? So, I wonder if a person in that early time period might really think the sound of human voice was faithfully reproduced. Then, there is an improvement. The Berliner style record. Then the transition from acoustic to electric recording. Each step arguably improved what was captured and capable of reproduction, so from the vantage point of the latest "technology" it seems almost absurd that someone could have found a wax cylinder to sound convincing.
I'm not endorsing every technological improvement or format change as a real advance (as opposed to a marketing gimmick-- sometimes it was a step backwards or a cost saving measure) but I imagine the same could be said about photography at its inception.

On the term, 'hi-fi,' i use it loosely-- sometimes as a shorthand for the system, sometimes to distinguish something that sounds like 'good hi-fi' from 'real music,' i.e. you can hear the artificiality of the thing, even if it is impressive. I don't know what the lowest price point is, if you bought used and cobbled together the right components, had some tech skills, and got lucky, you could be in for almost nothing.

 

Good points. I thought the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park were convincing the first time I saw the film - enough said.