it is ok to stick to low mid fi?

danger boy

Can a person be satisfied being low mid fi? and not want to keep upgrading this or that?

Tonight i loaded up the Marantz carousel CD player that is part of my home theater unit and listened to it using good quality analog RCA cables.. Mmmmm! pretty decent sounding in bypass mode on the Outlaw Audio pre amp.

After appav's thread he started earlier this week about having doubts about where to go or when to stay with gear and what not. It got me to thinking as well about what I want to accomplish and how I should get there.

Basically, I have the most $ invested in the home theater 5.1 system. Gear I've put together over the past 7 years with the newest piece being the 990 pre amp from a couple years ago. I still like it and it suits me just fine not having HDMI. At least for now, maybe in a year or two when I get a LCD or Plasma set. I'll worry about that later down the road.

Anyhoo, I also have a 2ch only rig..that being the SDA 2B's, and all it's associated gear, CDP, tube DAC, good cables, 2 turntables, tuner, etc.

Then I also have my vintage silver faced Pioneer gear that is the computer system.. here again.. int amp, good Pioneer tuner, more cables, Pioneer EQ, Sony CDP, Speakerlab bookshelf speakers. It's vintage mid fi for sure.

Finally, I have a spare bedroom rig, which is centered around my SR5000 Marantz recevier, DVD player, cables, Polk Monitor 7B speakers, a simple system.

Uhhh... i'm exhausted typing all that.

So the thoughts i'm having it to downsize and concentrate on only one stytem.. that being the home theater. Seriously, after listening to 5 CD's of various types of music.. I think I could live with it doing double duty as a home theater and music system. Yes, music doesn't have quite the soundstage as with the SDA's.. but I could live with it without to much problem. Tweaking here and there and upgrading this and that.

My problem is I like having 4 different systems, each one is different and is in separate rooms. The downside, trying to tweak and upgrade 4 systems. If one system gets new cables, then of course I don't want the other ones to be left out or feel unwanted... so I go out and buy new cables for instance for all four systems. Making cables or whatever it happens to be, costly X 4. :eek:

Anyone here happy with their 5.1 home theater doing double duty as their main music system too? I know it can be done... but are you satisfied with the music portion of it, sound quality wise?

ok, i'm done rambling.

RuSsMaN

danger boy wrote: »

Can a person be satisfied being low mid fi? and not want to keep upgrading this or that?

Yes.

cubdog

I just purchased a new Denon HTR and while it sounds better than my old Yamaha with music I still prefer my 2 channel systems. I do enjoy concert DVDs but regular CDs leave me cold.

cubdog

BaggedLancer

It's funny that this came up. In light of seeing other threads recently I keep staring over at my home theater....then staring back at my 2 channel system.....then thinking that in May there is a 95% chance that I am moving into a third floor apartment owned by my family to take care of the properties. There is no way on this earth that I will be able to take my home theater into there and expect to watch movies. But then it came to me, do I really watch that many movies with the volume cranked and the house shaking? Not like I used to that's for sure. I'd rather listen to music than watch a movie any day of the week now.

That being said, at some point over the next few months I am going to sell my 2 Adcoms and 1 Outlaw, replace it with a 5 channel, either sell or part out my monitor 5's and 10's, and basically just overall downsize my system.

I will be focusing any and all cash flow on my 2ch rig, with things on the list including good TT, Jolida Phono Preamp, tube CDP, and either new speakers or add subwoofers to the ones I have. On top of that, instead of buying movies....I'll be buying music.

As a matter of fact, I'm canceling Netflix today(sick of their **** anyway) and going with yourmusic.com instead.

So to answer your question, yes and no, low mid fi has began to actually irritate me so I'm moving on. I am sure some can be satisified, I cannot.

fatchowmein

What exactly is "low mid fi"? How do you define the line between low mid fi and mid mid fi? Would such a delineation be a function of dollar amount? Would the selection of a piece of gear within a manufacture's production line quantify a budget, mid, hi end component or are we talking once again about synergy, the summation of all parts? I'm confused since so often one's low mid fi is another's audio nirvana.

It would be interesting if someone, say Stereophile (I cancelled my sub recently), listed an example of a reference low mid fi, mid fi, hi fi system and the possible upgrade pathways and/or substitutions. In the PC world, one of my favorite website is arstechnica and their system guide: budget box, hot rod, God box. Would be interesting to see an audio equivalent.

But then, if we did that with audio, there'll be 6,000 replies a day, flame wars, and the culmination of everyone getting banned. :rolleyes:

Great question.

mantis

Over the years I believed that 2 channel and Ht could live in the same system. The more I tried I realized that when you do that one of them isn't going to be the best IT could be. Being focused on which of the 2 is more important.

You can do both in one system with good results. You also can be very happy with a Mid Level system. I find this hobby to get out of hand sometimes. I question the need for better and better. If you go price out a recording studio and Instruments to make to music, Home audio gear costs more dollar for dollar. most of its of alot higher quality 2.

if owning multiable systems isn't your desire anymore, sell them, take some of the money and upgrade a few things in your remaining system and do something else with the left over money.

It's all good no matter what you do Bro.

Dan

rskarvan

My Denon 3801 is mid-fi. The amp section of that receiver is flat/boring/un-inspiring/blah/etc. It works fine. But, much of the emotion is filtered out of the music.

Its kind of like listening to music with a little cotton stuffed in your ears.

Not bad... just not thrilling.

Early B.

danger boy wrote: »

Can a person be satisfied being low mid fi? and not want to keep upgrading this or that?

No. Not if you keep participating on this forum.

wingnut4772

I think you can be happy integrating. The trick is the subs and the pre.

cfrizz

I have always had & probably will always have just one system for both. I don't care if anyone else labels it low, mid, hifi because it is MY FI!

I have slowly gotten back to the kind of system that I want to have which was all separates. I bought the best that I could afford & to me it sounds fantastic!

I do not & have never believed all the BS about you HAVE to have 2 separate systems for HT & 2 channel. I have tried very hard not to let the equipment distract me from the music, and I don't sit around for hours on end, over analyzing every little thing to find out if I can hear if something might be wrong that needs to be changed with something more expensive.

"My problem is I like having 4 different systems, each one is different and is in separate rooms. The downside, trying to tweak and upgrade 4 systems. If one system gets new cables, then of course I don't want the other ones to be left out or feel unwanted... so I go out and buy new cables for instance for all four systems. Making cables or whatever it happens to be, costly X 4."

You like having 4 systems & you do have room for them so keep them. All you have to do now is just start listening to whichever you are in the mood to hear, enjoy the music & STOP UPGRADING & TWEAKING!

Since right now your focus is on HT, when you get the urge to buy another bunch of IC's, buy a few movies & sit back & enjoy.

wingnut4772

cfrizz wrote: »

I have always had & probably will always have just one system for both. I don't care if anyone else labels it low, mid, hifi because it is MY FI!

I have slowly gotten back to the kind of system that I want to have which was all separates. I bought the best that I could afford & to me it sounds fantastic!

I do not & have never believed all the BS about you HAVE to have 2 separate systems for HT & 2 channel. I have tried very hard not to let the equipment distract me from the music, and I don't sit around for hours on end, over analyzing every little thing to find out if I can hear if something might be wrong that needs to be changed with something more expensive.

"My problem is I like having 4 different systems, each one is different and is in separate rooms. The downside, trying to tweak and upgrade 4 systems. If one system gets new cables, then of course I don't want the other ones to be left out or feel unwanted... so I go out and buy new cables for instance for all four systems. Making cables or whatever it happens to be, costly X 4."

You like having 4 systems & you do have room for them so keep them. All you have to do now is just start listening to whichever you are in the mood to hear, enjoy the music & STOP UPGRADING & TWEAKING!

Since right now your focus is on HT, when you get the urge to buy another bunch of IC's, buy a few movies & sit back & enjoy.

I agree somewhat BUT there are varying degrees of passion (nutiness) in this hobby. Most of us really ENJOY tweaking and upgrading because it's just plain fun.

I respect and admire that you don't really get into that and are very practical and sensible with your rig. It's all a matter of relativity though. I am sure that you have friends or family that think you are nuts for the upgrades that you have done and the dough you have spent on your very nice set up.


Also I must add that there are several things that are different in HT and 2 channel that are hard to integrate such as the subs(level, placement), speakers,(placement, timbre). To have the best of both worlds I think two set ups are needed.

That being said, I think one set up can do very well for both if set up with a nice compromise.

Early B.

danger boy wrote: »

So the thoughts i'm having it to downsize and concentrate on only one stytem.. that being the home theater. Seriously, after listening to 5 CD's of various types of music.. I think I could live with it doing double duty as a home theater and music system. Yes, music doesn't have quite the soundstage as with the SDA's.. but I could live with it without to much problem. Tweaking here and there and upgrading this and that.

Anyone here happy with their 5.1 home theater doing double duty as their main music system too? I know it can be done... but are you satisfied with the music portion of it, sound quality wise?

Having an integrated HT/2-channel system is easy to configure. They can share front speakers and an amp. Just keep a 2-channel pre and CDP in the mix and you're good.

Yeah, so go ahead and downsize and concentrate on your HT system. I did that several months ago and have no regrets.

BottomFeeder

Early B. wrote: »

Having an integrated HT/2-channel system is easy to configure. They can share front speakers and an amp. Just keep a 2-channel pre and CDP in the mix and you're good.

Yeah, so go ahead and downsize and concentrate on your HT system. I did that several months ago and have no regrets.

Aha! I've been wondering this very thing! Since I'm such a Noob to the whole audio / video gig, I've just assumed that you can't combine equipment and alternate between 5 & 2 channel w/in the same system.

Would you please take me by the little hand & explain how it can be done?

Thanks. You all may've saved me from at least some of the dreaded upgraditis disease!

Gaara

It is pretty easy to integrate the two. The trick is to get a quality 2ch pre that has a ht bypass. You get your nice 2ch source whatever it may be and hook it up to your 2ch pre. When you listen to music you use your 2ch source, 2ch pre, and speakers and amp. When you use the HT portion you use the HT source and HT pre which feeds into the 2ch pre. There is generally a bypass switch so the HT pre signal doesn't get altered at all, it is just passed onto the amp and speakers.

I personally have done this for years and it works great. The big issues are how to position your speakers (different for HT and 2ch) and how you integrate the sub.

As for "mid-fi" it depends the person. I could be perfectly content with a $400 system but YMMV. And you don't need to upgrade each system at the same time. You could keep one "high end" system for your main listening and keep a few "mid-fi" or "low-fi" systems for different flavors.

tonyb

Ive done it also and love it.Affords you the cash to upgrade.You could have 2 seperate systems and still not be satisfied with one or the other or both for that matter.If you combine the 2,get the best you can afford,don't be cheap.And if you like the sound of a combined system,that's all that matters,isn't it?There is always going to be something bigger or better out there that can take your rig to the next level if you have one combined rig or 2 seperate ones.Do it,upgrade,enjoy the music.

tcrossma

Gaara wrote: »

It is pretty easy to integrate the two. The trick is to get a quality 2ch pre that has a ht bypass. You get your nice 2ch source whatever it may be and hook it up to your 2ch pre. When you listen to music you use your 2ch source, 2ch pre, and speakers and amp. When you use the HT portion you use the HT source and HT pre which feeds into the 2ch pre. There is generally a bypass switch so the HT pre signal doesn't get altered at all, it is just passed onto the amp and speakers.

I personally have done this for years and it works great. The big issues are how to position your speakers (different for HT and 2ch) and how you integrate the sub.

As for "mid-fi" it depends the person. I could be perfectly content with a $400 system but below that I yearn for more.

This is exactly the route i'm taking with my system. Even as it is now i'm pretty darn happy with the quality for both HT and music (especially with some of Ben's new speaker cables). My next purchase will likely be a 2-channel pre with HT bypass and at that point I don't see why a combined system has to take back seat to any but the best of the 2-channel dedicated's.

Face

My 2ch and HT setups share the same sources, but have different pre-amps, amps, and speakers. The only downfall is the amount of space this takes up. I am about to attempt to combine both systems again. I'll be sure to post my results.

steveinaz

The term "hi-fi" is forever changing. A $49 generic DVD player these days would smoke a 1970's price-no-object cassette player--so which is low-fi and which is hi-fi?

Buy and use what sounds good to you, what makes listening exciting and real. Audiophiles get too caught up in what they think they are suppose to do to attain accurate music, instead of just buying what they like.

Early B.

Gaara wrote: »

It is pretty easy to integrate the two. The trick is to get a quality 2ch pre that has a ht bypass. You get your nice 2ch source whatever it may be and hook it up to your 2ch pre. When you listen to music you use your 2ch source, 2ch pre, and speakers and amp. When you use the HT portion you use the HT source and HT pre which feeds into the 2ch pre. There is generally a bypass switch so the HT pre signal doesn't get altered at all, it is just passed onto the amp and speakers.

I personally have done this for years and it works great. The big issues are how to position your speakers (different for HT and 2ch) and how you integrate the sub.

With regard to positioning speakers and integrating a sub:

1. I don't think speaker positioning should be a big issue. Just position them according to what sounds best with music and don't worry about it for HT.

2. In terms of integrating a sub, I'd suggest getting kickass floorstanders that can handle deep bass and forego the sub for music.

shack

I have been saying for awhile that I am satisfied with my rig as is. It's about as "Mid-Fi" as you can get. NAD C270 amp, NAD C160 pre-amp, a NAD T572 CD/DVD changer, a Sony DVP-NS775V DVD/CD/SACD, an entry level Goldring 1.2 turntable and right now my Polk RT400s (I switch out between the 1Cs ever so often). Signal Cable and Audioquest cables tie everything together. The only recent addition is the Sony which I added last year for a whopping cost of $60. The only upgrades I am even considering right now is to send the Sony to SACD-mods for an upgrade and possibly upgrading to a Clearaudio TT. I have often thought about a Rotel RCC-1055 CD changer, but in reality that would probably be a lateral move. I could be perfectly happy standing pat.

My HT Rig has been the same for several years as well. I rarely get upgrade fever.

My office rig is a Denon DRA-685 stereo receiver, a Cambridge Audio D500SE CDP and Polk RT25i speakers with Audioquest G-snake cables. I could live with this rig in a small room if I had to (maybe add a small sub for the low end).

To be honest...I have no desire to take it to the next level. I could...but I have other interests that I spend both my time and money on...golf and photography primarily.

If you like what you have...don't worry...be happy.

SolidSqual

Ear of the beholder.

steveinaz

Exactly. One of my favorite speakers gets bashed everywhere--Bose 901's. I could give a rats **** what anybody thinks, setup properly with plenty of amplifier, I really like them.

markmarc

I'll be honest, I thought I could be happy with just one system. While the wife and I were renting in between homes I was limited to just one rig. I survived, but I missed hearing the same music with two different presentations. But if I had to choose, I'd go with a 5.1 rig, only because the controls are available to reduce the output to a straight two-channel. But it would have to be a great 5.1 amp, a standard av receiver would leave me wanting. I'm spoiled and I admit it!

danger boy

i arrived at low mid fi by most of my gear having been purchased used, and a lot of it being over 10+ years old. a Yamaha CA-610 int amp.. being about 30 yrs old... I would consider it low mid fi by today's standards..

steveinaz

Does it reproduce music accurately?

Face

danger boy wrote: »

i arrived at low mid fi by most of my gear having been purchased used, and a lot of it being over 10+ years old. a Yamaha CA-610 int amp.. being about 30 yrs old... I would consider it low mid fi by today's standards..

If it hasn't been done already, it's probably due for a recap.

PhantomOG

I bought my first Polks over 5 years ago. Started out with one of the HTIB sets... RM### something or other. Logged onto here and started upgrading. However I didn't go very far. I slowly upgraded all my speakers. Got front mains --> RTi70's, which I still have and I'm still happy with. Got a center channel CSi30, then bumped up to CSi40, which I still have. Then got FXi30's for the surrounds which I also still use.

I bought an Onkyo TX-SR600 somewhere along the way, and although I would like a new receiver I'm not in a hurry.

Sure... I dream about getting a high end pre-amp / amplifier setup, but honestly, I'm damn happy with my little "low-end" Polk setup. Would spending thousands on new gear make an improvement in sound? I'm sure it would. But that shouldn't take away from enjoying what I currently have.

So RTi70's, CSi40, FXi30's and a low end receiver for me. I just got a new 52" Sony LCD. I'm happy as hell with my system. I guess I'm an anomoly here though. I haven't bought anything audio related in years.

jakelm

danger boy wrote: »

i arrived at low mid fi by most of my gear having been purchased used, and a lot of it being over 10+ years old. a Yamaha CA-610 int amp.. being about 30 yrs old... I would consider it low mid fi by today's standards..

Same as I.

I like the fact that my 2channel and 7.1 are all together. Switching between the 2 is a breeze. I can turn the movie off, pop in a good CD and stay in the same room.

I have to admit though, when watching a movie, I am alittle more critical on the sound quality. How well the center channel is producing vocals, if the surrounds are too loud or too soft, if the sub is in the correct position and phasing. Levels and delay are set properly, as well as overall Eq.

When switching to 2 channel, all I say is "damn this is a good song". Becuase (i know most will not agree), but spending so much time tweaking HT, I'm actually getting the 2 channel to sound better too.

jakelm

I believe, good audio is good audio. No matter wether its a movie with vocals and effects, or a song. Smooth speaker responce is a + for both music and HT.

cfrizz

I agree Darla, & it wasn't a criticism of anyone that enjoys tweaking & upgrading, have at it. But it is time consuming & usually expensive. Several others on here have decided to settle down as well.

Since it sounds like Al wants to get off the merry go-round as well, I don't think he needs to get rid of any of his systems that he put so much time into putting together. He simply has to make the decision to be happy with what he has got & put that upgrade money into music & movies.

The only one I talk to about any upgrades is my brother. He is the only one who has an interest in music (being a musician) and an understanding as to what is trying to be acheived & can hear the difference.

The rest of them think that their Bose wave radio is the greatest thing since sliced bread!:eek::rolleyes:

wingnut4772 wrote: »

I agree somewhat BUT there are varying degrees of passion (nutiness) in this hobby. Most of us really ENJOY tweaking and upgrading because it's just plain fun.

I respect and admire that you don't really get into that and are very practical and sensible with your rig. It's all a matter of relativity though. I am sure that you have friends or family that think you are nuts for the upgrades that you have done and the dough you have spent on your very nice set up.


Also I must add that there are several things that are different in HT and 2 channel that are hard to integrate such as the subs(level, placement), speakers,(placement, timbre). To have the best of both worlds I think two set ups are needed.

That being said, I think one set up can do very well for both if set up with a nice compromise.

wingnut4772

cfrizz wrote: »

I agree Darla, & it wasn't a criticism of anyone that enjoys tweaking & upgrading, have at it. But it is time consuming & usually expensive. Several others on here have decided to settle down as well.

Since it sounds like Al wants to get off the merry go-round as well, I don't think he needs to get rid of any of his systems that he put so much time into putting together. He simply has to make the decision to be happy with what he has got & put that upgrade money into music & movies.

The only one I talk to about any upgrades is my brother. He is the only one who has an interest in music (being a musician) and an understanding as to what is trying to be acheived & can hear the difference.

The rest of them think that their Bose wave radio is the greatest thing since sliced bread!:eek::rolleyes:

I think all of us OCD tweakers get burned out from time to time..and Bose is the best!:p