HiFi VS Audiophile (headphones)

⭐Headphones LIST (ranked)!⭐

New merch!

My social media:
--- Snapchat @dms3tv

If you want to join the discussion checkout our discord community:

[DMSTV]

Clarification for some people:
The SOURCE is what you are playing. A file/CD/record/etc. You have no control over what’s happening before that in the signal chain (at a studio), but you can select equipment that adds as little coloration to the sound as possible. That would be “high-fidelity” to the provided input signal.

Not being “high fidelity” isn’t a bad thing and it doesn’t mean your system isn’t good!

[thisnamesuuuccckkks]

Now someone explain the difference between wanting to die, and being a college student.

[albertweedsteinthethuggeni]

I identify as a headphone enthusiast and music lover. As long as it makes me happy I like it

[rrtind]

Hey DMS, loving your work as always. Respectfully on this sole occasion though I don’t quite subscribe to your definitions of hi-fi and audiophile. The two are very interlinked and should not be delineated. To give an example, an audiophile can be a lover or enthusiast of hi-fi audio. Yes hi-fi is true to the original, exactly as you said, but let’s not forget that hi-fi is still audio and relates to audio. An audiophile can also be a lover of audio that subtly veers away from the flat response of hi-fi, because let’s not forget that many of us hear differently. That little bump or dip somewhere in the response for any given product might have an equalising effect for a person that has a hearing response that isn’t quite flat (which is likely most of us) and so that product is now hi-fi for that person. Similarly, listening through a tube can meet the criteria of hi-fi depending on the skill of the engineering to tune the tube into the response. Tubes can sound true to the original indeed! The word ‘phile’ means loving or having a particular fondness for, so audiophiles are audio lovers and if you find yourself lost in the pursuit of trying to enjoy your sounds in the best way possible, whether it’s true hi-fi or something in and around that ballpark, and if that pursuit starts to make sense to you in a reliable way, then you can indeed consider yourself an audiophile. Just wanted to offer this all for consideration and thank you for the video because without it we can’t discuss! Keep up the awesome work... 🎧♥️🔊

[yabadabauk]

Hmmm....not sure about this. I guess the meaning of words like those can change over time, based on what 'most' people take them to mean. But, since I got into hi-fi, or became an audiophile, or started taking an interest in the equipment we use to reproduce music and how that affects the sound, the terms have not had that consistent and clear distinction that you give them here.

Hi-Fi has been a term used to describe both the equipment/devices that we use to reproduce music and of a reproduced sound that is of a (relatively) high quality or high fidelity. Someone wanting that good sound would buy hi-fi equipment to get a decent 'hi-fi' sound. But, then it's such an over-marketed and over-used term that for many it just refers to pretty much anything of a perceived reasonable quality.

An audiophile, from the days I first got into all this, would be really heavily into hi-fi, as a hobby, or more often bordering on an obsession. They would buy hi-fi, usually spend a load of money on it and want hi-fidelity sound from it. But I don't recall there ever really being an audiophile sound, a such. Audiophiles would argue and debate what constituted high fidelity and the objectives would vary between a natural sound, neutrality, accuracy, musical....loads of often vague terms and basically all the same terms we have now.

[freddierodriguez]

Hi-Fi=Sounds the way the artist/producer intended.
Audiophile=Sounds the way the listener intended.

[sergiymarchenko]

Everyone has his OWN gradation once he's caught that SENSE of Sound.

[Drackleyrva]

I think being an audiophile will cost you a lot more money as well. Great video!

[saikousocial]

Definitely more of a HiFi person.

Yes, I produce and mix music, but I just prefer the sound of something like the Harman or Sonarworks target over more Audiophile experiences.

[earlfenwick]

Hmm, I would've thought the opposite on the naming scheme. In the olden days, dads who probably new squat about sound talked about about listening to records on 'The Hi-Fi', which was probably a console and probably with the bass turned up to 10 and the loudness on. I first visited an audio dealer in the early 80's and heard some Mannheim Steamroller on the Magnepans and figured that was Audiophile. Hi-fi seems like something that audiophiles relegate to peasants. Love your videos! Shout out to George Merrill (turntables extraordinaire) and Underground Sound in Memphis!!

[jopar]

Weird...I would put it the opposite way round - Hi fi (especially in a historical context) just means good quality for the masses where as an Audiophile is looking for true to the source, natural-nous and for each instrument to be clearly audible and to accurately sound like itself. In other words, HiFi people love music where as Audiophiles love music but ALSO love the audio itself and all that it can offer :)

[folked-up]

Determining what "true to the source" is can be quite a challenging proposition. Do we "know" what a given singer's voice sounded like through a Nuemann u87 vs a Shure Beta 87A when recorded in Muscle Shoal's Sound Studio vs FAME Studios, and whether or not the engineer was using 1980s headphones or monitors?

As a folk singer and acoustic guitar player, I love hearing all the micro detail of the pick hitting the strings before the note rings, the creaking of a chair and hearing the breath of the singer. Do I actually hear that when I listen to a live performance? I honestly don't know. Most of my goals in audio are to get the noise floor as quiet as possible. I want to hear the truck that drove by the recording studio in the track.

Is that hi-fi or audiophile?

[SrKulay]

"Grado is not HiFi" made me want to hit that thumbs up 10 times. Great explanation btw!

[PassionforSound]

Nice video. Not sure about the statement that tubes aren't hi-fi though. No doubt there are plenty of tube amps that stray far from source, but there are also quite a few that, even with the higher distortion introduced by tubes, are more accurate to real music and the source in general than a number of solid state amps that get touted as hi-fi. The 'tubes are thick and coloured' myth really needs to be stopped. (Not having a dig at you, that last part is referring to the community/industry in general)

[bobsykes]

"True to the source" is everything. A pretty well accepted, perhaps almost universal, agreement among top mastering engineers, is that their entire playback chain needs to be, as you put it, true to the source. The reason is that music that sounds good on an insanely accurate playback chain and room proves time and time again to sound best in almost any real world playback situation from the absolute worst to the best. So why would anyone possibly not set that as the target to get as close to as their space and budget allows in their home system?

[GodfreyMann]

@DMS very controversial, here’s why you’re both right and wrong...

Fidelity is ‘the quality or state of being faithful’ [Merriam-Webster] which you say in hi-fi means: being faithful to the *live performance* and by definition the recording (assuming it accurately captures the performance).

However, the Merrian-Webster (MW) definition says an audiophile is: ‘a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction’.

So the two definitions pretty much amount to the same thing, which makes any attempt to separate them (on these terms) a circular argument.

However, when you change the terms/definition by examining the etymology of ‘audiophile’, I think there are grounds to support your claim.

‘Audiophile’ comes from the Latin: audire (to hear) + Greek philos (love), literally ‘love to hear’ or ‘love of sound’, but as these words don’t specify what kinds of sounds, then it’s implicitly only about the sounds the individual loves. Which supports your argument that audiophiles try to seek a certain sound that they prefer/love. It’s about music reproduction that is person centric.

By this argument, folks like the Audiophiliac are on shaky ground, because he (and most audiophiles) interpret it to mean the accurate reproduction of a live performance. However, if they argue the dictionary definition of ‘audiophile’ then I think they have the edge in the debate.

If you ignore the term ‘audiophile’, then what noun would you use for a person seeking hi-fidelity sound? An high-fideliphile...doesn’t have a catchy ring to it! Video competition to choose the best term?

[matthewphelps]

I would also be more of a HIFI person although I do not mix or make music. Great explanation video btw. Keep it up!

[jaakanshorter]

To me true to the sound would be more pro-audio but I do get what you are saying.

My Magnepans + subs based system is always an enjoyable experience with any type of music and doesn't focus on what is wrong.

My STAX based system highlights everything wrong but is still enjoyable.

[NicodemPL]

So Abyss and Diana - audiophile or hi-fi? :)

[thatchinaboi]

Best true to life closed back headphones I have heard are my Sennheiser HD300 Pros. Not enough people are raving about them. Open backs seem to be all the rage now, even despite the drawbacks. If I want a truly open sound, I would listen to my amazing studio monitors. In terms of stereo width, I would put the HD 300 Pros against ANY open back headphones. :)