Talk:No-Fi
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Any point?
[edit]This article hasn't got much to it. And the description of "no-fi", i.e. "below the standard quality used in most studios", "scratchy with various degrees of hiss", that's just lo-fi by some other name. At the very most this should be a footnote on the Lo-fi page. There may indeed have been a magazine by that name, and people may occasionally have said the word, but it doesn't sound like enough for an article to me. I might be wrong of course. Let me know what you think. --mcld 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If I knew how I would nominate for deletion. Swooch (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Categorical Relevance
[edit]If this article made an attempt at defining what No-Fi is/was as opposed to simple lo-fi recording methods, then it might be able to stay up.
Is No-Fi different than Lo-Fi the same way No Budget films are different than Low Budget films in that they have even less of a budget than a so called low-budget film?
(P.S. I don't know if "No-Budget films" are recognized on wikipedia, but I thought this example could be
good for establishing a definition of no-fi sound, and no-fi in general).
User: Conner Fields