Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

I am not trying to enlighten - I have no interest in that area. (Do *all*
need enlightenment?)

What I find interesting is the stubborn unwillingness of many to acknowledge
widely held and believed scientific principles.
Do you, or others, consider that physics does not apply to the vinyl issue?
If so, and you can provide reliable, repeatable evidence, you are in a
position to turn science on its head. I envy you - you will become a
household name over night. So, can we please put that one to bed?

Ok, lets forget technical specs for a moment. The *highest* fidelity will be
attained when the reproduced sound is identical to the source.
This would be verified, or not, by comparison using calibrated instruments.
Simple isn't it? Obviously I am not referring to comparison by ear which is
not calibrated and, in many cases, is faulty. Sure, that will tell you which
system is preferable to you and your ears but is meaningless in terms of
Hi-Fi. This should be obvious due to the fact that we don't find 100% of the
listeners choosing the same system. So who is picking the best system? With
this method of selection I would suggest they all are!

Current technology may or may not yet allow the *highest* fidelity - I don't
know. However, by comparison with a replicable sound source, it will let us
identify the which comes closest. High Fidelity sits at the top of the
(current) tree.
It should be clear that you can only draw a line when there is something
both above and below it. Therefore there is no line to be drawn.
If you are one of the many who have a need to be able to proclaim 'my system
is above the line' then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that and why
should I?

Paul

PS Is that you Keith?