It´s simply just a different point of view "what" should be reproduced with the highest possible quality level.
One accepts a very high degree of deviation (aka reproduction with a stereophonic system) and tries to reproduce this state given on a sound carrier with high fidelity.
Another wants to reproduce the "original event" with high fidelity and accepts deviation after the content was already read out from the sound carrier.
A quite famous example for the latter position is the BBC dip.
Both positions have their merits; unfortunately they are not so easy to swap, although modern technoloy offers some possibilities that could merge both into one reproduction system and let the listener choose for each sound carrier.
Wishes
One accepts a very high degree of deviation (aka reproduction with a stereophonic system) and tries to reproduce this state given on a sound carrier with high fidelity.
Another wants to reproduce the "original event" with high fidelity and accepts deviation after the content was already read out from the sound carrier.
A quite famous example for the latter position is the BBC dip.
Both positions have their merits; unfortunately they are not so easy to swap, although modern technoloy offers some possibilities that could merge both into one reproduction system and let the listener choose for each sound carrier.
Wishes
Markus - correct. But it is something that audiophiles have to come to terms with. Their personal impressions/opinions can never be anything more than that. They are not "truths" or "data", they are simply a single observation, one of a million, noit really even relavent in the big picture.
It takes a lot more than simple "listening" to find truth and accuracy.
Hi guys
argue in realistic and accurate of reproduce sound but in the world of real sound also have good and better difference, different violin must sound different for sure, people will agree the better sounding one with higher price one but don't know the price at first, that means people will have same judge in good sounding, so should to find out why and how and make it happen in reproduce sound ,still it never can't be 100% like real sound but just only getting close a little bite is the target of reproduction.so keep the real sound in mind as a level compare to those reproduce. if people can't notice the difference between cables that means either the whole reproduce system are not reach to the level or they do not know the real sound sound like
regard tony ma
I'm curious which measurements result in the creation of the most accurate simulation of the real event, the limit cases of those metrics (points of diminishing returns) and why after 100 years of moving in this direction I can't think of anything at Best Buy I'ld take home if given it free.
So we are back to the incorrect opinion that if someone can not hear the difference then
A. the person does not have audiophile caliber ears.
B. the person does not have a system high enough quality.
Please
Dude, you need to read about 500 pages before we go back to the stone ages on that arguement. Just a hint, its a strawman arguement and it was debunked oh about 20 years ago
I bet you do uncontrolled listening where you think the different in dBs equates to SQ changes
Why is this always assumed to be the goal? Not all music has that as its premise. And none of it is mastered that way. The closest that could ever be achieved is what the producer heard. If he screws up the recording there isn't anything that a pair of speakers is going to do but disclose that sad fact.
Why not ask one of the experts here? They know exactly how to correct that. It has something to do with buying expensive gear and cables. Then it will even work with any recording. It's just amazing.
But you have to accept that this definition of accuracy is arbitrary up to a certain point.
It may sound sarcastic but is in no way meant so- the most accurate reproduction of a digital sound carrier content would be a printout of the data.
Historically spoken was the goal of recording/reproduction to capture a most accurate picture of reality.
And a concerned listener normally wants a accurate reproduction (means for example an acoustic instrument should sound like it does in reality tonality wise) but at the same time recreates a sense of realism.
There is most likely a basic set that holds true statistically seen for a group of listeners, but what triggers this sense of realism for an individual listener might widely differ in the group.
While it is much harder to define in technical terms it would be quite senseless to define a reproduction that reminds an individual listener more to the "real thing" as more inaccurate.
Wishes
QED 2 times. That's a bingo
Still running from giving answers that aren't ad hominems?
Isn't that what "hifi" is all about? Frankly most of what is advertised as "high fidelity" should be banned under the trades descriptions act imho. Sell cheap midi systems as stereos as that's about as close as they get due to having 2 channels, but hifi - NEVER
To your first comment I agree completely, but I would also say that it is beside the point if what is interpreted as "realism" is not "acurate", which makes me doubt your second point.
You are saying that accuracy doesn't matter as long as the listener is "satisfied". I've heard that line before and its a marketers dream, just what they want you to believe, but it isn't Hi-Fi, its fashion, vogue and brand. Because it has been shown time after time again that those three factors dominate what "satisfies" a consumer.
"Hear the real thing!"
As one of your beloved "experts" I can assure you that my system does no favours whatsoever to bad recordings.This as a reply to gedlee's post earlier too,about bad recordings.
No problem with that.But are you sure that this is what those who speak of "like real music" meant?I think not. When I said that after a live event ended it simply belongs to history and what we have is a recording of that event(good or bad),some other "experts" here,laughed.............Further to this,since we do not have a clue as to what the recording engineers heard (or even done to the real sound)when they were recording the event,we will unavoidably follow our own understanding of "best accuracy",with our systems,room etc.....Now,some may keep on insisting they make the "best" speakers,electronics or whatever.I will add reviwers too,they can tell whatever they want.....
Great, so what do you argue against?
By the way, I'm still waiting for your promised text about how you tested cables and what your findings were.
I believe a live event is a point in history. There is no way to accurately reproduce that live event unless the accoustics of our rooms closely matches that of the live event location.
All we can ever do is simply play the content as accurate as possible. We have zero control over the accuracy of that content because we are at the mercy of the recording engineer.
btw, I do not understand "our own understanding of best accuracy", are you saying everyone thinks accuracy means something different? There is only one way to determine accuracy and that is through measuring your setup. If there is coloration then you do not have an truely accurate setup.
Now, subjectively I care little about flat accuracy because I like my house curve. If I feel a recording needs more or less bass, I added..plain and simple (Most recording engineers suck anyways
). I still know that my system is capable of accuracy and low distortion.
Last edited:
That implies that you have delivered any arguments. But you have not. Once in a while you just throw cryptic sentences into the discussion. I asked you for a simple link a couple of posts ago which you refused to give. So I had to conclude that you're not really interested in a discussion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.