The definition of that term is not complicated. "Hi" as in high and "Fi" as in fidelity. It's the level of fidelity in reproduced sound. Hi-Fi 50 years ago is not be as high as today. The standard did change over time.
You are entitled to your own view.
Mark is so open-minded that his brain falls out on occasion
(just teasing). Why think too hard or do real testing when you can just buy into anecdotes that align with your interests? Rob Watts is either lying or has a few screws loose. I don't know the guy so I won't hazard a guess at which.
Last edited:
I wonder why you felt the need to point that out.
How would you put piano sound into DAC, amp and speakers?
No I'm not angry with you. But I think you derailed the discussion. Sure, every thing is knit by quantum mechanisms but it doesn't mean that one has to discuss this for every single ordinary question - it would be like complimenting a nice view of the sea and the say - thank you quantum - its true but... yea you get it. (Or?)
//
I think it is funny. Why be so annoyed? This kind of stuff goes on all the time in business, particularly when it can be claimed it's a perception, anything goes.
They don't say if people heard a difference between -250dB and -240dB, or between -250dB and -50dB...
If they made a comparison between something lika a 32 bit vs 64-bit processing, or maybe 32 bit float vs 64 bit double, then on a long FIR filter there would probably be audible rounding errors at lower bit length, that would be unsurprising. Still the classic marketing trick "this battery lasts longer*" without telling what it is compared to.
If they made a comparison between something lika a 32 bit vs 64-bit processing, or maybe 32 bit float vs 64 bit double, then on a long FIR filter there would probably be audible rounding errors at lower bit length, that would be unsurprising. Still the classic marketing trick "this battery lasts longer*" without telling what it is compared to.
It’s truly amazing, they don’t believe corporations and resource-invested individuals would use shameless marketing but instead it’s more likely the scientific consensus is just wrong
Use a microphone, the designated entertainer do a live and often enough bring with him recordings for playback during his break. Used to happen in many weddings and other events around here before gatherings became a health risk. I think it used to happen all the time in the States too, but perhaps no longer so common in the recent years.
It remains a mistery why you're still so often talking about "debunking" of a correct statement.
It was always the same - there is no definition of the goal that all parties agreed on.
Right from the beginning some people (see Jewitt 1933) defined the purpose as:
"For the perfect pick-up, transmission and reproduction
of orchestral music a system is needed, such that
the sound reproduced in the ears of the listener is
the same as that which would be produced in his ears
if he were listening to the orchestra directly."
Others (like Stokowski) were excited about the new technology as it would allow to present the reproduced sound "bigger than life" .
No standardized recording procedure exists, no standardized production environment exists and no standardized reproduction environement exists as well.
Usual stereophonic reproduction is a lossy format, combine it with the mentioned intersubject differences and it isn't suprising that so many different solutions exist.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.