Thank you for confirming the point I was making.KenTajalli said:
That would depend on what you mean by "achievement": reproduction or a pleasing sound? And it would depend on whether the listeners were influenced by appearance or the opinion of others or were just relying on their ears.
I don't know what measured results are common. However, who is arguing that measured results are everything? It would help a discussion if people address what other people in the discussion say, not what other people not in the discussion are alleged to say.
True, but the way forward is improve measurements not discard them. To measure more, not less. The measurements we currently have ("common" measurements) are done because they have been shown to have some correlation with sound reproduction quality. Anyone who doubts this should listen to his music via a system similar to an old analogue telephone: narrow frequency response, high noise, high distortion - he will then discover that frequency response, noise level and non-linear distortion are relevant measurements for a sound reproduction system. Analogue telephones can get away with their apparent weaknesses because accurate sound reproduction was not an aim; all they required was good intelligibility plus some degree of personal voice recognition.
I know of many that don't argue with me on this point, only a handful in this forum! 😉
I admit your version of hifi is not achievable nor really required.
I have to settle for best compromise.
Good published measured results are necessary, but that is not hifi!
Nor is plumbing size speaker cables, tube buffers to add that sweet 'tuby' sound or . . .
I put it to you that your definition of 'hifi' is not accurate, if you base it on measured results alone.
The term hifi was coined for equipments or recordings of music for home enjoyment.
Lab results, are only a pert of that, home and music are big parts of that.
What you are referring to is close to 'pro recording-studio equipment', not hifi.
Nope 'fidelity' has a well understood definition. And you can get very close to your electronics sounding of 'nothing'. The fact that magazines often review accurate electronics as 'sterile' or 'lacking warmth' generally indicates that they don't understand fidelity either.
If you have a set of distortions you like, good for you. but don't pretend its 'better'.
If you have a set of distortions you like, good for you. but don't pretend its 'better'.
How can it have a different meaning, your post is rather silly....
High-fidelity | Define High-fidelity at Dictionary.com
high fidelity Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
high fidelity - definition of high fidelity in English from the Oxford dictionary
Urban Dictionary: high fidelity
the meaning of fidelity is from the Latin faithful
fidelity - definition of fidelity in English from the Oxford dictionary
High-fidelity | Define High-fidelity at Dictionary.com
high fidelity Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
high fidelity - definition of high fidelity in English from the Oxford dictionary
Urban Dictionary: high fidelity
the meaning of fidelity is from the Latin faithful
fidelity - definition of fidelity in English from the Oxford dictionary
A quick Google for the term 'What is hif' gave many hits,
Most just go as far defining hif as high fidelity, its origins and so forth.
here are two for your enjoyment:
All About Sound - What is hi fi sound? - KEF United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
Most just go as far defining hif as high fidelity, its origins and so forth.
here are two for your enjoyment:
All About Sound - What is hi fi sound? - KEF United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
People often refer to stuff they don't understand as silly.😀
Hifi is a loose term, read your own articles.
It does not really have an accepted definition as such, it just became a common word to distinguish between older lowfi recordings or lowfi equipment such phonographs and telephone or AM radio.
At its core hifi means truthful reproduction of music at home, but there are so many variables (the room itself for one).
A live recording is different to a studio album.
Studio albums were recorded to sound good on studio monitor speakers! which may have been flawed, or just sounded right in that environment.
Also being faithful to original presumes there is an original! Say a 'Pink Floyd' album has no original.
Even live recordings are at the mercy of microphone placements, recording equipment and the engineer who later edited and equalised it at his studio.
So what if we make a recording and not edit or equalise it?
fine , but how many commercial recordings follow that doctrine?
A 'hifi system' must work as a whole.
It seems some are arguing if two equipments measure the same, they will sound the same, I say 'not necessarily so' -
measurements are a first step towards hifi, long term listening tests are the final.
Just because a $50 DAC has 'diminishingly low distortion' does not mean it will sound good (to the person buying it),
nor does a $50000 DAC with diamond embedded circuit board and cosmic-ray sealed clock generator sound any better.
Hifi simply means reproduction of music (not electrical signals) at home which is of high quality,
but this 'high quality' is a vague area, where many links in the chain must work together to produce it.
Hifi does not even apply to home cinema with its artificial sound effects, dialogue requirements, so forth.
More wrong. It has a very clear accepted definition. The fact that marketing and boutique audio try and sell a dream rather than accuracy does not change the definition. Effects boxes are just that.
Ken, low distortion means that the electrical signal after conversion is pretty much the same as that which entered the chain. Vanishingly low distortion means that the output is very much the same. This will sound as intended. But some people might wish to rather have an effect box, which is nothing but saying they like certain kinds of distortions. A 50 dollar DAC which measures identical to a 5000 dollar one will sound identical. All the rest is magical thinking.
The real and only definition of High-Fidelity is the quest to reproduce sounds that are as close as possible to the original source.
The perfect, absolute, High-fidelity system would be able to reproduce any sound encountered in nature in a way you could not distinguish it from the real thing, including music instruments or thunder or Manatee growl. The perfect audio illusion. An audiocopy machine.
When someone aim for ''hifi'', he aims at that very goal description, even though it's just not possible with our actual technology.
Otherwise, it's something else. Pretty much like photoshop for audio reproduction, where you can add colors and effects to your tastes and where high-fidelity is not the primary concern.
The perfect, absolute, High-fidelity system would be able to reproduce any sound encountered in nature in a way you could not distinguish it from the real thing, including music instruments or thunder or Manatee growl. The perfect audio illusion. An audiocopy machine.
When someone aim for ''hifi'', he aims at that very goal description, even though it's just not possible with our actual technology.
Otherwise, it's something else. Pretty much like photoshop for audio reproduction, where you can add colors and effects to your tastes and where high-fidelity is not the primary concern.
if in my words: to reproduce exactly what the source media means, regardless how good or how poor the mastering is
No it does not.
we only measure what we believe is relevant and are able to, as yet we do not know all that is relevant so we can attempt to measure them.
I never suggested we need an effects box, or boutique equipments are the way to go., quite the contrary!
The only thing I have been arguing is that today's 'measured lab results' , do not tell the whole story.
good lab measurements are the first step, the ground works.
Nice analogy....
Ah measurements... the bane of audiophillia, far better to wax lyrical about sound stage (or similar) which is formed inside our heads and as such is hard to quantify as it is based on perception and we all perceive differently....
Both positions are, in the extreme, just plain naive.
There's no way to put Carnegie Hall in your music room. Just can't be defined no matter how easily it rolls off the tongue as if it were a biblical truth. No way to present music of any sort except by cooking it for home consumption. You can't stick a mic in Row H on the aisle and play it back at home.
On the other hand, just nihilism to say there's no disputing taste.
But it is possible is to say the home system can reproduce the sound the recording engineer heard (or wanted to hear.... OK not a perfect definition). That's not entirely satisfactory - unless you are the recording engineer. But it does work in principle.
I think people here accept that they shouldn't need to adjust their home system in any way except volume to accommodate playback. That is one way to look at what "neutral" means.
Ben
There's no way to put Carnegie Hall in your music room. Just can't be defined no matter how easily it rolls off the tongue as if it were a biblical truth. No way to present music of any sort except by cooking it for home consumption. You can't stick a mic in Row H on the aisle and play it back at home.
On the other hand, just nihilism to say there's no disputing taste.
But it is possible is to say the home system can reproduce the sound the recording engineer heard (or wanted to hear.... OK not a perfect definition). That's not entirely satisfactory - unless you are the recording engineer. But it does work in principle.
I think people here accept that they shouldn't need to adjust their home system in any way except volume to accommodate playback. That is one way to look at what "neutral" means.
Ben
Last edited:
It should be noted that until such time as we have valid blind tests that correlate (or not) the measures to what is perceived by the ear/brain we have made a subjective assumption that those measures mean something.
Many measures seem very obvious, but some who knows. THD (single number) has, for instance, been shown to be pretty much meaningless.
dave
lol
pro sometime tells that they cannot distinguish the difference between what they recorded and what they heard in their studio
but of course, they dont use fullange drivers
The basic question is whether anybody can conduct blind listening test with positive results which can't be explained. Only then can we say our measurements and understanding fall short.
No one could be certain we know all about objective assessment, but I think the golden-ears have yet to show they can hear thinks that can't be measured or otherwise understood.
Ben
No one could be certain we know all about objective assessment, but I think the golden-ears have yet to show they can hear thinks that can't be measured or otherwise understood.
Ben