completely false analogy, can't You see it?
Picasso would actually stay as realistic as before
You cannot make a painting as a physical object as such more or less realistichigh fidelity is about audible illusions, illusions can be more or less realistic
and if the illusion created by the producer of the recording can be improved then why not?
Last edited:
excuse me - what is the point (from perspective of a simple music lover, not a professional) of "learning to seperate those two very distinct things"?
is it becoming an audiophile? getting audiophilia as a goal in itself?
in high fidelity something is better when it brings the music closer to You so that You can have an experience that is fuller aesthetically or just more fun
high fidelity is for music lovers
BTW for everyone interested in learning to separate everything from everything in sound and music here is something interesting: Moulton Laboratories :: Golden Ears
Golde Ears - "An audio ear-training course for recording engineers, producers and musicians"
Looks like your real question is "what's the point in culture?".
Last edited:
illusion is NOT a physical object, it is an psychological effect which can be created by means of some physical objects and/or human acts
can You see the difference?
I am not generally a proponent of relativism, but I think you guys should accept that there is no one right way with stereo sound reproduction. There are a couple of perspectives on stereo that are equally valid. It seems the premises on which you base the discussion going on here are different.
What are stereo and the sound system supposed to do?
What are stereo and the sound system supposed to do?
That's the point, create a thoughtful framework. The ones we have right now are based on tradition and chance.
to bring the music to the music lover at her/his home to her/his aesthetical satisfaction?
"To me audio is just a room service like central heating" - this is the point of high fidelity in the words of the inventor of the term and I agree 100%
graaf: in high fidelity something is better when it brings the music closer to You so that You can have an experience that is fuller aesthetically or just more fun
So if I think adding 20db at 100hz and using my "Jazz Room" reverb off my reciever is fuller or more fun, this is hi-fi?
I like the Picasso analogy and think its accurate. I like my Picassos wih more blue so I shine blue light on them (same as adding a lot of EQ to a recording). This is not accuracy, its personal taste. (and this is not the same as adding a little blue light to fix the white ballance of the light, or a little EQ to fix a deficient recording)
So if I think adding 20db at 100hz and using my "Jazz Room" reverb off my reciever is fuller or more fun, this is hi-fi?
I like the Picasso analogy and think its accurate. I like my Picassos wih more blue so I shine blue light on them (same as adding a lot of EQ to a recording). This is not accuracy, its personal taste. (and this is not the same as adding a little blue light to fix the white ballance of the light, or a little EQ to fix a deficient recording)
Picasso had a very unusual (unrealistic) way of reducing three dimensions to two. Bring it back to three would make it more realistic.
My situation is the following: Once a year I go to the Days of Ancient Music in Regensburg, where I hear the ensembles in medieval rooms and churches, what I like. The managers of some labels however think it is better to produce the CDs like the ones with contemporary small ensembles (pop) and this is where other "artists" appear (mixing and mastering engineers). For me some "artists" too much, and if I can destroy their work with CFS I find that good, and if I can't do it in the desired way with Carlssons I find that bad.
no, it is not because hi-fi is about bringing the music
on the other hand "adding 20db at 100hz" is closer to making music rather than to bringing it
perhaps the word "fun" in my post appeared to be misleading, perhaps I was also overgeneralizing in a misleading way, I apologize
high fidelity was defined with reference to acoustic instruments and music events and as such as a "realistic high fidelity" - the title of Hartley's book (I posted picture of it's front cover)
therefore using "a little EQ to fix" (which is essentially the same thing as "adding 20db" ie. altering somehow subjectively deficient recording) is hi-fi absolutely if it makes the sound more realistic, closer tonally to the real thing in the ears of the listener of course, not more fun as such but more fun as more resembling the real thing
therefore in classic hi-fi gear like Quad or McIntosh we find tone controls
They knew that hi-fi was supposed to give satisfaction to a music lover (not to lover of boom boom bass massage
) with a satisfactory substitute of live musicthis is the principal goal of hi-fi, it is not to pay hommage to "the art of the producer", it is to bring the music as realistically as possible in a small room - not to bring the sacred Picasso-like art of producer as accurately as possible - such an approach is taking means as ends
and an impossible thing to achieve for the time being (we have agreed, don't we?)
in case of recordings that we have there is no way out of the circle of confusion
therefore the same goes as to "Jazz room reverb" - if it is good reverb ie. one that makes the presentation more realistic not spoiling tonality nor adding any artificial quality to the sound at the same time then the answer is - yes this is hi-fi
honestly I think that it is unfair to suggest that using an omni is the same sort of thing as adding 20 dB @100Hz or using cheap reverb effect
we are not discussing sick abuses or abnormal deformations, are we?
giving the alternative answer would mean that we all (including Toole, Moulton, Linkwitz and so on) are just sick abusers of "art" and amateurs of deformations
Last edited:
my favourite quote regarding the question of "accuracy":
"Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids."
apparently for some people - like Linkwitz -"accurate" means "accurately" mimicking the real thing ie. the real auditory experience, accesible as such, in it's basic elements and structures, even for a person "with hearing damage or with hearing aids"
go and tell Linkwitz that He does not care for "accuracy" and that His inaccurate designs are proof for that
"Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids."
apparently for some people - like Linkwitz -"accurate" means "accurately" mimicking the real thing ie. the real auditory experience, accesible as such, in it's basic elements and structures, even for a person "with hearing damage or with hearing aids"
go and tell Linkwitz that He does not care for "accuracy" and that His inaccurate designs are proof for that
Made an internet search on "Naqvi" and after filtering out search results about terrorists and suicide bombers I found this paper about "The Active Listening Room - A Novel Approach to Early Reflection Manipulation in Critical Listening Rooms"
http://www.sonicelement.co.uk/Research_files/JAES_AN_ALR Paper.pdf
To me it just looks like a rude implementation of Ambiophonics. Home Page
- Elias