Why so much noise after the answer (first 3 words).
It's been painful to watch since July 2016.
I contest that it should stay as it is.
I worry because this question deserves an answer.
I will buy this when we invent the reproduction of smell, at earliest
Until then, you can plan development and sales for the 64 bit DAC for audio with the next generation of special 30k$ speaker cables, per piece of course.
Is it necessary that the entire world should accept a couple of bumps and punks, mostly too old or too young, to tell us what sounds good and what do not? Even more, to tell us what to ignore and what is important (for their business)?
No, sorry, you are twisting it, and avoiding answering.
I contest the OP question and the definition of Hi-Fi, for today's music market.
Conjuncture is not to be in confusion with positive awareness of factual legal possibilities. Assessment of risks are not illegal. It is called public service. The post reads clear, that it is only a possible assumption. All the physicists here also confirm, that the stated claims (hence Quality Control and specifications) are impossible to hold.
Ionmw,
Complete conjecture and rather damaging accusations or assumptions
Unless you can prove statements like these, they are not allowed.
Should I continue?
It was already discussed, post #19981 & 19983.
Perhaps it has not. The term has been exploited for marketing purposes but the meaning hasn't changed. Hi-fi of 50 years ago wouldn't make the "cut" today and hi-fi of 100 years ago wouldn't have made the "cut" 50 years ago. Why? The standard has changed.
But we are still riding those dead horses, come on
Until the new terms will be invented and one of them will win, we still have the old one.
Someone asserted here recently that digital is better and has already won the battle (as is, technology of 1981, launched around 1986). But this is not true, not even with state of the art of digital consumer technology.
Do not forget that Hi-Fi term was never assigned to prosumer market products. Only to consumer.
The title of the OP thread is also consumer oriented, not prosumer.
Last edited:
Oh, I like so much when people quote themselves to support their thinking.
BTW: thanks for explaining what Hi-Fi abbreviation means, and how this is your explanation. We did not know.
Thanks also for deciding, for us, that digital is sufficiently better than analog and it is what all we need from today on.
Keep up the good educational work! Good value!
A Clockwork Orange style induced
? Does it include hating Beethoven's 9th ?Really, some people need a good reading of Merriam-Webster
Attachments
So you like to twist, eh.
The definition is same for today's market as yesterday's market. The standard of what's considered high level fidelity has changed.
A FIR filter is a calculation for each tap/coefficient - rounding errors occur for each tap. I think you have a case here logically but I doubt the numbers/the math. But please present your calculus for scrutinisation.
//
Last edited:
Normally you'd use a fixpoint accumulator with enough bits, like Coeff_bits + Sample_bits + log2(FIR_length), in this case there is no rounding or overflow but bits cost money and money is expensive.
If the accumulator is 32 bit float, the words "you're fired" should come to mind immediately. 64 bit float, yes, that works. If someone hears rounding errors 53 bits down they should volunteer as a neutrino detector or something.
Most likely they compared 32 and 64 bit float, so yeah there would be a difference. But for marketing reasons, they'll never say, which means it's one more "more than *" claim.
Last edited:
You missed my point.
This was:
- what is the sense of making better devices, or even discussing how-to of their making and testing, if the new sources quality available to the consumer has been continually degraded, or even worse - if the naturalism of sources ("proper sounds") has almost left the building? Just for listening the old records?
I did not have another question. Only this one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.