I was referring to myself as a hypocrite as, I said it's unsafe yet I still did. Lol
Looking good!
Personally I got some MC2 Audio amps and haven't worried about amplification since.
An audio device does not know the difference between "complex musical information" and "simple sine waves". All it sees is a time-varying voltage signal. It produces distortion products in exactly the same way for both. It just happens that the distortion products for a sine wave are all DC or harmonics, while the distortion products for other waveforms usually include anharmonic terms too. We may hear them differently, but the audio equipment does not care.Johhny2Bad said:
Who does that?
Do they? It all depends on what question you are asking: 'faithful reproduction?' or pleasant sound?'.
As I keep on saying, the measurements we use were determined by careful listening tests. They were not dreamt up by evil engineers in order to confuse and annoy non-technical audio enthusiasts. The measurements may need to be improved, but there is no evidence that they need to be discarded - whatever the imagination of some audiophiles may suggest.
Some close aproximation to this is required if the aim is hi-fi. If something else is the aim then people can have whatever sound they find pleasant. Hi-fi is not an "arbitrary standard", it is the standard which listening tests have shown result in realistic sound reproduction for almost all people.
Understood, but hypocrisy is not a reason for doing something. It is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations (borrowing from a formal definition).
Precisely. So using the measurements taken from that equipment doesn't accurately define high fidelity.
The problem with the term itself, is that it doesn't mean the same thing to different people. You and I demonstrate that, so it will probably always remain a bone of contention.
The post I quoted from desktop illustrates the problem; he could hear things that the accepted measurements claim are inaudible, but were clearly not.
Probably not. It would probably wise for any talking about age to end here, if HumbleDeer is what she claims to be. On the other hand, if a 50-year old male, I guess consenting adults are free to do as they choose.
Last edited:
Ah, well. I learned it otherwise at school. I guess they differ in meaning from country to country. Or.. Teacher to teacher.
I don't follow the flow of your logic. IMD and HD are essentially the same thing (nonlinear distortion) means that measurements don't define hi-fi? You lost me somewhere.awkwardbydesign said:
No, that is a problem with some people's understanding of the term. The term itself does not have a problem. It has a meaning, which some people seem not to know. If they choose to use an existing term but attach a new meaning of their own then this is not the fault of the term. If I said that daffodil flowers are blue and you (rightly) disputed this it does not mean that 'blue' is a poorly defined term and open to debate; it means that I don't know what 'blue' means or my colour vision is significantly defective.
"Inaudible" or 'likely to be inaudible to almost all people'? There is a huge difference between these two. There will be a few people who can hear sound defects which the rest of us cannot hear; these people are almost always not the same people who think they fit into this category.
'Hi-fi' means it reproduces sound so well that almost all people find it indistinguishable from the original sound. It does not mean that all people find it thus, just almost all people. It does not mean that almost all people find it pleasant to listen to; they may or may not, as that is a matter of taste. Hi-fi is not a matter of taste, it is not a matter of definition or debate; it is simply a matter of fact. Can people tell the difference?
Can anyone perhaps link me to some place on here -- maybe a link -- where I can make an album of my photos? I heard it's possible on here.
Oh oh and I got my mechanical keyboard back up and running. I had to take it A-part so I could drain any excess moisture. In the process of doing that, I ripped a small flatflex at the top. That means I had to go look for an old floppy cable to take flex from haha.
Oh oh and I got my mechanical keyboard back up and running. I had to take it A-part so I could drain any excess moisture. In the process of doing that, I ripped a small flatflex at the top. That means I had to go look for an old floppy cable to take flex from haha.
Last edited:
In practice, many people seem to use the term differently. Is there a formal definition somewhere we can refer to?
Therefore the definition of high fidelity means different things to different people.
You are making my case for me! 😀
Yes! Thanks 🙂
Update: I uploaded the pictures of my Logitline to my Album.
And a fun addon: I find "Battlefield 1 - Officiële singleplayer-trailer" to have pretty nice bass. The other sounds are pretty bad though :').
Last edited:
I have been into music for about 50 years. When I first bought records I wanted to play them when I wanted to, I had a record player with built in speaker.......and so started my journey to a better sound reproduction system. You will see that I have avoided the "hifi" tag.
Do I want it to reproduce the experience of "live" music? err.....not really. I have been to some dire live music.
Music has to move me... and that can be with gut wrenching bass and pounding drums...or a solo guitar or vocalist. If my system cannot do it all, then it is no good for me.
Over 50 years I have had many components and many many systems. I have found the "magic" and lost it again amny times in an effort to better it. It is very very frustrating.
What makes my magic and what makes your magic are completely different. Thankfully I have recently found it again and I did it without spending a penny. Throwing money at this hobby is where most people go wrong (IMO of course)
Do I want it to reproduce the experience of "live" music? err.....not really. I have been to some dire live music.
Music has to move me... and that can be with gut wrenching bass and pounding drums...or a solo guitar or vocalist. If my system cannot do it all, then it is no good for me.
Over 50 years I have had many components and many many systems. I have found the "magic" and lost it again amny times in an effort to better it. It is very very frustrating.
What makes my magic and what makes your magic are completely different. Thankfully I have recently found it again and I did it without spending a penny. Throwing money at this hobby is where most people go wrong (IMO of course)
Yes. Hi-fi is an abbreviation of 'high fidelity'. You can use a dictionary to find out what 'high' and 'fidelity' mean. But to save you the trouble, it simply means a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound - sufficient to make it indistinguishable from the original sound for most people. Nowhere in the definition of 'hi-fi' does the idea of pleasure come, or personal preference, or excitement, or 'slam', or 'musicality', or 'magic' or anything else which some audiophiles pursue or prefer; it is simply sound reproduction with a high degree of fidelity to the original sound. This is tested by comparing it with - wait for it - the original sound!!Markw4 said:
The fact that many people misuse the term does not drain it of meaning; it merely indicates confusion or ignorance. Such confusion and ignorance has now been banished for all participants in this thread because they have now seen the definition of hi-fi explained to them once again.
No it does not. The definition I gave above applies to all people. Some people (very few) require something even better than hi-fi; many people require less than hi-fi. Their various needs do not mean that they each have their own private definition of hi-fi because the definition is not sound which I find indistinguishable from the original, but sound which most people find indistinguishable. This is the crucial point which I keep repeating, but which people keep ignoring.awkwardbydesign said:
Thank you for trying to save me trouble. As it happened, I already Googled for definitions yesterday. Most of them seem to be in agreement with the first part of your definition, but differ in that they don't say anything about being indistinguishable for most people.
That being said, I like your definition better. But, at the same I can understand why other people might use the term more in keeping with the definitions I found.
Bottom line, I would encourage people to start using your definition, but not judge them as lacking if if they don't.
high fidelity Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
The meaning as I have understood it for decades.
The meaning as I have understood it for decades.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.