I haven't, but given what I know (that Jan has posted) I would not have expected them to sound the same.
EDIT. I really owe it to myself to get this https://delosmusic.com/recording/symphonic-sound-stage-vol-1/ and vol-2.
EDIT. I really owe it to myself to get this https://delosmusic.com/recording/symphonic-sound-stage-vol-1/ and vol-2.
Last edited:
I guess we could compare notes on Sound Stage. Low-ish price here: https://www.amazon.com/Symphonic-Listeners-Science-Recording-Orchestra/dp/B00000071B
For the record (pun intended) I am interested in Hi-Fi. Really. I am now on my journey to build my own speakers. I have saddled up the horses and am in official pursuit of the Holy Grail. See my post on what equipment I am listening to now.
Did it ever occur to you that we listen to music through memory? For example, someone says something and you understand it only after the last echoes of their words have gone. That's re-running the audio from memory. If I ask you to hum a tune you will undoubtedly run the tune through your mind before you hum it out loud. Snare drum? Guitar? All samples in your mind.
I can hear the difference between the above two videos and it's the same old story, the recording is flatter, less punch, less attack, just thump your fist on the desk, record that and play it back? Is it the same?
When I listen I ask myself - does it sound like the real thing? Does it sound like a piano? Does it sound like a guitar - ok it may be distorted but is the full range there?
It all comes down to frequency range - high-hat to kick drum and bass and clarity, can I hear all the instruments clearly and also does it all sound somewhat natural?
I do not play an instrument (yet) but I have tried out using a full set of drums and do hear live music on and off. I am always struck by the sheer power of live music - I would probaly need a 300W amp plus some serious speakers to get my living room to sound like a live band. And that's not to mention recording quality.
My opinion.🙂
It might seem that way if most of what you have learned about so far is frequency response.
Considering speakers, for example, transient response is important to me. Dispertion would be somewhat less important, as it's always possible to listen in the sweet spot if needed for critical listening. For others, the priorities might be different.
Regarding learning drums, your chances of ever getting any good at it increase significantly if you study snare drum only for the first year. The other most common drumset instruments and playing techniques can be added later. Too much all at once, and proper hand technique never develops.
Last edited:
It has been pointed out that musicians advertising hifi equipment (Andre Previn springs to mind) is less than ideal, as they generally hear the music internally (a certain deaf composer is the classic(al) example), so the replay system is used more as an aide memoire than as a serious attempt to recreate the live sound. A generalisation of course, to illustrate a point.
Indicating that the definition (and level) of high fidelity varies from person to person? And is not a measurable absolute?
People with limited time and/or budget often have to choose their priorities, or take whatever they happen to get.
Also, in the real world, there are design trade offs to deal with. Even JBL M2s use ported bass. Maybe they have done a very good job with it, I don't know, but they undoubtedly had to make trade off choices in the design of the system.
EDIT: As a thought experiment, suppose you want to compare 11 different washing machines and decide which one is best. But, they all have different features. One may be better for permanent press, another for wool. They might vary in other dimensions as well, soil extraction, wear and tear on clothes from the washing process, wrinkle minimization, etc. Even the highest price one may not be the best in all respects. How do you decide which one is better for your needs?
In engineering talk, one might ask if Hi-Fi is a scalar. If a vector, is vector magnitude maximization the optimal design choice for all uses?
Last edited:
Good point.Markw4 said:
A definition of hi-fi which varies from person to person would be a poor definition. The definition I gave is certainly not my definition, because I don't believe I or anyone else should have private definitions of words, but what I understand to be the definition when hi-fi was first considered about 60 years ago. If some modern dictionaries have a poorer definition then you would need to ask them why they contain mistakes; dictionaries do not create or determine definitions of words but merely record them (a dictionary needs to be 'hi-fi' too!). It is not intended to be a "measurable absolute" and should not be thought of in that way at all.awkwardbydesign said:
A reasonable analogy. However, most people could probably agree what features or performance level was appropriate for a device to be able to describe itself as being a washing machine. A particular example might not meet their special needs, but they could still agree that it was a washing machine. A washing machine washes clothes without doing significant damage to them. In the same way, a hi-fi system reproduces sound. You could do tests to determine what level of cleaning and damage were accepted by people, and then set numerical benchmarks so that a device which met these could describe itself as a washing machine - and people would accept this even though it might not meet their own criteria. In the same way tests have been done to determine what level of sound reproduction is needed for it to be called 'reproduction'.Markw4 said:
Hi-fi is neither. However, the agreed criteria for hi-fi could be considered a vector. Minimizing the magnitude of this vector makes little sense. This is because by definition anything smaller than this vector is just as acceptable as hi-fi to most people. Those people who require more will almost certainly want smaller figures on different axes. Looking at it another way, how can you balance off reduction in distortion against reduction in bandwidth or reduction in hum?
Take it with a grain of salt. I bet there's not many people (perhaps 10% only?) that will care enough about things like transient response, frequency response being flat or a certain dispersion, to save up for 10k/speaker.
Are we talking about the discriminating folks at DIYaudio? The same people working on .0008% distortion amplifiers?
No haha. I was just comparing the probabilities. If there's a small group of us that does what I explained, then there's a left-over 90% of us +/- 😛
That would seem to suggest that if we want to define Hi-Fi for use around here, then we should be talking about 99% or 99.9% of people. That is, most of the people here.
There are important things in life which science cannot measure. However, whether an amplifier qualifies to be called hi-fi is probably not one of them.Markw4 said:
If you want to combine 'scores' to get a single number then you can, but it will carry all the criticism rightly levelled at THD but magnified.
I am not saying that we simply take the results of tests carried out 60 years ago and accept them as definitive for all people forever. That would be silly. It is reasonable to suppose that some adjustment of the result may be needed from time to time, but I do mean adjustment - not the wholesale binning which some audiophiles seem to want. If 0.5% distortion was regarded back then as a threshold for hi-fi, then we may argue about whether it should be 1% or 0.3% (and we should do careful listening tests to find out) but we can be reasonably certain that it should not be 0.001% or 10%.
I don't know, but I would guess something in the region of 95%. Everyday experience would seem to suggest that most people are quite happy with systems which fall a long way short of hi-fi.
PS There is little evidence that most people on this forum have markedly different ability to distinguish between original and reproduced sound than anyone else. Let us not kid ourselves that we are in the 5% who need more than hi-fi. Some of us may be, but many of us are not. Those who make the most noise about their own hearing ability often turn out to be 'deaf' unless they can use their eyes too. On the other hand, there is ample anecdotal evidence that many on this forum are in the sector of the population (i.e. within the 95%) who cannot distinguish the original from hi-fi reproduction but prefer something other than reproduction.
Last edited:
Maybe we will find out it is spectrum dependent, that higher order harmonics are more noticeable and objectionable than 2nd or 3rd? Of course, we might not incorporate that into our definition of Hi-Fi if we stick with the THD model, and only perform tests for it.
Last edited:
But that is precisely the sort of thing I mean by adjustment. We could find that the threshold for most people is not '0.5% THD' but '0.5% THD with orders higher than 3rd less than 0.1%'. That would be a useful adjustment.
Although this thread is titled "are you really interested in hifi", we seem unable to agree on what hifi actually is!
Some feel it is definable by numbers, although there is disagreement on which numbers. I feel it is something other than that, which is harder to quantify. It sometimes seems that there is a wish to nail down an answer with numbers, because it is more comfortable than having to search for a more difficult answer. This (IMO, of course), is where science merges with religion; a reassuring answer means the searching can stop, just details to be ironed out or argued over. And as such is anti-scientific, in as much as the large questions get replaced by small ones.
I am not wishing to denigrate or insult anyone, and I have no problem with anyone working this way, but I won't accept a definition being imposed on me when I think it is wrong.
I would open up the question, as I feel this will move our understanding forwards, rather than going round in the same small circle. At the moment we are back with percentages to define hifi with numbers. As such it seems we are spiralling inwards, rather than outwards.
Some feel it is definable by numbers, although there is disagreement on which numbers. I feel it is something other than that, which is harder to quantify. It sometimes seems that there is a wish to nail down an answer with numbers, because it is more comfortable than having to search for a more difficult answer. This (IMO, of course), is where science merges with religion; a reassuring answer means the searching can stop, just details to be ironed out or argued over. And as such is anti-scientific, in as much as the large questions get replaced by small ones.
I am not wishing to denigrate or insult anyone, and I have no problem with anyone working this way, but I won't accept a definition being imposed on me when I think it is wrong.
I would open up the question, as I feel this will move our understanding forwards, rather than going round in the same small circle. At the moment we are back with percentages to define hifi with numbers. As such it seems we are spiralling inwards, rather than outwards.
It's simply that in science in engineering there is a need to quantify. Its the old, if you can't measure it then it doesn't exist. You can't design a product to a vague spiritual feeling standard. Or maybe call it, an internal subjective mental experience standard, if that's a better way of putting it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.