You don't get what I've been explaining to you. That's unfortunate.
Mark, i´m at a loss, because what you´re suggesting is imho exactly what i did.
I asked for a source/citation for the expressed assertion and delivered two informations that contradict the assertion at least a bit, to explain why i did ask.
Nothing meant to be offensive, so if you could give me a hint where an undertone is burried it would certainly help?!
radiosmuck, I think the people who used to buy component Hi-Fi systems now buy Hi-Fi Surround receivers, speakers, BlueRay and CD players.
Something I have noticed on here, and on an amateur radio forum I sometimes frequent, is that people who are very persistent in propagating technically false ideas (I mean really false, as in getting the basics wrong, not just arguing over details as we are mainly doing in this thread) often turn out to be commercially involved. Those who are persistent in trying to teach them are almost always amateurs, with successful careers in other technical areas.Evenharmonics said:
So... Does that mean we can arrive at an acceptable definition of Hi Fi that suits all?
And if so, we need a statement that we can all sign up to.. Or at least, maybe, a couple of release candidates to discuss...
And if so, we need a statement that we can all sign up to.. Or at least, maybe, a couple of release candidates to discuss...
If we are in a process of officially redefining the term in English language, then maybe. But we aren't.
Yes, they are very persistent (not surprising since money is involved) and when asked to reveal their identity, they either lie or won't answer.
It's not like that. For a start you don't count. It's just that the footsteps due to a variety of reasons both acoustic and anthropomorphic not only give really good sense of the size of the venue (echos with little music to confuse the issue), but also a pretty good vector for movement.
Plus it shows its a real peformance and not everyone standing around in studio 2 just singing, which is a bit + in my book.
Understood. Sometimes it can take hours, weeks, or years to come back and reread one's own writings from a fresh perspective, and imagine from a very fresh perspective how something might read if were directed at you rather than at someone else with an opposing view.
It just seemed to me in this case that an argument was continuing with evidence/arguments being alternately tossed back and forth.
In such exchanges, contradicting expert testimony may be offered up by both sides.
This type of activity seems to me to fit in with what Haidt was describing, in the two pages I posted, about thinking like lawyers and trying to win the case, long after beliefs had been firmly set.
In such back and forth arguments, neither side is usually paying much attention to the merits of the other side's arguments, but each is mostly looking for weaknesses in the opposition case that can be exploited.
I bet in person you and Charles might get along fine and come to some quick agreement over a couple of friendly beers.
Anyway, given all the discussion so far, I wonder if you could point out the merits of Charles' position, or even help him strengthen it. And, I wonder if he could do the same for you.
Whether or not each of you could do it right now without going back and reading some previous posts, I don't know. But, I would suspect whatever the strengths of each other's arguments were, they were most likely discounted or ignored in the focused effort of trying to win one's own case.
Maybe, probably, each of you has some good points. Maybe the most productive way of going forward would be to acknowledge and enumerate the stronger points of each other's positions, and those areas where you might find some agreement.
Then, starting from there, a question arises as to what is a practical way to define Hi-Fi given the limitations of today's technology and reasonable extrapolation into the not-too-distant future.
Perhaps there could be a practical working definition in the context today and the next few years, and a more idealistic, but less immediately practical definition. I don't know, it would depend on what you could agree on.
However, all that probably sounds like a lot of work right now, and I agree it would be. I don't expect either of you to want to take it on. But if the discussion had taken a more exploratory thinking form all along, rather than a confirmatory thinking form, perhaps some good result would have been arrived at well before now.
And if it had worked out that way, most likely both of you would have been less frustrated with each other, and more satisfied, as compared to the way things have turned out so far when human default thinking patterns exert their very strong bias on behavior.
Okay, I have to end this somewhere. Not sure if I provided a satisfactory answer, but if not, please feel free to ask me to try harder to do so. In that case, I will try to keep it short and to the point.
Last edited:
When I Googled Hi-Fi to find a definition, every source seemed to define it somewhat differently. There didn't seem to be strong agreement about it. For most other words and terms, definitions appear to much more consistent.
Since the term seems only vaguely defined, and since this there is a lot of interest in the topic in this forum, it might make sense to define it some more clear cut way for use here. In fact, defining words for use in some specialized or expert context is done all the time in every professional field. Don't see why it wouldn't be of use here.
Two definitions along these lines so far
1. Hi-Fi sound reproduction occurs when the listener is unable to tell the difference between the sound reproduction and the actual performance.
Performance of all kinds of music, classical, rock, jazz, techno, acid trance, tibetan music etc.
I suggest the use of blindfolds as they are unlikely to affect the sound as much as heavy curtains.😎
2) Hi-Fidelity sound reproduction occurs when the waveform of sound output at the listening position matches exactly the waveform of the sound recorded to the recording media at the mastering stage.😎
Several caveats, that's my amateur definition based on these posts here and other sources, notably Floyd Toole. I hope I have been fair by him.🙂
1. Hi-Fi sound reproduction occurs when the listener is unable to tell the difference between the sound reproduction and the actual performance.
Performance of all kinds of music, classical, rock, jazz, techno, acid trance, tibetan music etc.
I suggest the use of blindfolds as they are unlikely to affect the sound as much as heavy curtains.😎
2) Hi-Fidelity sound reproduction occurs when the waveform of sound output at the listening position matches exactly the waveform of the sound recorded to the recording media at the mastering stage.😎
Several caveats, that's my amateur definition based on these posts here and other sources, notably Floyd Toole. I hope I have been fair by him.🙂
I don't think number 2 is realistic as noise, and distortion below the threshold of hearing may be present but not perceived.
In light of the symposium which was linked earlier, I would be agreeable to number 1.
In light of the symposium which was linked earlier, I would be agreeable to number 1.
After reading last dozen pages or so on this thread, it's still vague to you? That's unfortunate.
When I just googled hi fi I got a bunch of hits to stores with hi fi in their store name.
On page 2 I got the below link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
On page 2 I got the below link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
The Wikipedia article references a book, H.B. Hartly's Audio Design Handbook, published in 1958. See attached page on High Fidelity.
The book is about reproduction systems only.
The book is about reproduction systems only.
Attachments
Last edited:
As there have been tests over the years, from the days of cylinder recordings, where the listeners have been unable to tell the two apart, that condition would appear to have been met!
So I think high fidelity (not hi-fi) is a process, a journey, rather than a set position. I like that definition, but it is a moving target; DF96's position of "to most people" is not a constant. Peter Walker's "the closest approach to the original sound" would work for me, but needs to be recognised as an approach, not an arrival.
It has been suggested that without an internal reference, which changes with the culture (look at how old CGI is not even remotely convincing now. And my grandson who is a gamer, can see the deficiencies in the new stuff). So a black and white train roaring out of the cinema screen WAS real. No internal reference to distinguish it from a live train.
Last edited:
That gives a different definition of hi-fi for each listener, and thus is of little use in designing or judging equipment.BasicHIFI1 said:
"Matches exactly" is an absolute requirement, which will never happen. Hence not a useful definition.
As I have said several times, I would expect the equipment performance requirements for hi-fi to need adjustment from time to time, on the basis of new listening tests. In that sense I am not asking for a set position. I am, however, asking for a definition of a term which is useful (in that it can be achieved) and universal (in that different people can agree what it means), and accords with the individual meanings of the constituent words. I am afraid that the technical requirements to achieve hi-fi might have peaked in the 1980s and now will be getting relaxed again, as high quality sound is now heard by fewer people than back then.awkwardbydesign said:
I have some sympathy for those who wish to define hi-fi in terms of reproducing a signal waveform, as at least that preserves the idea of 'fidelity'. However, it cannot be an absolute requirement as we have no way of exactly reproducing a signal. There needs to be some description of how much the reproduction can deviate from the original. The only sensible way to determine what deviation is acceptable is to listen, but as soon as you do that you are actually declaring that what matters is not the signal waveform but the sound in the air. So why not go straight for reproduction of sound as the standard instead of reproduction of voltage? Reproduction of voltage then becomes a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Almost certainly a necessary means, too.
But this will be definition never happen, if only because the venue acoustics are totally different between performance and reproduction. So this is not a very useful definition for our goal, if you know you'll never get there anyway.
The definition of no (audible) difference between what goes in and what comes out of the equipment is more useful as it can be measured and tested and can be reached. Except maybe for speakers.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.