If that (bold) is what people want, then they should pursuit it by all means. I was addressing the term that's brought up often in audio replaying electronics.
What I've been explaining is, when people use the term "hi-fi" on audio replaying electronic equipment, it has a certain meaning and it needs to be clarified.
Not the equipment but the process would be considered successful if one can make a direct comparison to live sound. And speaking of the comparison, lets say you are playing Billy Joel's River of Dreams CD to audition amps, how will you know what it sounded like in that particular recording room in 1992? You do understand that different rooms would produce different sound even if it's the same performer, right? Per your definition of hi-fi, how would you source the real thing to compare to?
Nobody gives a hoot how accurate or faithful to the signal it is except for test equipment. What they actually care about is how accurate to real life it is. Everything else is incidental interest.
Incidentally, nobody else here is having trouble getting yours or any other point.
That's true save for the unknown variables, not least of which is how many of us have the necessary experience. It's also been suggested that more experience of real world acoustic events enables us to more easily fill in the gaps and make the sound more believable.
But there is a chance that more faithful reproduction of the signal is the best way to recreate the sought after illusion. However, I have not seen enough measurements on the acoustic signal at listener position of the total chain to support or refute my suspicion. As you say, what is it we need to measure?
Member plasnu on H2 thread showed reduced acoustic distortion from 100-1kHz on introduction of some negative phase H2 to the chain while a positive phase increase the acoustic distortion.
Again, I was responding to the terminology (mis-)used.
I asked you how to figure that out. No response so far.
Then the focus should be on speakers and room acoustics. The rest in the audio chain prior to those two are already hi-fi enough for our ears. You don't believe me? Just compare the frequency response and distortion level of DAC and amp vs. speakers. You will see the order of magnitude difference between one side of that audio chain location and the other.
Then why would you write something like "Nobody gives a hoot how accurate or faithful to the signal it is except for test equipment."?
Faithful reproduction (High Fidelity) would be one route to accomplish the goal for some, but it is not the goal itself, IMO. I'm always surprised every time I find another new route to get to the goal of recreating of illusions.
Faithful reproduction would be in proportion to versatility, but you can have many different audio systems, and I guess this is one of the reason tube amp guys have so many different tube amps. Who wants to collect 5 different Class-D amps.
There are no unknown variables unless you were born yesterday. If you've been hearing stuff(I mean anything and everything outside of electronics) long enough to be able to describe it using language, you're well equipped.
Last edited:
The problem with people demanding technical illustrations of real life events is they get caught up in semantics and lose the ability to communicate.
I thought I was pretty clear in my practical illustrations. To be practical, you need only use your ears as I have made abundantly clear, or so I thought.
Actually, the Charlie Byrd I was referencing focused around a pair of astonishingly transparent circa 1978 Boothroyd Stuart Meridian 105 mono ss amps, unrivaled to this day ime.
And no, my experience confirms you are not believable. I mean no offense but your lack of experience is evident
My final comment was directed at you.
If you find yourself just listening to your system , and not fussing over
whether (you subjectively)think it gives you the correct presentation - you
are satisfied.
Yes , the speakers and the room are 99.7% of this bliss.
The amp just has to be resilient enough to survive the occasional
overdriven "enthusiasm' , not requiring room cooling or other
esoteric considerations.
All the money , the debating/fussing. It is unrealistic
to want for something that is unobtainable.
As far as tubes , I had one , what I remember is that with overdriven enthusiasm
there was less fatigue (H3/5/7). I design SS with the same goal.
So I won't want to turn it off , even in a period of "enthusiasm".
OS
whether (you subjectively)think it gives you the correct presentation - you
are satisfied.
Yes , the speakers and the room are 99.7% of this bliss.
The amp just has to be resilient enough to survive the occasional
overdriven "enthusiasm' , not requiring room cooling or other
esoteric considerations.
All the money , the debating/fussing. It is unrealistic
to want for something that is unobtainable.
As far as tubes , I had one , what I remember is that with overdriven enthusiasm
there was less fatigue (H3/5/7). I design SS with the same goal.
So I won't want to turn it off , even in a period of "enthusiasm".
OS
You have yet to respond to the method of figuring out the level of transparency of sound replaying electronics. All you've posted is some vague statement about resembling "the real thing". I hope you can distinguish the difference between sound playing equipment and sound replaying equipment.
So "transparent" that a bad recording sounds .......bad.
But , something like a Alan Parson engineered selection has you
wanting more.
Input = output .
Mp3's seem lacking in HF detail and low <40hz content.
With my sub I can't listen to most MP3's .\
FLAC only for my better system.
Not the real thing , just some engineer doing his best (or worst).
OS
But , something like a Alan Parson engineered selection has you
wanting more.
Input = output .
Mp3's seem lacking in HF detail and low <40hz content.
With my sub I can't listen to most MP3's .\
FLAC only for my better system.
Not the real thing , just some engineer doing his best (or worst).
OS
I never said anything about the "real thing" , what a "audiophool" illusion.
You could (A/B) compare a room system to a quality pair of headphones.
The real thing is someone singing next to you , tamborines and bongo's that the
kids fool around with. They even sound different in other rooms.
So "real" also has wide variance. The room and hallway is the folded
horn (or port). And street noises are the distortion mechanisms.
The real world can model the acoustic / electrical one.
OS
Last edited:
When you said "real life" you meant any sound that hasn't been reproduced on your stereo? I was thinking of music, instruments, what the recorded event might have originally sounded like.
Irrelevant to my point. You simply don't get it. I can't help you any further except to perhaps re-read my posts.
Yes, and now compare that in general, to what is produced in your system in general....a comparison.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.