The definition of that term is not complicated. "Hi" as in high and "Fi" as in fidelity. It's the level of fidelity in reproduced sound. Hi-Fi 50 years ago is not be as high as today. The standard did change over time.What do we do with it, regarding Hi-Fi definition, as this is the facto 90+% majority?
You are entitled to your own view.In my view, it is not possible and would be unnecessary to give a clear, meaningful definition of HiFi.
Can you detect the Plank length with a 32 bit ADC?So you brought the discussion down to Plank length level - now please tie it all back together so it makes sense for everyone!
It's the comparison between input and output.Hifi implies an existing original, not applicable if there is no original. It stays as it is, no need to worry about.
You are entitled to your own view.
Everybody is, no need to point it out.
That is a total propagation loss of about 250 dB.
Claiming that some people can hear even 50 dB more of propagation loss is
not funny. It is seriously insulting, like someone selling $$$ tickets for a party
with Elvis, Santa and Ulysses.
Simply disgusting.
Gerhard
Mark is so open-minded that his brain falls out on occasion 😉 (just teasing). Why think too hard or do real testing when you can just buy into anecdotes that align with your interests?
Rob Watts is either lying or has a few screws loose. I don't know the guy so I won't hazard a guess at which.
Last edited:
I wonder why you felt the need to point that out.Everybody is, no need to point it out.
How would you put piano sound into DAC, amp and speakers?input piano sound, output reproduced piano sound.
TNT,
Are you angry with me?
Everything happens in the realm of quantum orthodoxy.
But no, that`s the mathematical explanation of gravity. The physical explanation is much more elaborate, no wonder Newton could not figure it out.
No I'm not angry with you. But I think you derailed the discussion. Sure, every thing is knit by quantum mechanisms but it doesn't mean that one has to discuss this for every single ordinary question - it would be like complimenting a nice view of the sea and the say - thank you quantum - its true but... yea you get it. (Or?)
//
Claiming that some people can hear even 50 dB more of propagation loss is
not funny. It is seriously insulting, like someone selling $$$ tickets for a party
with Elvis, Santa and Ulysses.
Simply disgusting.
Gerhard
I think it is funny. Why be so annoyed? This kind of stuff goes on all the time in business, particularly when it can be claimed it's a perception, anything goes.
Funny that perception comes from latin percipĕre
which has another meaning, i.e. (id est 😉 ) the earning of a sum, like a monthly pay.
So perception and $$$ are not that far
🙄
which has another meaning, i.e. (id est 😉 ) the earning of a sum, like a monthly pay.
So perception and $$$ are not that far
🙄
They don't say if people heard a difference between -250dB and -240dB, or between -250dB and -50dB...
If they made a comparison between something lika a 32 bit vs 64-bit processing, or maybe 32 bit float vs 64 bit double, then on a long FIR filter there would probably be audible rounding errors at lower bit length, that would be unsurprising. Still the classic marketing trick "this battery lasts longer*" without telling what it is compared to.
If they made a comparison between something lika a 32 bit vs 64-bit processing, or maybe 32 bit float vs 64 bit double, then on a long FIR filter there would probably be audible rounding errors at lower bit length, that would be unsurprising. Still the classic marketing trick "this battery lasts longer*" without telling what it is compared to.
Aaaaand... we have a new audibility frontier, -300dB of audio band noise. One more step and some could claim hearing the gravitational waves, ears only. No, this is not in jest, LIGO is essentially a low noise, ~400dB gain parametric amplifier.
It’s truly amazing, they don’t believe corporations and resource-invested individuals would use shameless marketing but instead it’s more likely the scientific consensus is just wrong
Use a microphone, the designated entertainer do a live and often enough bring with him recordings for playback during his break. Used to happen in many weddings and other events around here before gatherings became a health risk. I think it used to happen all the time in the States too, but perhaps no longer so common in the recent years.How would you put piano sound into DAC, amp and speakers?
Technical nonsense, not even worth debunking again.
You seem to find lots of your interactions here "funny". I don't; in fact any interaction with you looks like fighting jello, not funny and it gets dirty.
It remains a mistery why you're still so often talking about "debunking" of a correct statement.
We're engineers. Oh, snake oil peddlers again?
Do you have any understanding of context ?
No, I did not implied that.
I have meant to ask what is the "proper sound" definition in 2021, to evaluate if Hi-Fi or not: in the context that nowadays all new sources (even voices) are digitized to an unknown (possibly very low) standard. So, what is Hi-Fi today?
<snip>
It was always the same - there is no definition of the goal that all parties agreed on.
Right from the beginning some people (see Jewitt 1933) defined the purpose as:
"For the perfect pick-up, transmission and reproduction
of orchestral music a system is needed, such that
the sound reproduced in the ears of the listener is
the same as that which would be produced in his ears
if he were listening to the orchestra directly."
Others (like Stokowski) were excited about the new technology as it would allow to present the reproduced sound "bigger than life" .
No standardized recording procedure exists, no standardized production environment exists and no standardized reproduction environement exists as well.
Usual stereophonic reproduction is a lossy format, combine it with the mentioned intersubject differences and it isn't suprising that so many different solutions exist.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Sound Quality Vs. Measurements