I have to admit there is a fuzzy element here, the "sound" has to include room/speakers, etc. I find it easier to separate the fidelity problem into the electrical/signal issue and the mechanical reproduction issue.
Fair enough. But how do you decide what IS the original sound, and where is the final sound measured/analysed/heard/experienced? This is my point. And where the disagreement starts.
I don't really have a problem with someone thinking it is the measurements (imperfect though they are, and constantly evolving); I just have a problem with the dogmatic assertion that this is the final arbiter.
I don't believe it is.
TBH my biggest gripe is that, for music recorded in a natural acoustic there has been no move forwards in creating a realistic soundfield since ambisonics, which wasn't widely adopted. The best current research is around headphone listening driven by smart phones and gaming. I know chesky are doing binaural recordings now, and I have tried them but they don't do it for me for some reason.
For the electronics transparency to source hasn't been an issue for some time.
For studio recordings where everything is 'created' then of course it gets more complex, but I'd rather chase fidelity to natural recordings. At least you can go to live concerts and experience it for yourself (and realise that a lot of the sh*t that reviewers talk about isn't experienced in the concert hall).
For the electronics transparency to source hasn't been an issue for some time.
For studio recordings where everything is 'created' then of course it gets more complex, but I'd rather chase fidelity to natural recordings. At least you can go to live concerts and experience it for yourself (and realise that a lot of the sh*t that reviewers talk about isn't experienced in the concert hall).
I addressed "the original sound" here in this other long and cantankerous thread. I do wonder if many people want an illusion of the original sound (as in a euphonic version), rather than the original sound itself.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/169484-what-wrong-op-amps-79.html#post4916690
I believe that it is taught the same in the whole world, it is someone who says something in which he does not believe ....😕
Most people want music they can enjoy, otherwise they will not buy it. With currently existing technology, it isn't possible to perfectly reproduce sound as it exists at the source. If if it were possible, the sound of the original performance may not be all that great, and it might not be salable compared to another version that sounds better.
To put it another way, sometimes people think they know what they want, but if they get it, they find out it wasn't what they expected or imagined. It could be that people who seem to believe that perfect reproduction is the ideal sound, if they actually got it, then compared it to a better sounding version, most would want to listen to the better sounding version most of the time, because it would be something that is a more enjoyable experience to listen to.
EDIT: Recently, I recorded as accurately as possible using extremely good mics and electronics, the sound of a tambourine. It doesn't sound very enjoyable to listen to compared to what it would sound like if it were recorded in a way that made it sound better. In the real world, nobody would record tambourine that way with every little detail of the sound clearly audible. Tambourines sound much more tolerable to listen to if mic-ed in a way the smooths out the sound and makes it more pleasant. Same for brass instruments, they can be too edgy sounding in the higher frequency range close up, but a ribbon mic can smooth that out and make them sound great.
Record companies and professional recording engineers know all this, and music is a business for them. They need to produce a product that will sell in order to be able to stay in business.
Last edited:
What people want to hear does not change the definition of hifi as it relates to sound reproduction. Not that that's what you meant but merely commenting on a theme that keeps recurring.
It is interesting the example you gave regarding the tambourine.. I'm not sure most folks listen to an instrument or ensemble in the way that one would mic it to capture every nuance of an instrument. That is, I know I enjoy my tambourine(or brass horns, for that matter) to be played at some distance from my ear. It's amusing to think of an audience listening to a performance at a live music venue the way a studio engineer would mic an instrument. Could you imagine how crowded the stage would be with everyone stuffing their heads into a kick drum or standing on top of a piano to capture all the nuances? To that end, the idea of "sounds like you were there" has gone out the window with modern recording, or rather, production/mixing techniques. Motown was more true to form in documenting what the sound in the studio was like much more so than modern music, despite the leaps and bounds advances in technology. However, even though the end product was not a high fidelity representation of what transpired in the studio, the equipment that reproduces the final product faithfully would still be considered hifi, imo.
I suppose, in reading through this thread, the argument lies in what part of the signal chain determines "hifi". I believe there to be a tremendous difference between a high fidelity *recording* and a hifi *playback system*. Can you have one without the other? I would say yes. Can you call a masterfully recorded orchestral ensemble played back on a coby squawk box "hifi"? Well.. The recording may be but the rest of the signal chain would certainly not qualify.
Like others here, I don't believe the general population would desire to partake in such high fidelity signal chains and listening environments, despite the claims that they themselves make. The population that would, I'm afraid, is dwindling by the years passing and the generations coming up aspire less and less to engage in the expense and/or rigors of observing a chain of signal preservation that is worthy of being called hifi, especially when it is so much easier to buy a Beats whatever and have all music sound "good".
sent from my mobile look-at device
It is interesting the example you gave regarding the tambourine.. I'm not sure most folks listen to an instrument or ensemble in the way that one would mic it to capture every nuance of an instrument. That is, I know I enjoy my tambourine(or brass horns, for that matter) to be played at some distance from my ear. It's amusing to think of an audience listening to a performance at a live music venue the way a studio engineer would mic an instrument. Could you imagine how crowded the stage would be with everyone stuffing their heads into a kick drum or standing on top of a piano to capture all the nuances? To that end, the idea of "sounds like you were there" has gone out the window with modern recording, or rather, production/mixing techniques. Motown was more true to form in documenting what the sound in the studio was like much more so than modern music, despite the leaps and bounds advances in technology. However, even though the end product was not a high fidelity representation of what transpired in the studio, the equipment that reproduces the final product faithfully would still be considered hifi, imo.
I suppose, in reading through this thread, the argument lies in what part of the signal chain determines "hifi". I believe there to be a tremendous difference between a high fidelity *recording* and a hifi *playback system*. Can you have one without the other? I would say yes. Can you call a masterfully recorded orchestral ensemble played back on a coby squawk box "hifi"? Well.. The recording may be but the rest of the signal chain would certainly not qualify.
Like others here, I don't believe the general population would desire to partake in such high fidelity signal chains and listening environments, despite the claims that they themselves make. The population that would, I'm afraid, is dwindling by the years passing and the generations coming up aspire less and less to engage in the expense and/or rigors of observing a chain of signal preservation that is worthy of being called hifi, especially when it is so much easier to buy a Beats whatever and have all music sound "good".
sent from my mobile look-at device
Last edited by a moderator:
The reality is that most bands do not play in perfect balance. If they have a bandleader or conductor who can coach them to do that well, and lots of practice adjusting their playing accordingly, then things may be different. Therefore, as a practical matter it become necessary to be able to do some mixing which in turn requires close micing.
In other words, it's not just a matter sticking up a couple of mics out front of everybody and capturing something great that even so-called HiFi enthusiasts would actually want to buy and listen to. Again, doesn't apply in some cases. However, there are balance problems in many cases, in my experience, even with only single performer playing a guitar and singing.
From a more theoretical perspective, I see your point. I just don't think that practically speaking sound recording and playback is likely to happen an more strictly defined "HiFi" way anytime soon, and so if we define HiFi as describing something almost nobody actually wants or can obtain, then we might need to invent a new term we can use to talk about everyday good, high quality sound people like and not a word reserved for scientists and engineers to use in professional literature. But we could do that, if enough people want to. Would be okay with me.
In other words, it's not just a matter sticking up a couple of mics out front of everybody and capturing something great that even so-called HiFi enthusiasts would actually want to buy and listen to. Again, doesn't apply in some cases. However, there are balance problems in many cases, in my experience, even with only single performer playing a guitar and singing.
From a more theoretical perspective, I see your point. I just don't think that practically speaking sound recording and playback is likely to happen an more strictly defined "HiFi" way anytime soon, and so if we define HiFi as describing something almost nobody actually wants or can obtain, then we might need to invent a new term we can use to talk about everyday good, high quality sound people like and not a word reserved for scientists and engineers to use in professional literature. But we could do that, if enough people want to. Would be okay with me.
Last edited:
The original sound is what someone would have heard had they been present at the time of the musical performance. This immediately raises issues:awkwardbydesign said:
1. Did the performance actually ever exist? For much modern music the answer has to be 'no'; hence hi-fi has little meaning for this.
2. Assuming a real performance happened, then the sound would be different in different places in the auditorium - yet all there would have heard something which approximated to the same performance. Hi-fi means that what you hear reproduced is similarly an approximation (a good approximation) to what you would have heard somewhere in the hall.
I don't think nitpicking about all these issues actually helps understanding. What is it about sound reproduction which people find so confusing or threatening?
The final arbiter is 'does it sound like the original sound'? The measurements are based on what has been found to be adequate performance to provide this. As I keep saying, they were not dreamt up by evil engineers to annoy audiophiles; they were the result of careful listening tests.
Hi-fi means accepting the unpleasant but realistic sound of the actual instrument; after all, that is what we would have heard had we been present at the performance. Audiophiles may prefer the sanitised version - and in some cases may never have heard the real thing. Unfortunately the choice may already have been made for us by the recording engineer, but one could regard that as part of the performance in the sense that the musicians may have had some input into that decision.Markw4 said:
One factor regarding things like tambourines is that in live performance, air attenuation of HF over distance reduces some of more objectionable sound. As I mentioned in another post, distant micing is not always practical due to balance issues among performers. That's been my experience, anyway. If you can't hear the vocals, for example, people might not want to buy the recording.
Also, again in my experience, even for very skilled jazz musicians who can balance their own sound, vocals often need amplification. Once that happens, there is an engineer involved somewhere.
Last edited:
With regard to redefining Hi-Fi to represent one end of a spectrum of reproduction accuracy, maybe it's not a bad idea. Lo-Fi could be defined as some other end of the spectrum, and then something could be described as 90% Hi-Fi, or whatever. If we want to do that though, it would be a new definition, call it HiFi-96 or whatever the concept creator would find agreeable. That's would be fine, but simply calling it Hi-Fi when no dictionary, AES standard, or anything else we seem to be able to find defines Hi-Fi in that way would be likely to cause more confusion than benefits.
I am reminded of the late JGH's definition of neutrality 'something everyone says they want, until they get it'.
depends on the music you are talking about. I don't want kingsway hall to sound like the royal albert hall. I want to experience as close as possible to being there in a good seat.
Luckily there are some specialist labels who still put fidelity above nice. These labels get my money.
For orchestral works, if the conductor cannot bring them into balance then they are incapable of performing for an audience. This is of course different from the drummer who thinks he is Jon Bonham re-incarnated and clips the vocalists mike everytime he thwacks a cymbal. The DG approach to recording classical is not the one I prefer. It works for them and I am sure they don't lose sleep over my lack of patronage. Although some of their mono stuff is really good.
Exactly, that's why I have at times pointed that where there is a bandleader or conductor, things are different. At least most of the time. I have been called in to do live sound for a symphony when they were performing a piece which had been written for a very quiet solo instrument. IIRC, it was some kind of wooden flute.
Glad we cleared that up. I agree that, once you are at a point that you couldn't listen to a live performance without a mixing desk and PA, there is no 'natural' soundscape and the rules change.
Best way is record live acoustic musicians in the room and reproduce music in the same space.
European Triode Festival 2016 made this interesting record session with musicians.
Videos courtesy by VinylSavor thanks !
live recording session :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0PzXh_ElcM
reproduction on audio system :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWAmftzN_EI
Happy 2017 🙂
European Triode Festival 2016 made this interesting record session with musicians.
Videos courtesy by VinylSavor thanks !
live recording session :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0PzXh_ElcM
reproduction on audio system :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWAmftzN_EI
Happy 2017 🙂
Jan won an award with his recording. He might be able to tell you if your theory is correct as he can listen to it at home as well!
Congrats to Jan.
However, did you listen to the youtube videos? Do they sound the same to you?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.