The final product (sound waves coming out of speakers) is to be compared to the sound at the recording microphone/s.
You are in denial. But why?
The job of electronic audio replay device is to reply the recorded sound. The degree of fidelity defines whether it's high or low and those can be measured. What the listener's brainwaves look like when exposed to sound waves, is a different topic.
Via memories. Some are better at it than others.
If I carefully qualified every sentence I write with exceptions and caveats then you would all be even less willing to read it!
Of course there are people who are not fooled by stereo, but I believe they are a minority. Even they can agree that the sound they hear from the two speakers is something like a violin or not (or two violins played in perfect unison?). What might be interesting to know is whether these non-stereo people need more or less signal fidelity than the rest of us before they can agree that what they hear sounds like two violins or a reproduction of a violin. Now I realise that may be difficult, as it might be hard to do a blind test with someone who can readily tell the difference between one instrument and two reproductions.
Anyway, as I keep saying, hi-fi means reproduction which is indistinguishable for most people - not all people. Those excluded from 'most' may include the non-stereo people.
Of course there are people who are not fooled by stereo, but I believe they are a minority. Even they can agree that the sound they hear from the two speakers is something like a violin or not (or two violins played in perfect unison?). What might be interesting to know is whether these non-stereo people need more or less signal fidelity than the rest of us before they can agree that what they hear sounds like two violins or a reproduction of a violin. Now I realise that may be difficult, as it might be hard to do a blind test with someone who can readily tell the difference between one instrument and two reproductions.
Anyway, as I keep saying, hi-fi means reproduction which is indistinguishable for most people - not all people. Those excluded from 'most' may include the non-stereo people.
There is a used DAC-1 here for fairly cheap: https://benchmarkmedia.com/collecti...to-analog-audio-converter-factory-refurbished
Doesn't have USB, but a USB to SPDIF converter is cheap.
Also, many computer sound cards already include coaxial or optical SPDIF out.
Doesn't have USB, but a USB to SPDIF converter is cheap.
Also, many computer sound cards already include coaxial or optical SPDIF out.
Thanks, but I want the extra inputs. And this will be in the US, so I would get hit with nearly 25% import duties!
Is this what you mean by hi-fi... that you can distinguish if it is a violin or a lute. For me it is that if I close my eyes, it would be hard to tell if I'm in a concert hall or at home. At times for certain parts, I get somewhat close to this but I have yet to hear a system that got me completely fooled. If I where, I would call it hi-fi. But many who hear my system are impressed still. I argue that stereo is not able to do this because it's not designed/required to do so.
The DIN norm was really just specification of parts, not a system.
//
If there is no universally agreed definition of "high fidelity"(and there isn't!), we will just go round and round. This thread started 5 years ago, and we seem no closer to a consensus. I, and seemingly TNT, have one definition and others, for example DF96, have another. With various shades in between. Until there IS that agreed definition we are left with what appears to be more of a philosophical question than a technical one.
Although I AM interested in high fidelity, it is a tool as far as I am concerned, a path to musical Nirvana, and as such I wouldn't allow it to get in the way of my goal. Which is pleasure.
Although I AM interested in high fidelity, it is a tool as far as I am concerned, a path to musical Nirvana, and as such I wouldn't allow it to get in the way of my goal. Which is pleasure.
It goes round and round because some say there is no universally agreed definition of it.
Hi,
I apologize for my poor writing in my post as I did not try to be misunderstood.
I wrote 2 posts on Tuesday pertaining to yours. One is post #588, in which I agree with your postings on the definition of Hi-Fi. It is also a preamble of sorts about modern techniques and products being better than those of the 60's.
Yes, we do agree on the definition of Hi-Fi. There is nothing that needs to be changed.
Our perceptions of what constitutes "high end audio" seem to be vastly different however. Perhaps this is because I have an American perspective on this and the American high end is dominated by the likes of Mark Levinson, Jeff Rowland, Boulder electronics, and Wilson, Revel and YG speakers.
You live in the UK and perhaps those SET's, and products designed by ear are more prevalent there.
For certain, the products I have mentioned are not SET's or "designed by ear" products.
I don't read the glossy magazines, whether they are American or British. So I am not aware of advertised or reviewed products with "appalling electrical performance praised to the sky". I don't think the products I mentioned above would fit into that category.
I might add something which I mentioned yesterday in postings with Evenharmonics and that is I find the very existence of diyaudio to be the very antithesis of high end audio. And there is no need to wage war on high end audio here. I think there are other places and forums more appropriate for that. I think diyaudio is a means to finding better solutions to making high fidelity products.
Moving on to the modern vs. 60's parameters and materials and products. Yes, the loudness wars in modern popular recordings are regrettable. But then again, I'm classical music listener and I enjoy the full dynamic range of modern high resolution recordings.
The electronics and speakers I use now are vastly superior in music reproduction to really anything that was available in the 60's. I bought my first audio components in 1969. I bought my first really good quality hi-fi system in 1979, featuring Harbeth HL-2 speakers. I am now mostly diy in hi-fi products and the sound is certainly vastly superior to the old stuff.
I am a somewhat of a newbie here since I joined DIYAudio last year around this time when me Sony all in one broked down and could not be repaired. Now that I think of it should have kept those speakers they were great when paired with a subwoofer.
This thread started as "are you interested..." now has turned into a dicussion about the definition of Hi-Fi. There are several points I want to clarify and I think the discussion is still useful to continue for me at least.
1. As many have pointed out the speakers are the weakest link. If we leave out the speakers, can we not perform a Hi-Definition digital recording of the final studio product as played through the studio system, taken at the speaker terminals, then compare it to the output to the speakers in the home setting through software methods, maybe a null test. This will not really constitute a definition of Hi-Fi but at least it will give us an objective standard. This is assuming that the equipment will show the sufficient level of detail that is required to distinguish between sounds that the human ear can distinguish.
If subsequently the speakers distort the signal then that is an interesting problem for speaker builders.
Will this sort of a standard be useful to any of you, that is the question, it would certainly help me.
2) What equipment is used in the studio, does it matter? If the recording is in digital format then it is assumed to be a true recording. So the studio records the music in Hi-Def, plays it out through a DAC, Amplifier and maybe an EQ in between? I am referring to the final version that the musicians and the recording and mastering engineers listen to, say "Ok that's cool" before it gets sent out to be made into CDs. 😎
I understand the point about recording engineers ears, but apart from a hearing test, the differences in the way we each percieve the world is a deep philosphical topic that is simply out of scope.
Has any research been done on that, settling that issue is simply beyond me at this point in time.😕
Last edited:
Not so much.
Keep wondering to myself as this discussion goes on and on, if the disagreement over what would be an appropriate definition of Hi-Fi is between people who have studied physics and those who have not?
Can we test the hypothesis?
Those who would like to build on a definition based on the idea that mic's and speakers are pressure traducers, raise your hand if you studied college physics or the equivalent.
Okay, those who don't like trying to base a definition on transducers detecting and reproducing pressure waves, and have studied physics raise your hand.
Repeat questions for liking, and disliking, of a pressure transduction based definition for those who have not studied physics.
My guess would be that those who have studied physics will view pressure transduction as the most practical approach.
And those who haven't studied physics will more be more likely to prefer some other approach to defining Hi-Fi.
Is that a problem? If this thread was about "are you interested in warm color?" and some readers think yellow is warm color while other readers think orange is such, where would the discussion go? No where, because they are on different pages. To make sure people replying are on the same page, what would you do? Not ask what specific color they are talking about?
It's more about what price range of equipment. Other than speakers and room acoustics, it doesn't cost much to get hi-fi audio electronics these days.
You should friend with recording / mastering engineers and get some lowdown on what and how they do their work.
Please forget colors, equipment, mastering engineers for a moment. May I ask you to consider a thought experiment?
Say some space aliens have landed on earth and they have two black boxes, a small one that takes as input pressure wave from the air, and a larger one that reproduces pressure waves detected by the smaller box. They aren't quite clear about what's in the boxes, but it seems like they are talking about some combination of shape shifting metal and Flubber, along with some other alien stuff. They say that the small box detects directional sound waves from two directions at about a 90 degree angle apart, and the output transducer black boxes can be perform the inverse function of the small boxes. Sound pressure variations are detected in the small box, and reproduced by the larger box. Actually, they say they have two versions of these black box systems, one that is accurate in performance to within 1% and the other which is accurate to .01%.
You decide to try out the .01% black boxes and point the small box at a jazz ensemble, and take the larger box to another room to listen. You find it sounds very much like the jazz band, just the same in fact as a very good earth stereo. Then you realize, of course, how could it be otherwise. The earth stereo and the alien black boxes have the same end-to-end transfer functions: Sound waves in, sound waves out, +- within some specified accuracy.
Doesn't matter at all how they work inside. It only matters then that the inputs and outputs perform the exact same physical functions. And those physical functions are all that is possible based on the what the inputs detect, sound pressure. That's all the black boxes detect, all they know about, and all they can reproduce.
Say some space aliens have landed on earth and they have two black boxes, a small one that takes as input pressure wave from the air, and a larger one that reproduces pressure waves detected by the smaller box. They aren't quite clear about what's in the boxes, but it seems like they are talking about some combination of shape shifting metal and Flubber, along with some other alien stuff. They say that the small box detects directional sound waves from two directions at about a 90 degree angle apart, and the output transducer black boxes can be perform the inverse function of the small boxes. Sound pressure variations are detected in the small box, and reproduced by the larger box. Actually, they say they have two versions of these black box systems, one that is accurate in performance to within 1% and the other which is accurate to .01%.
You decide to try out the .01% black boxes and point the small box at a jazz ensemble, and take the larger box to another room to listen. You find it sounds very much like the jazz band, just the same in fact as a very good earth stereo. Then you realize, of course, how could it be otherwise. The earth stereo and the alien black boxes have the same end-to-end transfer functions: Sound waves in, sound waves out, +- within some specified accuracy.
Doesn't matter at all how they work inside. It only matters then that the inputs and outputs perform the exact same physical functions. And those physical functions are all that is possible based on the what the inputs detect, sound pressure. That's all the black boxes detect, all they know about, and all they can reproduce.
Last edited:
err, sound waves aren't just "pressure" - they have a pressure/velocity ratio that may be mostly a constant in "free space" propagation, but with the velocity having 3D directional vector component while pressure is strictly a scalar
then there are various relations in "near field", within few wave lengths of radiators, reflectors in close proximity to mics, speakers, boundaries...
so while most audio transducers are loosely classified as either "velocity' or "pressure" operation they will all be mixed mode, and vary with frequency
binaural recordings use a dummy head to sample the 3D directionally propagating sound wavefronts with an approximation of the typical person's head
our heads being diffraction and shadow producing boundaries modifying the soundwaves differently at each ear for different sound velocity directional components
the eardrum itself may be considered a mostly pressure responding transducer but the neural processing is deeply wired to use our Head Response Transfer Functions and each ear's correlated sound pressure sampling interaction with real world soundwaves to extract useful directional, "sound object" identifications
we further use head motion, our proprioceptive sense is again deeply wire into our audio neural processing
people have played with microphone arrays to try to capture the complete sound 3D veleocity components but the physical size and seperation of the multiple mics themselves limit the high frequency accuracy
"you are there" would require sampling 3D sound wave propagation velocity over a sufficient volume that we could then infer how it would be modified with our head/body at that position, and track our head angle/motion to apply our personal angular HRTF
Smyth SVS Realizer takes a simpler approach - assume that you want to reproduce these specific speakers in this room - then you measure your HRTF with tiny mics in your ears while playing test tones through the speakers, moving your head at specific increments to get some to the angular info too
most find the result very convincing in reproducing through headphones with a stable, "outside of the head", "sound image"- but obviously takes the speakers and room as the "reference"
then there are various relations in "near field", within few wave lengths of radiators, reflectors in close proximity to mics, speakers, boundaries...
so while most audio transducers are loosely classified as either "velocity' or "pressure" operation they will all be mixed mode, and vary with frequency
binaural recordings use a dummy head to sample the 3D directionally propagating sound wavefronts with an approximation of the typical person's head
our heads being diffraction and shadow producing boundaries modifying the soundwaves differently at each ear for different sound velocity directional components
the eardrum itself may be considered a mostly pressure responding transducer but the neural processing is deeply wired to use our Head Response Transfer Functions and each ear's correlated sound pressure sampling interaction with real world soundwaves to extract useful directional, "sound object" identifications
we further use head motion, our proprioceptive sense is again deeply wire into our audio neural processing
people have played with microphone arrays to try to capture the complete sound 3D veleocity components but the physical size and seperation of the multiple mics themselves limit the high frequency accuracy
"you are there" would require sampling 3D sound wave propagation velocity over a sufficient volume that we could then infer how it would be modified with our head/body at that position, and track our head angle/motion to apply our personal angular HRTF
Smyth SVS Realizer takes a simpler approach - assume that you want to reproduce these specific speakers in this room - then you measure your HRTF with tiny mics in your ears while playing test tones through the speakers, moving your head at specific increments to get some to the angular info too
most find the result very convincing in reproducing through headphones with a stable, "outside of the head", "sound image"- but obviously takes the speakers and room as the "reference"
Last edited:
No; one might expect even mid-fi to achieve that. Hi-fi means that for most people a recorded violin cannot be reliably distinguished from a live violin.TNT said:
If a number of people started declaring that grass is blue, then eventually someone would pop up and say that 'green' is a poorly defined colour so it is not meaningful to say that grass is green. Someone who is old and awkward like me would continue to insist that grass is green, and that 'green' is perfectly well-defined and understood except by those who choose to be different. In the end the colour of grass has not changed; all that has happened is that a useful concept ('green') has been destroyed.
Someone with a spectrophotometer would show the spectrum of light from grass and declare that it is consistent with what has always been called green, but then people will say 'what do measurements show - they have nothing to do with colour'.
That is an impossible task.
Microphones are not linear and impart their own eq curve on everything that passes through. Without knowledge of the exact mic it is not possible to make any assumptions on the sound before it hits the mic.
We would also need to know exactly (down to an inch) where the mic was positioned since mic position changes the mic inherent eq curve.
We would need to know in which room and where it was recorded and if any gobos were used and where they were placed precisely.
Additionally we would need knowledge of every piece of equipment (compressors, equalizers, preamps, console and what have you) since each one adds subtle eq to the signal.
Referencing/defining HiFi to the original acoustic signal as it came off the instrument is pure folly and ultimately impossible. We have no idea of what happened to the signal between the instrument and the time it arrives on our stereos. Furthermore stereo is not capable of turning our living rooms into concert halls. Surround sound has a fighting chance but it is way beyond the capabilities of stereo. At its very best stereo can give you the equivalent of a window into the hall, a window the size of the distance between your speakers but it will never 'put you into the room'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.