Right now I am 'reduced' to listening to the Edifier PC speaker system shown in my post illustrating my current systems:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/intr...-pictures-my-current-systems.html#post4954314
Connected to a Tablet PC I have the world of internet music - had a really special listening session to "David Gates and Bread Greatest Hits".
I have several systems to choose from, and many more out there in the real world many more systems to choose from.
Right now, yes, cobbling together on the cheap.
Last edited:
Any more details of your system? My travelling prayer would be to be have a system that can reproduce piano (with my head outside of it though).
So what are you going to do?
You'd have to do a live recording of the playing onto DAT or something. With the string quartet you could have them play a short movement of a Haydn piece or something that's not too long.
You might be able to play that back in a short time perhaps, otherwise you'd have to have them play again when you are ready for playback so that there is as little time between comparisons as possible.
So, what would you use for playback equipment?
In the end, do you think this would tell you very much?
The first 3 items in your list are closely related. '2' is the definition. '1' is a necessary requirement. '3' is a justification for determining what the electrical requirements for '1' are.Markw4 said:
An "old" term may still be useful. I dispute that it is "vaguely defined"; on the contrary it is precisely defined, so we should not regard peoples' apparent ignorance of this as being some lack in the term.
So 'hi-fi' encompasses all the above, just as 'green' covers what colour we see when we look at grass (and traffic lights), and a particular range of wavelengths. Let us not claim that 'green' is vaguely defined, or set the grass definition in artificial opposition to the wavelength definition just for the sake of an argument.
Ah, is that what is happening?evenharmonics said:
Any attempt to determine what electrical parameters are needed for hi-fi must involve some sort of comparision by peoples' ears between two sounds: reference and copy. The only meaningful definition of hi-fi involves the reference being the original sound. If you think such a test will not tell us very much, then you are saying that hi-fi is not possible or is not of any interest to you. That is fine, but why participate in the thread if that is your view?stvnharr said:
Sadly, 'hi-fi enthusiasts' and 'audiophiles' have become used to reading reviews which compare systems or components not against the real thing but against each other, or against whatever the reviewer remembers of the real thing, or whatever the reviewer finds pleasant. That is why some equipment with appallingly poor electrical performance can receive rave reviews. Note that various systems sounding similar to each other is a corollary of hi-fi, not a requirement. Several systems sounding alike may or may not be hi-fi; several systems sounding very different means that they can't all be hi-fi.
The earliest reference I could find to any definition is shown here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/204456-you-really-interested-hi-fi-86.html#post4951076
If you can point to a newer definition that supersedes the seemingly original one, that would be helpful. I haven't seen one yet, only your insistence that there is one.
I hope you are not making up your own definition, then calling people who disagree ignorant?
Unless there is something you can show us that didn't originate from you, I will stick with Hartley's definition.
Last edited:
If a high fidelity system should not add or take away from the original sound, why did amplifiers have tone controls?
In modern times, is the original sound before or after those huge recording studio consoles?
Maybe Hartly didn't use or advocate tone controls, I don't know. I take his definition at face value.
If you read what he said, he did not say original sound. He said input signal. Presumably, because he was talking about reproduction (playback) systems.
In the context of a reproduction system today, the data on a CD is the reproduction system input signal encoded on that particular medium. For an LP, the input signal data is encoded in the shape of the grooves.
Also, I am not saying that Hartly's definition is perfect for all times and all purposes. It merely appears to be original definition.
Now, many years later, people apparently would like to redefine the term to suit what they think is important. Since there is has been no agreement on what is most important, I suggested it might make sense to define new terms for specific purposes, to the extent it would arguably be useful in today's various contexts.
If you read what he said, he did not say original sound. He said input signal. Presumably, because he was talking about reproduction (playback) systems.
In the context of a reproduction system today, the data on a CD is the reproduction system input signal encoded on that particular medium. For an LP, the input signal data is encoded in the shape of the grooves.
Also, I am not saying that Hartly's definition is perfect for all times and all purposes. It merely appears to be original definition.
Now, many years later, people apparently would like to redefine the term to suit what they think is important. Since there is has been no agreement on what is most important, I suggested it might make sense to define new terms for specific purposes, to the extent it would arguably be useful in today's various contexts.
Last edited:
Maybe I am interested in Mid-Fi or My-Fi as I call it, maybe like others before me. The point being that anyone can tell the difference between a transistor radio and the real thing, and most systems lie (pun intended) somewhere in between.
I would simply ask for evaluating a system (for pop and soft rock) - can I hear all the instruments? Do they sound natural as I remember them, the high-hat, bass line, drums and especially the voices. If it all sounds fairly natural and life like, that it My-Fi. If we can each say that it sounds a lot like a real band, I guess we can each be happy in our blissful ignorance until we hear a better system.
It goes back to the subjective expereince that some have mentioned, but at the same time it is a test that can be performed easily against our flawed memory but what else do we have? Yes I can hear all the instruments and most of the bass and treble at each end, that should be enough. To be classed as realistic sound is a high standard, but this is a good subject for psychological testing. None of the systems I have heard so far have been realistic in their presentation except for vocals, what is your experience?
Just listen to the music: http://www.hawthornestereo.com/advice/judging.html
I would simply ask for evaluating a system (for pop and soft rock) - can I hear all the instruments? Do they sound natural as I remember them, the high-hat, bass line, drums and especially the voices. If it all sounds fairly natural and life like, that it My-Fi. If we can each say that it sounds a lot like a real band, I guess we can each be happy in our blissful ignorance until we hear a better system.
It goes back to the subjective expereince that some have mentioned, but at the same time it is a test that can be performed easily against our flawed memory but what else do we have? Yes I can hear all the instruments and most of the bass and treble at each end, that should be enough. To be classed as realistic sound is a high standard, but this is a good subject for psychological testing. None of the systems I have heard so far have been realistic in their presentation except for vocals, what is your experience?
Just listen to the music: http://www.hawthornestereo.com/advice/judging.html
Last edited:
No, as I keep saying, not my definition but my understanding (before this thread) of the definition.Markw4 said:
Hartley's definition is not helpful, when taken literally. All sound systems add or take away something, so by his definition no system is hi-fi. If you modify his definition to say that anything added or taken away is sufficiently small that most people don't notice then you end up with something I can agree with; it is for all practical purposes the same as the definition I accept.
I've been suspicious of his posting pattern for over a year. It highly resembles that of confirmed shills online.
1. We use idealized definitions all the time. There is no such thing as a ideal physical capacitor. There is no such thing as a rocket that can travel at the speed of light, taken literally. So what? We deal with definitions of things not perfectly achievable all the time. Nothing new here.
2. While the definition you prefer may be good and useful in some circumstances, it is not generally accepted as the definition of Hi-Fi by most people. This despite you insistence that no other practical interpretation is possible.
Look, if you like apply statistics, it should be clear that statistics also apply to what people understand words to mean. Most people, statistically speaking, don't share your definition if Hi-Fi. A quick Google search, and examination of several dictionaries confirm this.
"A quick Google search, and examination of several dictionaries confirm this."
Did you check for yourself?
We do not define a capacitor as a component which possesses capacitance as its only property. We do not define a rocket as something which can travel at the speed of light. You do seem to have a peculiar dictionary! Hi-fi (the clue is in the name) is not perfect fidelity for all people, but sufficiently high fidelity for most people. Nobody on here has yet suggested a more useful definition. I really don't know why people find this so difficult.Markw4 said:
If you take Hartley's definition as the unachievable ideal, and 'mine' as the useful practical version which actually enables you to do some engineering then surely most people will be happy?
Are you saying that you prefer to work with an unusable definition purely on the grounds that it is more popular than a practical definition? As I have said, a definition must be universal and achievable while according to the normal meaning of the constituent words. It can't have a private meaning (different for every individual) and it should not have an unachievable meaning (indistinguishable from the real thing for everyone).
Then they are unable to do anything useful with the term. I prefer useful terms.
I think most of you misses what DF96 is saying, for all intentions he is not arguing anyone's subjective perspective. What the man is saying is for something to be called hi-fi it needs to pass at least some basic requirements.
These may include that the distortion (additions and subtraction) is better than some number. That the power-output is at least some number, that the frequency response covers some minimum and maximum number. That the gain over the frequency band is flat to within some number.... etc.
If the equipment conforms to this minimum technical requirement then "most" people will not be able to distinguish the difference from the recording engineers intention.
DIN45000 defined these minimum standards many years ago, and they have not gone out of fashion, they still apply as much now as they did then.
Whether the distortion in modern equipment using the latest available technology exceeds the original specifications by several orders of magnitude, the power output is equal to that of a small power station, the frequency response is from DC to daylight, the gain flatness is a fraction of a dB, would cause even "less" people being able to detect the difference between reproduction from that of the original recording.
Therefore what DF96 is saying is that if the equipment is to be labeled hi-fi as defined by early researchers and developer's tests, it still remains hi-fi, however modern equipment may exceed the definitions and therefor may be even higher-fi or the highest-fi possible by today's standards.
The opposite is equally true that if it sounds subjectively nice, it may not be hi-fi at all, just nice sounding for some. In this category of equipment that sounds nice to some and not nice to others more people will detect the difference between the recording and the reproduction.
The conclusion is that hi-fi does not necessarily sound "nice" however, most people will concur that the recording and reproduction sound similar/identical when reproduced by equipment qualified as hi-fi.
These may include that the distortion (additions and subtraction) is better than some number. That the power-output is at least some number, that the frequency response covers some minimum and maximum number. That the gain over the frequency band is flat to within some number.... etc.
If the equipment conforms to this minimum technical requirement then "most" people will not be able to distinguish the difference from the recording engineers intention.
DIN45000 defined these minimum standards many years ago, and they have not gone out of fashion, they still apply as much now as they did then.
Whether the distortion in modern equipment using the latest available technology exceeds the original specifications by several orders of magnitude, the power output is equal to that of a small power station, the frequency response is from DC to daylight, the gain flatness is a fraction of a dB, would cause even "less" people being able to detect the difference between reproduction from that of the original recording.
Therefore what DF96 is saying is that if the equipment is to be labeled hi-fi as defined by early researchers and developer's tests, it still remains hi-fi, however modern equipment may exceed the definitions and therefor may be even higher-fi or the highest-fi possible by today's standards.
The opposite is equally true that if it sounds subjectively nice, it may not be hi-fi at all, just nice sounding for some. In this category of equipment that sounds nice to some and not nice to others more people will detect the difference between the recording and the reproduction.
The conclusion is that hi-fi does not necessarily sound "nice" however, most people will concur that the recording and reproduction sound similar/identical when reproduced by equipment qualified as hi-fi.
I wouldn't do that - training senses of any kind can bring good results. But it does require real training and actually knowing the differences are there first, learning what they sound like.
Hobiests often start off not knowing if something is different and then convincing themselves there is a difference. Therefore their "training" is no different to being more and more easily convinced of conspiracy theories or some kind of paranoia - essentially you become your own "yes man" and living in a parallel world. Do that for decades and you will become entrenched.
I dont think the moniker "Hi-Fi" has any merit today whatsoever. It dosen't mean anything to most people. Nor is there, as has been identified here, an understood and accepted definition of the term. Who would 2017 say "Do you own a hi-fi system"... ? It's an old, outdated term that "gran pa" used to use.
One day I hope we will see a system concept that would really mean something different. I hope there there will be solid standardisation involved.
//
One day I hope we will see a system concept that would really mean something different. I hope there there will be solid standardisation involved.
//
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.