I guess that the band was playing thru the amplified system, the same that was putting music after. So you experienced the same media ( the electronic...system ) when played live and when used to do playback ( or...Bach, maybe...! ). Nothing to worry.
🙄
It is the definition which people here have been arguing about. Until there is agreement on that there is no scope for arguing about requirements. However, 'hi-fi' as a name has the advantage that it is simply an abbreviation of the main aspect of the definition; I have a preference for names which carry meaning, rather than simply being an arbitrary label.TNT said:
Look at the wikipedia definition:
How do we know when distortion is inaudible? By doing listening tests, comparing undistorted sound with reproduced distorted sound. How do we know what is the correct frequency range to intend? By doing listening tests, comparing attempted reproduction with the original. The Wikipedia definition, when you consider what it implies, is not so different from what I understand. My main quibble with them is that I would not start with "ideally" but 'necessarily' i.e. their definition is too loose and would include mid-fi too.
Anyway, we now have people saying that they are reasonably happy with the definition but don't like the old-fashioned term while others seem happy with the term but want a different definition yet have been unable to come up with one which is useful and universal.
It might be better if we could separate the terms. High fidelity being an ideal (whether we can tie down a definition or not), and hi-fi staying as it is now used; a catch all term for everything from a micro system in Tesco to a state of the art system. The genie is out of the bottle, and I doubt we can convince most people to only use the term as it used to be understood. It may (or not!) have been noticed that I have tried to avoid the term hifi in my posts, preferring the less degraded version. And I generally call my system a stereo, not hifi!
If someone told me that he bought a "hi-fi" from Tesco then I would know what he meant (a cheap audio system, probably mid-fi or worse), but I would also take it as evidence that he doesn't know what the term actually means. I am part of the awkward squad who do not let others steal a useful word/term without putting up a fight.
Sadly, to most people now a "stereo" is just audio with two channels, even if the two channels end in tiny speakers about 6 inches apart at opposite ends of a small boombox. You may get a vague feeling of stereo image if you place the item at the end of your nose.
Sadly, to most people now a "stereo" is just audio with two channels, even if the two channels end in tiny speakers about 6 inches apart at opposite ends of a small boombox. You may get a vague feeling of stereo image if you place the item at the end of your nose.
Chip or D-amplifiers are very inexpensive to produce and all pass as HIFI with regards to frequency response and THD and If you can forget analog, all one needs to spend any sort of serious money on is good pair of speakers.
For several years I've been powering my old Tannoys with a $5 chip amp board from China, which replaced an expensive McIntosh ss amp.
For several years I've been powering my old Tannoys with a $5 chip amp board from China, which replaced an expensive McIntosh ss amp.
You can stand by whatever you want all day. It doesn't concern me one bit.
No amount of backpedaling will undo the damage you've done to your own credibility now.
You must be living on another planet. If you care to look at who you actually quoted, it is your own credibility that is damaged. Not that you ever had any to begin with.
It looks a lot like you got mad after you said you saw signs of commercial shills active on the forum, then I made a comment about witches. You got offended and have been trying to get even ever since.
It's not working.
Fortunately, the forum has a feature to block foolish posters from view. You are now blocked from my view. Good day.
hifimuseum.de - Sie sind im Bereich : 45.500 - Die englische Version
DIN 45-500 - details of a German standard for hi-fi equipment
🙂
DIN 45-500 - details of a German standard for hi-fi equipment
🙂
While on the subject of sounds best, do you guys think that different media players (such as media monkey WMP and such like) sound better or worse than others loaded onto the same computer or phone. I am just thinking if your source is screwed, does the term hi-fi play any role?
I think a lot of audio electronics is, these days. But loudspeakers are a different story entirely. 🙂
I don't even know what to say about earbuds. They can certainly sound very clear, and they are free of some of the problems that plague loudspeaker systems (crossover networks, room interaction, difficulty achieving adequate bass SPL, etc.)
But, at the same time, stereo imaging through earbuds is always very unnatural, with most sounds appearing to originate inside the back of your own head, and sound sources that appear to move with you when you turn your head.
Personally, I prefer listening to good speakers, despite their flaws.
-Gnobuddy
I wonder how perceptions change over the years. In the past, cylinder recordings have apparently been indistinguishable from live. Early black and white movies have convinced viewers that a real train was going to run them over. Now I frequently see TV images stretched wide, even on the BBC, when it should be obvious that the shapes are unnatural. But it doesn't seem to be the case. My 13 year old grandson argued that a football match was not distorted, even though the players were fat and the ball was oval. It was only when I got him to lean his head to the side that he could actually see the distortion. Up to that point IT WAS INVISIBLE! My 42 year old son is nearly as bad; he recognises that the distortion exists, but is far less important than filling the screen with an image. I can't watch MotoGP at his house with oval wheels! So how are we going to get a sensible consensus on hifi from people who simply cannot even tell when there are gross distortions present?
Human perceptions seem to change with the generations; some become refined (CGI recognition) and some degenerate.
We are fiddling while Rome burns here!
Human perceptions seem to change with the generations; some become refined (CGI recognition) and some degenerate.
We are fiddling while Rome burns here!
It's much easier to see and believe in visual optical illusions, and visual neuroplasticity effects, as compared to other similar types of things going on in brains.
The most difficult are probably the cognitive illusions. It is often impossible for people to see how biased their thinking is, and to accept how much of their beliefs and thoughts originate from ancient, automatic, and powerful System 1 processes, completely hidden from conscious awareness.
And, not clear if we are watching Rome burn in a brief snippet of earth-scale time, or human evolution continuing to march slowly along.
I finally took the time to look at and read these documents. They are fascinating and really are a must read. Oh where oh where are Bell Labs and AT&T when we need them now?
A few things stand out to me in these papers that have not really been brought up thus far in all these pages.
1. While 20-20k hz. frequency response is nice, in reality 40-15k hz. is just as good and does not detract anything.
2. Dynamic range of 70 decibels is necessary for orchestra reproduction. This was not really possible until the advent of digital recording and engineers and labels willing to do that. This 70 decibel range is irrelevant for popular musics which tend to have little in the way of decibel range in both the music and recordings.
3. Three channels of reproduction are far better for reproduction than 2 channels. However, 3 channel recording was never done until RCA began doing them in 1954. And 2 channel home reproduction never came about until later in the 50's with the introduction of the Westrex stereo disc cutter. Three channel reproduction has never really happened at all. However with the introduction of multichannel playback in 2000 or so, it was possible to hear the original 3 channel recordings from RCA when they got remastered beginning in 2004 or so.
4. Proper sound reproduction can only occur if the sound is reproduced in a near exact copy of the hall where the original sound was made. Just think of this in terms of the music room you have in your own home, etc.
Beyond these 4 things I also found it fascinating to see those pictures of 8 ft. tall amplifier racks. And then there are those horn speakers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.