You make your own modified definition for HiFi (High Fidelity) if that fits you better, hey, its your call.
But its my call to keep with the established and accepted definition.
And if your manipulations and listening lead you to select something as 'best sounding' for your brain, more power to you.
But why try to force on us that what your brain thinks sounds more natural must be accepted by the rest of the world as more natural??
Are you the God of Sound or somethin'?? 😎
Jan
Jan, me??
No, you!
Your brain decides what it thinks sounds like what it expects.
Mine (if found to exist) decides what I expect (aka finds "natural").
I made no assertion as to what that may be for me or for anyone else.
Never asked or pushed or suggested anything that could be deemed "forced" upon others.
What I did is to put forth a framework that may explain what happens WRT hearing.
Afaik, there is no "definition for HiFi"... is there?
So, what is the "established and accepted definition"??
Who created it?
I always thought that it revolved around the idea of reproducing the "original" sound/performance (etc.). Of course in the 60's the advent of multi-track manipulation changed the "original" from being something acoustic that was captured by microphones into something that never existed in reality and is/was a synthetic creation. (Swtiched On Bach, being a truly 100% synthetic creation...)
No, you!
Your brain decides what it thinks sounds like what it expects.
Mine (if found to exist) decides what I expect (aka finds "natural").
I made no assertion as to what that may be for me or for anyone else.
Never asked or pushed or suggested anything that could be deemed "forced" upon others.
What I did is to put forth a framework that may explain what happens WRT hearing.
Afaik, there is no "definition for HiFi"... is there?
So, what is the "established and accepted definition"??
Who created it?
I always thought that it revolved around the idea of reproducing the "original" sound/performance (etc.). Of course in the 60's the advent of multi-track manipulation changed the "original" from being something acoustic that was captured by microphones into something that never existed in reality and is/was a synthetic creation. (Swtiched On Bach, being a truly 100% synthetic creation...)
Last edited:
The phase behavior of most dynamic speakers is nothing to write home about either - but I thought that most folks believe that the ear is not sensitive to "phase" in this context??
And, fwiw, any random speaker won't sound too good, imho.
Not just horns.
_-_-
Which two speaker stereo can't do. You can't recreate the full original sound field, are you talking binaural recordings?
BTW the finest approximation I ever heard was a 15 ips master tape made by Victor Campos at Symphony Hall in Boston broadcast over FM radio of Wendy Carlos.
Ha! I just won the ETF shootout with two ORTF-arranged mikes on a Nagra at 15ips 🙂
Jan
IME it is not just audio, I have met folks that can potentially make some serious contributions but because they lack the formalism they have developed a chip on their shoulders and continually have to prove themselves. Both sides need to take a wider perspective.
Last edited:
Yup, two mics a few rows back, you could hear your neighbors moving in their seats, IMO the extremely low noise level helped a lot.
Yes I learn from the best, asked Michael Williams of AES mike fame for advice on the setup, your mike pre's, Swiss engineered Nagra, can't fail!
Was a trio, grand piano, horn at the right, violin at the left. I thought the horn was pretty dominating so I slightly adjusted mike position during the break to get a bit less from the horn. Used the parts I recorded after the break, went well. I owe you.
Jan
Was a trio, grand piano, horn at the right, violin at the left. I thought the horn was pretty dominating so I slightly adjusted mike position during the break to get a bit less from the horn. Used the parts I recorded after the break, went well. I owe you.
Jan
the definition of "fidelity" is slightly ambiguous in this context.
On one hand it appears to mean "accuracy", when applied in a narrow way to an electronic signal.
However, this is not the full scope of the term, when used WRT "high fidelity sound" which was "coined" anyhow.
In that scope it also means faithfulness to the original event.
Was the event the recording, or the actual thing being recorded?
I think if the phrase was intended to be limited it would have been "high accuracy" instead? Maybe?
On one hand it appears to mean "accuracy", when applied in a narrow way to an electronic signal.
However, this is not the full scope of the term, when used WRT "high fidelity sound" which was "coined" anyhow.
In that scope it also means faithfulness to the original event.
Was the event the recording, or the actual thing being recorded?
I think if the phrase was intended to be limited it would have been "high accuracy" instead? Maybe?
So, Jan, perhaps this might be interesting... how about encoding the played back Nagra tape onto a digital format medium? Compare the two? Casually or "DBT"??
Wonder if you would hear any differences?
If so, why and what do you think would be the cause(s)?
If not, why, and why is that?
Wonder if you would hear any differences?
If so, why and what do you think would be the cause(s)?
If not, why, and why is that?
Yes, "high fidelity" is faithfulness to the original event. The entire recording and reproduction chain
is involved in the process. A poor recording, perfectly reproduced, is not high fidelity.
The term is not relevant when there is no original acoustical event. Then it is a matter of taste.
Last edited:
They worked out, I'm glad. A small victory for the T&M crowd? I can add this to my LIGO trophy?
EDIT - Forgot to mention op-amps and gobs of evil feedback.
Last edited:
Yes. That may be the cause of much modern confusion, as people try to evaluate 'hi-fi' systems using studio electronic sounds which never existed in a concert hall or other acoustic venue. For best home reproduction of such music you might need a system which closely matches the weaknesses of the studio monitor system. For acoustic events you need a system which gives a realistic portrayal of the actual event - whether you like the resultant sound or not is completely irrelevant to hi-fi.rayma said:
Certainly. I often find live acoustical music unpleasant in some way, whether excessive loudness
(common in the USA, especially for jazz), muddled, brightness, etc. We have a large, expensive
new concert hall that lacks through the entire bass range. The huge pipe organ in pride of place
sounds anemic. I had to point this out to the conductor. But this is all a matter of taste. http://www.madisonsymphony.org/organ
Last edited:
rayma, are you referring to amplified music in a venue?
That is not by definition "acoustical music". Regardless of the instruments used.
fwiw, the lack of bass throughout the range of that organ may be traced to an inherent issue with the acoustics of the room, the location of the bass pipes... aka, unfixable. Also have you gone all over the hall and listened to the bass pipes of that organ, no good anywhere?
That is not by definition "acoustical music". Regardless of the instruments used.
fwiw, the lack of bass throughout the range of that organ may be traced to an inherent issue with the acoustics of the room, the location of the bass pipes... aka, unfixable. Also have you gone all over the hall and listened to the bass pipes of that organ, no good anywhere?
No, just acoustical music. When live music is amplified, it is usually bad enough
that I have no expectations at all. Our local jazz groups do seem to prefer playing
(acoustically) at the loudest possible levels even in small rooms, which I find painful and unpleasant.
Our concert hall's bass problem seems at least partially due to the design of the stage
and areas behind it. Not much chance of alteration there. Poor bass quality throughout the hall.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.