I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

[raif71]

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/482ea7ae-95e4-45bf-b68b-ccb8a92c5f96

 

[escksu]

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

Hi-FI is the best possible reproduction of music. Possibly as similar as the sound perception in the recording studio.
Nothing will simply beat, in that case, the exact equipment used in studio during the recording. Dot.

Audiophile is a completely different metter. You may have a better personal and subjective experience by using equipments that will color the sound in a more interesting way for you. Nothing different then to add some sort of effect in you reproduction chain. As good as it can be. Dot.

Confusing this two considereations is just useless and will result in snake oil product due to subjective perception of music and sounds.

You don't fell allright with Hgh-Fidelity and you prefer a different experience ? Well this is perfectly fine and everyone should choose as he prefer. Subjectively.

But just stop pretending a colored sound can be Hgh-Fidelity. It's not.
You feel it's a better experience ? Ok then. Just decide. Don't pretende to have your cake and eat it.

Ask you a question. How do you determine what equipment to use in the studio for recording?

Also, how about the mixing of sound? Removing background noise itself is a form of colouration. In real life, the drums and other instruments will easily drown out a singer's voice. If you listen to a life band playing without mic and speakers, i am dead sure you can barely hear the singer's voice.

Proper mixing ensures that the singer's voice can be heard clearly, other instruments not drowning out each other. This mixing process is also coloration of sound.

 

[diegooo1972]

Ask you a question. How do you determine what equipment to use in the studio for recording?

Also, how about the mixing of sound? Removing background noise itself is a form of colouration. In real life, the drums and other instruments will easily drown out a singer's voice. If you listen to a life band playing without mic and speakers, i am dead sure you can barely hear the singer's voice.

Proper mixing ensures that the singer's voice can be heard clearly, other instruments not drowning out each other. This mixing process is also coloration of sound.

You'll be suprise about how many info you can find on equipment used on good recording. And that's exactly what I mean so you can't have better experience then what you listen after mixing. We can't have the sounds as they were recorded. Honestly I'd love to but that ain't happen. The best you can achieve in term of objectivity will be best possible and measurable reproduction. The other way will be personal taste and subjectivity. No other ways. Both are good imho but the second will not be the first. They are contradictory.

 

[diegooo1972]

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/482ea7ae-95e4-45bf-b68b-ccb8a92c5f96

Come on. Audiophile It's not a crime. But just stop pretending you have both fidelity in reproduction and emotional experience in sound. These concepts are contradictory.

 

[Jimbob54]

You'll be suprise about how many info you can find on equipment used on good recording. And that's exactly what I mean so you can't have better experience then what you listen after mixing. We can't have the sounds as they were recorded. Honestly I'd love to but that ain't happen. The best you can achieve in term of objectivity will be best possible and measurable reproduction. The other way will be personal taste and subjectivity. No other ways. Both are good imho but the second will not be the first. They are contradictory.

I think the language you use is obscuring your key points, which i dont think many here would argue with and indeed many have said before.

I think this is possibly the best summation of certainly my view,
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...and-high-fidelity-confusion.16110/post-520224
suspect yours and many others too.

Talking about anything before the source file/ disc is not helpful unless you are in a position to change it. The vast majority of us are not- so it is moot.

The other issue that becomes problematic are transducers. The electronics are a done deal in most cases in terms of obtaining transparency. But even using the same monitors as in the studio/ mastering room will not get you the exact same sound due to room conditions - so to that end the notion of totally faithful reproduction all the way down the playback chain is a bit of a nonsense. But good speakers, that measure well with a good frequency response and EQd well for the room will be as good as you can get. But in the pure sense, thats adding to and colouring the source.

 

[raif71]

Come on. Audiophile It's not a crime. But just stop pretending you have both fidelity in reproduction and emotional experience in sound. These concepts are contradictory.

Haha...yes it's not a crime

 

[diegooo1972]

Haha...yes it's not a crime

Well audiophile it's not a crime but snake oil equipments are a crime indeed. You can probably win against them in the court of law. Not that i'm interested in it of course. If you talk about science in a product and then science can't show anything better about it it's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Thomas savage]

Haha...yes it's not a crime

...It should be... but..

I think 'audiophile' is a crime against humanity, the self indulgence alone should be viewed with horror. Self indulgent designers , self indulgent and scandalous industry in general, self indulgent and willfully deluded customer base.

Ha ha

 

[Wombat]

Thomas, what about an audio filly?

 

[escksu]

You'll be suprise about how many info you can find on equipment used on good recording. And that's exactly what I mean so you can't have better experience then what you listen after mixing. We can't have the sounds as they were recorded. Honestly I'd love to but that ain't happen. The best you can achieve in term of objectivity will be best possible and measurable reproduction. The other way will be personal taste and subjectivity. No other ways. Both are good imho but the second will not be the first. They are contradictory.

Oh yes you can. Modern technology can alter the sound even after mixing. It can even remove unwanted noise, emphasise certain frequencies etc. But then, its still coloration even though it does sound better and pple do like it.

As for equipment good for recording, the thing is the best and 100% uncolored one does not exist. Then certain equipment is more suitable for certain type of music etc...

The whole problem is there is no such thing as best in audio. Uncoloured sound same as original is not what people really wants at times. If you stand right in front of a person blowing a trumpet, you will probably get annoyed as its too loud. Also my live band example, no one can hear the singing.

When you add in mixing etc, it all becomes extremely subjective. Its what the sound engineer wants you to hear. Not what it actually is. And then, there are bound to be errors at times, so do you prefer the recording with those errors??

 

[escksu]

Btw, one piece of coloration device used in every studio..... The anti-pop filter.

 

[makinao]

This thread is hilarious.

I'm not sure if the thread starter knows that much about the recording process, and how manipulative it is. For example, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE RECORDING CHAIN IMPARTS SOME SORT OF COLORATION. Engineers, producers, and knowledgable musicians know this. We (yes, I have played all three of these roles) manage the coloration based on what type of sound we aim for in the mix, and broadly anticipate will sound subjectively pleasing to our target audience. We know it will never be the same.

This begs the question, what should high-fidelity be faithful to? The crappy NS-10s we used as one of our reference monitors? The overdriven Marshall JCM800 that our guitarist used? The beat up U-87 that the vocalist instead on? The vintage UA610 that's the engineer's go to? The JUP8-V virtual synth that falls short of sounding like a real Jupiter 8 but gets the job done? Or the fact that some tracks were purposely driven to digital distortion to get a grittier timbre?

Do we in the studio know how this will all turn out? Not exactly. We cannot demand listeners use x speakers, y amplifiers, or z headphones. The reality is we can only hope and pray that that most of these sounds will translate to the consumer/domestic listener. As long as they are moved whether they are listening on crappy earbuds, or on a US1,000,00.00 system, that's fine with us.

 

[wje]

I've been at this game for 40+ years. I've always considered myself an "Audio Enthusiast" who just enjoys audio gear and lots of music to push through it.

 

[Killingbeans]

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

I don't really care too much about either of those descriptors. They seem equally fuzzy to me.

What does make me tired is the completely nonsensical hunt for "straight wire with gain" using products that are obviously designed to have a signature sound.

 

[MediumRare]

Come on. Audiophile It's not a crime. But just stop pretending you have both fidelity in reproduction and emotional experience in sound. These concepts are contradictory.

Completely false and arbitrary. Prove there is a difference for the majority of people.

 

[diegooo1972]

Completely false and arbitrary. Prove there is a difference for the majority of people.

But that is almost my point. If you can't hear the difference with a blind test again you have 2 ways. One is to follow science, which is the wat you build equipments, that can evaluate what you can't. The other is to follow subjectivity. Best possible reproduction can be evaluate only with science because you simply can't with your ears. The other way is emotional. I'm not saying it's wrong I just say it's not objective.

 

[MediumRare]

But that is almost my point. If you can't hear the difference with a blind test again you have 2 ways. One is to follow science, which is the wat you build equipments, that can evaluate what you can't. The other is to follow subjectivity. Best possible reproduction can be evaluate only with science because you simply can't with your ears. The other way is emotional. I'm not saying it's wrong I just say it's not objective.

OK, I think we have a language issue. See my post #38: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...h-fidelity-confusion.16110/page-2#post-520224

 

[solderdude]

Even ChiFi can be HiFi but sometimes isn't.

An audiophile is not necesarilly an audiophool but an audiophool can be an audiophile.
Equipment of an audiophile and even audiophool usually is HiFi.
You can have HiFi equipment but f'up the sound completely by using LoFi speakers.
You can have HiFi equipment with excellent speakers but playing a 64kb/s MP3 will still make it sound LoFi.

 

[diegooo1972]

OK, I think we have a language issue. See my post #38: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...h-fidelity-confusion.16110/page-2#post-520224

I misunderstood indeed sorry. I think you can see my point. It's not just taste versus technic. It's a more deep consideretion about objectivity vs subjectivity. The first one can be shared for other to evaluate. The second one is absolutely personal and can't really be shared. You can try to describe a good wine but you still need to taste it to decide if you like it. And I trust my mouth more then I trust my ears in certain conditions.

 

[MediumRare]

I misunderstood indeed sorry. I think you can see my point. It's not just taste versus technic. It's a more deep consideretion about objectivity vs subjectivity. The first one can be shared for other to evaluate. The second one is absolutely personal and can't really be shared. You can try to describe a good wine but you still need to taste it to decide if you like it.

Yes, wine is a good analogy. It can absolutely be measured (though some in the industry deny that, just like in audio). Preference is completely personal - partly objective (biological sensory capability) and partly subjective or even occasion-specific.

As with that, I'm out. This path is too-well trodden for me.