I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

[solderdude]

@solderdude I didn't talk about minimum requirement on purpuse. I just try to obtain best measurement I can.

But only calling THE best gear HiFi isn't the answer either. Clearly everything above a certain threshold can be said to have a high fidelity.
The minimum requirements thus are paramount.
Calling only 'the best measuring' DAC or amp 'HiFi' and when a new one comes out with 1dB better S/N ratio is now called HiFi and the other one looses that title makes no sense to me.
The minimum requirement is what it has always been about and still is. Not the maximum obtainable at a point in time.

I fell that minimum requirements are needed only when you need to place a label on a prodcut. I see that some people may need it but I don't really care about label.

You may feel this way but isn't what a label is all about. It is about certain requiremements being met so people know a device has reached a certain minimum as layed out in specs/requirements. It is moot what people do with this info. You can't expect non technical people to understand specs and requirements. They do understand that a 'label' stands for something. They can ignore it or not.

I'm lookin for the best clear reproduction possible and measurable. Then if I need i will add an effect of my choice.

Aren't we all looking for 'the best' but with a budget ? Why should this have a label named hifi or not ?

I still think that logically speaking measurement put a straight division between objective and subjective choice which still is my point.

I know this is your point but lets face it the majority of the world does not care. They want a product they (or others) find to sound conforming to how they think it should sound. Not acc. to certain measurements tell they do.
That doesn't have to stop anyone from looking for what they looking for. The hifi label has nothing to do with this.

The minimum requirement are again something that change on personal taste and ideas. Legit for personal experince but not strictly scientific.

Scientific approach would be to determine minimum requirements. Above those requirements everything can be said to have high fidelity.
So again... you left it out and don't find it important but this IS the most important aspect of being able to label something.

The minimum rquirement of HI-FI term was necessary to determine a range of the best possible or acceptable at that time. In 2020 this must be a completely different target I think. Or we stick to a 100 year old requirement ? It seems absurd to me.

You mean the DIN45500 norm (and derived standards) that told folks the minimum requirements were set.
Of course you already know that NO manufacturer these days ever sees the DIN45500 norm to be the minimum requirement nor can it be.
HiFi now is different from HiFi today because of technical improvements in all aspects.

What you would like to see is what the new minimum requirements are before it can be said to have a certain label.
You would like to redefine the minimal requirements (but without setting them) in order to re-use the label 'HiFi' and make it exclusively available for the best technical performance.

If you want you can do that for yourself and submit it to a committee that feels they have something to say about the word 'HiFi'.

Have a look at this thread to get some inspriration. Note, regardless of what you feel... it IS all about minimum requirements and not about maximum requirements in a certain point in time, nor about theoretical maximum attainable specs that can be reached with current components.

Minimum requirements is what it is all about. The very part you want left out. I sincerely doubt you can get much people behind this.

 

[diegooo1972]

@sodlerdude Probably is my bad english but I really don't want to establish a new minimum requirement. I think we should get best measurement products basing choice on measurement and depending on budget. Without any kind of minimum requirement. I certainly don't get in pain if seomthing with few db better get out. This is ridiculous for me too.
I work that way to stay objective. Otherwise everything will be fine under certain minimum requirement as you specify. I understand the needs of a label and the minimum requirement. I Just don't think it's enough. And if you add subjective involvement in the choice the game is done for me.

 

[solderdude]

There are already best products and Amir tests stuff to see how well they perform.
Not for all aspects but those aspects Amir chooses to measure and sometimes gets requests for.
One can choose or label something based on a few measurements or on subjective findings from those one trusts.

You questioned the words HiFi and audiophile and saw a confusion, they don't mean the same thing nor are they often used together.

Whether something can be called HiFi has nothing to do with wanting the best but everything to do with minimum requirements set higher than considered minimum requirements.

The word audiophile can be seen in many ways which wasn't clear from your question, you seem to feel people used the words interchangeable ?

Yes, perhaps a language thing but HiFi means high fidelity and not best performance.

Edit: this part seems solved.

 

[Jimbob54]

I heard PS Aduio explicitly saing that they rely also on listening. I don't say that's snake oil of course but it's not scinetific and you end rely only on his personal taste. A different thing anyway from relying on measurements. It's just not strictly science anymore. Mybe it's fine I understand that. But it's personal and emotional. I prefer to add that with my effect of choice on a super clean chain. If needed. Most of the time i don't need it. I do that only on really bad records with dread frequencies that are evidently a problem in mastering. Shit happens in recording. But this kind of records problems are usually documented.

Yes, that's pretty much what most here want. But don't confuse emotional preferences with distortion preferences or even buying on the flowery words of a reviewer something that has distortion baked in.

 

[paddycrow]

Getting the entire audio world to agree on a definition for HiFi and/or Audiophile will be impossible. Like the proverbial herding of cats.

 

[diegooo1972]

There are already best products and Amir tests stuff to see how well they perform.
Not for all aspects but those aspects Amir chooses to measure and sometimes gets requests for.
One can choose or label something based on a few measurements or on subjective findings from those one trusts.

You questioned the words HiFi and audiophile and saw a confusion, they don't mean the same thing nor are they often used together.

Whether something can be called HiFi has nothing to do with wanting the best but everything to do with minimum requirements set higher than considered minimum requirements.

The word audiophile can be seen in many ways which wasn't clear from your question, you seem to feel people used the words interchangeable ?

Yes, perhaps a language thing but HiFi means high fidelity and not best performance.

I already pointed out in ten posts that I don't mean HIFI in the label concept but was meaning best possible fidelity. We are still talking about HIFI term. I really don't get it sorry.

 

[solderdude]

edited accordingly.

I think it is up to the consumer (audiophile, audiophool, purist or 'don't care') what direction they want to take buying their gear.
Best possible may not be what everyone prefers.

What I get from all your replies is that you basically don't like it when people that don't care for/like measurements say things like 'this sounds better so is better'. I agree for certain but the problem is you can't make them think otherwise. Just ignore them or 'uh huh' them.

Nowadays almost everything that is manufacturerd, DACs, DAPs, Phones, pre-amps, headphone amps, poweramps can be made with specs exceeding audible limits. This is not hard to do and can even be made cheap. Of course some produce crap. Don't buy it.

It's the transducers and recordings that are the bottlenecks. Measurements certainly can help here as well as setting standards. But here too... there are folks desiring something different. There will be folks catering for their needs. You don't need to buy it and can ignore the sellers and buyers/reviewers/owners.

 

[diegooo1972]

edited accordingly.

I think it is up to the consumer (audiophile, audiophool, purist or 'don't care') what direction they want to take buying their gear.
Best possible may not be what everyone prefers.

What I get from all your replies is that you basically don't like it when people that don't care for/like measurements say things like 'this sounds better so is better'. I agree for certain but the problem is you can't make them think otherwise. Just ignore them or 'uh huh' them.

Nowadays almost everything that is manufacturerd, DACs, DAPs, Phones, pre-amps, headphone amps, poweramps can be made with specs exceeding audible limits. This is not hard to do and can even be made cheap. Of course some produce crap. Don't buy it.

It's the transducers and recordings that are the bottlenecks. Measurements certainly can help here as well as setting standards. But here too... there are folks desiring something different. There will be folks catering for their needs. You don't need to buy it and can ignore the sellers and buyers/reviewers/owners.

OhhhK. Now your point is clear to me. I just think there's an undisputable line between objectives and measurable performances and subjectives and pleasurable to hearing equipments. I'm not going to convince anyone but that's seems to me a simple logic. I agree that speakers remain an hard factor even if measured. I just wanted to give a more radical and deconstructed point of view to think about. But i really hope everyone still enjoy music as they prefer. Maybe with a little more unbiased choices but a little more objectives. Nothing more and nothing less. I see that line pretty clearly.

 

[MattHooper]

In op i had never imagined that people could fine so many trouble in the term high fidelity.

Perhaps it's because you haven't proposed your idea to other objective-based audiophiles before? Note all the push-back you've been getting and how confused people are as to your exact point. Hence you are finding out you are not being as clear as you think you are?

And at this point, it seems fair to conclude your lack of coherence is due to not having thought through your idea very well.

You've talked about "High Fidelity" and "The Best Possible Reproduction" and haven't produced any coherent specifics that tie the ideas together.
On one hand you've said that reproducing a recording via exactly the equipment used in the mixing studio would be "Hi Fidelity" and The Best Possible Reproduction.

And we have pointed out the problems that arise from that concept (you therefore could only have a "high fidelity system" if you had every speaker used in all your recordings, and the same room acoustics and seating position. Clearly that's an utterly impractical goal).

Now you are trying to be more "simple." But saying something more "simple" does not actually solve any of these questions:

Obviously i wasn't talking about the sticker on the equipments but the best fidelity of sound as possible.

So here you want us concerned with Best Fidelity Possible.

Then you say:

The point is not the studio or the speaker or the room. The point is as simple as that. If you can measure it the it's objective. If you can't measure it then it's obviously subjective.

So what does "objective" or "subjective" have to do with Hi Fidelity???? Draw the line from one to another, please.

Are you saying that "If you can measure it = Objective = High Fidelity?"

That wouldn't make sense. You can measure a Bose Wave Radio. Does the fact you can produce objective measurements entail it is a Hi Fidelity device? And that you will be listening to The Best Possible Reproduction of your music? No audiophile would agree with that as it doesn't make sense. Every awful speaker ever made can be measured objectively; no one would think that merely having objective data gave the stamp of Hi Fidelity.

Therefore, to make your point coherent, you need to tell us: What is the relationship you are drawing between "Objective (measured)" and "High Fidelity?"

Are there CERTAIN MEASUREMENTS that will tell you a piece of gear is Hi Fidelity, or suitable for producing Hi Fidelity and The Best Possible Reproduction? And if CERTAIN MEASUREMENTS can identify a Hi Fidelity system....WHICH ONES?

 

[solderdude]

I just think there's an undisputable line between objectives and measurable performances and subjectives and pleasurable to hearing equipments.

Not so sure about that.. I have heard some objectively excellent measuring gear that sounds extremely good and also some 'guaranteed less measuring' gear that also sounds extremely good. Perhaps they differ here and there but would not draw a line which one is 'better' or 'more preferred'.
I believe there is no clear line in the sense of 'good sound'. In my experience there is no clear border where measurements will tell me where things sound excellent and where 'crap' begins.
One can have a preference or believe one method is 'objectively better' or which leads to 'sonic bliss'. To me these are not coupled to technical measured excellence.

 

[diegooo1972]

Not so sure about that.. I have heard some objectively excellent measuring gear that sounds extremely good and also some 'guaranteed less measuring' gear that also sounds extremely good. Perhaps they differ here and there but would not draw a line which one is 'better' or 'more preferred'.
I believe there is no clear line in the sense of 'good sound'. In my experience there is no clear border where measurements will tell me where things sound excellent and where 'crap' begins.
One can have a preference or believe one method is 'objectively better' or which leads to 'sonic bliss'. To me these are not coupled to technical measured excellence.

I agree with that. I'm aware that some equipments without great measure can sound good. Just saying this became subjective without measurements. I wrote that in a previous post. It's fine but just not supported by science. I don't draw a line between good and bad sound but in objective and subjective choice. Everyone will do whatever they want anyway and i'm happy with that.

 

[Jimbob54]

Are there CERTAIN MEASUREMENTS that will tell you a piece of gear is Hi Fidelity, or suitable for producing Hi Fidelity and The Best Possible Reproduction? And if CERTAIN MEASUREMENTS can identify a Hi Fidelity system....WHICH ONES?

That is going to get body swerved. Or stuck firmly at the bottom of the too hard pile. Solderdude is making decent headway though.

 

[solderdude]

I agree with that. I'm aware that some equipments without great measure can sound good. Just saying this became subjective without measurements. I wrote that in a previous post. It's fine but just not supported by science. I don't draw a line between good and bad sound but in objective and subjective choice. Everyone will do whatever they want anyway and i'm happy with that.

That raises another question.
Suppose we have a tube amp that is measured and documented and it is intentionally made to have a certain effect (I know they exist ).
When you buy that amp based on those measurements is that an objective or subjective choice ?
You end up with an objectively chosen amp that measures objectively 'less' but sounds good the way you like it because one knows they like amps that don't measure well.

And v.v. You choose an amp with excellent measurements that is designed fully on measurements but you pick it in a store without knowing any background or measurements but buy it solely because it sounded good to you. Is that an objective or subjective choice ?
In this case you end up subjectively choosing an amp that is objectively well designed with minimum 'alterations' to the original signal (your high fidelity).

 

[North_Sky]

If reproduced music makes us feel good objectively it has to do a very similar effect subjectively? Or, is it the looks of the hifi audio gear? As long the audiophile in us keeps the pursuit of nirvana happiness, scientifically speaking, and also on the highest room decor treated friendly listening level...yes? More money buys more happiness or more music gear and software? Both go hand-in-hand...it has to be...this is the way our world works...sane logic and practical values.

Lol, we're all a funny bunch...rich or poor.

 

[MattHooper]

That is going to get body swerved. Or stuck firmly at the bottom of the too hard pile. Solderdude is making decent headway though.

Oh I have no doubt it will be avoided again

Just trying to get him to think some more about what he is and isn't proposing.

I'm not finding any more clarity in his responses to Solderdude.

For instance:

"I think we should get best measurement products basing choice on measurement and depending on budget."


Well, what is "best measuring?" And why?

If that means what most people seeking "accuracy" take it to mean, it's generally a neutral frequency balance, and lower audible distortion parameters all around, where the radiation pattern in a given room allows for the listener to receive a generally neutral account of the signal.

But if THAT is what our friend means by "best measuring" then it contradicts his earlier response that Hi Fidelity and The Best Possible Reproduction is to hear playback on the equipment used to mix/master the music. The speaker you have at home that "objectively measures neutral and low distortion" is not going to recreate with fidelity the sound of, say, a Yamaha NS10 used for countless best selling albums. Or any other of the wide range of recorded music monitored on speakers that depart from the speakers you have at home. So the "objectively measurably neutral speaker" will, in being that way, NOT provide The Best Possible Reproduction and Fidelity to much of recorded music.

diegooo just doesn't recognize the contradictions he's been setting up, which suggests he hasn't thought this through.

The work of Floyd Toole et al got around this problem to a degree, because what they studied was listener *preferences* for loudspeaker designs, not "fidelity" or "accuracy." So they didn't really have to address that problem in order to render useful, predictive results.

But further inferences can be drawn from the fact that people generally happened to prefer speakers that are, in the usual sense, "hi fidelity/accurate" - that is generally neutral frequency response with low distortion. Which suggests a goal that would make sense would be to have music mixing done on neutral/low distortion speakers, and home systems should be neutral and low distortion, thereby achieving the goal both of using speakers of the type most people prefer and achieving "fidelity" in the sense of a consistency from the sound in the studio to the sound at home. Which also has the benefit of being objectively measurable. Hence closing the Circle Of Confusion. (Although we've also gone through caveats here before regarding even that scheme. But this is at least states the idea of "fidelity" in a more specific and coherent manner than whatever diegooo seems to be offering so far).

 

[mhardy6647]

Haha...yes it's not a crime

Like skateboarding.

 

[diegooo1972]

That raises another question.
Suppose we have a tube amp that is measured and documented and it is intentionally made to have a certain effect.
When you buy that amp based on those measurements is that an objective or subjective choice ?
You end up with an objectively chosen amp that measures objectively 'less' but sounds good the way you like it because one knows they like amps that don't measure well.

And v.v. You choose an amp with excellent measurements that is designed fully on measurements but you pick it in a store without knowing any background or measurements but buy it solely because it sounded good to you. Is that an objective or subjective choice ?
In this case you end up subjectively choosing an amp that is objectively well designed with minimum 'alterations' to the original signal (your high fidelity).

Honestly I don't choose an amplifier by listen to it. If I want some specific effect i'm more then capable to add it later and there are thousands of excellent effect you can play around that are used in mastering. I prefer to know that the equipment have best possible fidelity of the original wave. Other choices imho are always subjectives. Legit of course but subjective. In any case i make a lot of subjective choice in my life so this is fine. But i'm not going to say these choices are the best.

 

[Jimbob54]

Oh I have no doubt it will be avoided again

Just trying to get him to think some more about what he is and isn't proposing.

I'm not finding any more clarity in his responses to Solderdude.

For instance:

"I think we should get best measurement products basing choice on measurement and depending on budget."


Well, what is "best measuring?" And why?

If that means what most people seeking "accuracy" take it to mean, it's generally a neutral frequency balance, and lower audible distortion parameters all around, where the radiation pattern in a given room allows for the listener to receive a generally neutral account of the signal.

But if THAT is what our friend means by "best measuring" then it contradicts his earlier response that Hi Fidelity and The Best Possible Reproduction is to hear playback on the equipment used to mix/master the music. The speaker you have at home that "objectively measures neutral and low distortion" is not going to recreate with fidelity the sound of, say, a Yamaha NS10 used for countless best selling albums. Or any other of the wide range of recorded music monitored on speakers that depart from the speakers you have at home. So the "objectively measurably neutral speaker" will, in being that way, NOT provide The Best Possible Reproduction and Fidelity to much of recorded music.

diegooo just doesn't recognize the contradictions he's been setting up, which suggests he hasn't thought this through.

The work of Floyd Toole et al got around this problem to a degree, because what they studied was listener *preferences* for loudspeaker designs, not "fidelity" or "accuracy." So they didn't really have to address that problem in order to render useful, predictive results.

But further inferences can be drawn from the fact that people generally happened to prefer speakers that are, in the usual sense, "hi fidelity/accurate" - that is generally neutral frequency response with low distortion. Which suggests a goal that would make sense would be to have music mixing done on neutral/low distortion speakers, and home systems should be neutral and low distortion, thereby achieving the goal both of using speakers of the type most people prefer and achieving "fidelity" in the sense of a consistency from the sound in the studio to the sound at home. Which also has the benefit of being objectively measurable. Hence closing the Circle Of Confusion. (Although we've also gone through caveats here before regarding even that scheme. But this is at least states the idea of "fidelity" in a more specific and coherent manner than whatever diegooo seems to be offering so far).

I think we may be reaching a crescendo tonight.

 

[Killingbeans]

I can't help thinking about the sales blurb "music the way it is meant to be heard" when I see this thread. It should be nonsense to anyone, but unfortunately it has a pseudo-logical quality that speaks to both the subjective and the objective crowd.

 

[watchnerd]

You feel it's a better experience ? Ok then. Just decide. Don't pretende to have your cake and eat it.

I like both.

Digital is my hi fi system.

Analog is my audiophile system.