You seem to be confused that I’m arguing against your right to alter the sound however you want. I’m not.
What I’m doing is pointing out that you seem to be expressing an opinion as if you are
“ letting us in on the obvious facts” about the nature of hi-fi equipment and the goals associated. But this is far from obvious.
Remember, after you opined that converting two channel to multi channel is the better way to go, Levimax pointed out:
“If Stereo converted to MC is truly "better" then that means "Hi-Fi" is not about trying to "reproducing the source" as accurately as possible rather it is about "reprocessing" the source to be as "pleasing" as possible.”
To which you suggested that has always obviously being the case.
But that’s far from obviously the case. The idea that hi-fi is
ultimately (in terms of what the listener ends up hearing ) about reprocessing the signal to taste does not actually fit well with many of the stated historical goals of those developing hi-fi equipment, and such a view has been contested here for years by other people who care about high Fidelity.
Once again: The reason so many people care that their speakers are accurate, and even go to lengths with room treatment or DSP, is to maintain as much as possible, the accuracy of the signal the listener actually hears.
If someone for instance had a benchmark amplification and DAC, but chose Zu audio loudspeakers, it would be seen as strange if that person claimed to be interested in high Fidelity sound. Why? Because whatever the Fidelity of the signal leading up to the speakers, he has chosen speakers with a ragged frequency response that will impose that response on the signal, rather than reproduce it more accurately. Right?
Likewise, if you substituted much more accurate Revel loudspeakers in the same system, it would make sense to say this better fits the ideal of a high Fidelity system.
However, if someone EQ’d in a ragged frequency response, like that of the Zu loudspeakers, then it no longer matters that this person is using Revel speakers. Just as if Zu speakers had been used, this
system is no longer producing what most people would think of as high Fidelity sound.
That’s because “ high Fidelity” is often aimed at the actual sound the listener ends up hearing, and not on some of lip service to the idea that “ well,
most of the chain is transparent” (even if I’ve decided to totally impose my own colorations in the end result).
In fact, in principal the proposed solution to the circle of confusion is that there would be a consistency in terms of accurate equipment In both the creation of recordings and playback of those recordings in the consumers home, that we would experience “ Hi Fidelity” to what the artist created in their artistic environment. And that would, of course imply one isn’t just totally colouring the sound differently at the last moment.
So again, I’m not saying you have no right to change the sound whoever you want. What I’m pointing out is that your breezy dismissal of Levimax’s point isn’t so obvious and clearcut as you suggest.
With that point out-of-the-way, let’s get to your dismissal of my other point about where one decides to colour the sound to taste…
if it sounds bad, I can turn it off. I can turn DSP room correction off too,. Back in the day, I could set all the tone controls to "0" as well.
But why would I, if it sounds better to me to have them on? Obviously I'm deciding what the audio *should* sound like.
Exactly.
And my point is that once you start doing that, then appealing to what hi-fi equipment
“ should be doing” seems to leave the question “why? If you were just going to alter the sound to taste anyway.” And then if you are doing that with your “ hi-fi” system, how can you dismiss other ways of colouring the sound? You seem to have undermined the point of hi-fi systems to begin with. If someone is inserting an equalizer into the chain, or tone controls, or up mixing, they have decided not to pass on the signal with high Fidelity. They have left a piece of equipment reliably altering the signal to their taste.
Inserting something like a tube amplifier that produces audible distribution could be playing the same role. You’d just be choosing to alter the signal with a different piece of equipment in the amplification chain.
You suggested this logic is “ laughable” but without actually explaining why.
What I don't want is gear that 'turns on' some sort of distortion that I can't turn off.
OK, so that’s what you don’t want. That’s your opinion that’s your goal.
But if, as you’ve stated, the ultimate goal hi-fi gear is to arrange the sound to one taste, then it seems we’ve actually left the realm of traditional goals of high Fidelity. In which case you can’t crow about your decision being the reasonable one, and that it is “ laughable” that this allows for colouring the sound however one wants.
This is where you land once you have abandoned certain ideas about high fidelity.
Please, please do go tell him IT'S NOT FINE. Tell him it's antithetical to high fidelity'. Save his soul. I've got popcorn.
Red herring.
How about just SingTFU about it for awhile?
May I suggest perhaps a more comfortable mattress?
Maybe a
New pillow?
dates back to ca. 1970.
