I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

[diegooo1972]

This is exactly what I meant.

 

[diegooo1972]

To contestualize the singer and the recordding attitude. I hope you can apreciate and undestand what's behind this.

 

[watchnerd]

To contestualize the singer and the recordding attitude. I hope you can apreciate and undestand what's behind this.

Sorry, I can't understand and appreciate what's behind it because I don't understand Italian.

What's the summary?

 

[diegooo1972]

Sorry, I can't understand and appreciate what's behind it because I don't understand Italian.

What's the summary?

Pretty complex sorry. I was unable with my english to explain that. You can cativate english subs. And listen to the music in the end to have an examle.

 

[watchnerd]

Pretty complex sorry. I was unable with my english to explain that. You can cativate english subs. And listen to the music in the end to have an examle.

Even a sentence or two would help.

Because, I'll be honest, I'm not going to commit to watching 45+ min of videos unless I have some idea what they're about.

 

[diegooo1972]

In my opinion it worth. But to summarize the best reference you can have about fidelity is in the ears of the man that recorded it. If you loose your time to follow that video you may understand why. That's exaclty what I think. I'm going to add a link to the music I love. Not striclty recorded as intended but wonoderfull imho. Hornets transition are excellents. And well Nicola Conte composition and Lucia Minetti voice are aoutstanding. Always Imho.

 

[Katji]

It is [here] also a matter of word definitions [and meanings and perceptions] and logic.

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.
Hi-FI is the best possible reproduction of music.

Not "best." "Best" is subjective unless it is defined by context or application or something.

Just stick to what fidelity means literally. [afaik] It means Faithful. ..."True to..."

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.

Faithful to the perception in the recording studio. The production studio. As similar as possible. Or, rather, to the recording - the record or audio file product that is released.

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.
[...]

It may or not be high fidelity. We did not say "absolutely faithful." We know that is virtually impossible.
Where did we define "high", in high fidelity?
We could say, >=80% faithful/true = High, and also define levels/ranges that are Medium and Low.
So at some level, it qualifies to be called High Fidelity.
"Hi-fi" comes about because there were gramophones and then there were better/improved gramophones and so the better ones were called Hi-fi.
Sure, if you add some component or device [to the set of equipment] that adds distortion or "colouration", the fidelity is reduced. ...

 

[Chrispy]

Music lover, hi-fidelity audio gear lover and audio gear tweaker (to preference) are often separate things.

 

[Harmonie]

Music lover, hi-fidelity audio gear lover and audio gear tweaker (to preference) are often separate things.

As @Vini darko said in his post #2 exactly whoopy 3 months ago.
You can like both or a conjunction of all you just said.
Maybe with the exception of "audio gear tweaker", as it sounds like Snake Oil searcher, we all want to avoid that here.

 

[BillG]

I'm a melophile (music lover) first and high fidelity enthusiast second, but I'm not and will never be an audiophile. There's too much stupidity associated with the latter.

 

[Chrispy]

As @Vini darko said in his post #2 exactly whoopy 3 months ago.
You can like both or a conjunction of all you just said.
Maybe with the exception of "audio gear tweaker", as it sounds like Snake Oil searcher, we all want to avoid that here.

Yeah wasn't even sure if I posted something like that already in a thread like this. Audiophile definition varies and unfortunately seems to cross all three "disciplines"

 

[Chrispy]

I'm a melophile (music lover) first and high fidelity enthusiast second, but I'm not and will never be an audiophile. There's too much stupidity associated with the latter.

First I'd seen the word melophile but yes. Audiophile indeed has too many definitions, much of which has been polluted by marketers.

 

[BillG]

Audiophile indeed has too many definitions, much of which has been polluted by marketers.

The moment that they realized that could market this stuff as "luxury goods" it damned near destroyed the previous science and engineering focus of the hobby.

 

[MediumRare]

The moment that they realized that could market this stuff as "luxury goods" it damned near destroyed the previous science and engineering focus of the hobby.

That would have been about 1912.

 

[Juhazi]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/re-tales-5-pro-audio-and-hi-fi-cross-over

Why is there so much separation between the professional audio and audiophile worlds? Is that separation by design, or even necessity? Is it naïve to believe that more crossover could benefit both sides?
On the surface, audiophiles and recording engineers appear to have much in common. Both groups have a deep interest in the conveyance of music's core emotional message. Audio engineers are—or should be—expert in creating the sounds that audiophiles want to hear. They—the engineers—probably spend more time listening intently (though differently) than all but the most zealous audiophiles. So why aren't more audio engineers involved in the hi-fi world?

 

[Wes]

The moment that they realized that could market this stuff as "luxury goods" it damned near destroyed the previous science and engineering focus of the hobby.

But what is "luxury"? BMW used to have ads along the lines of only performance qualified. Porsche emphasizes driving feel.

For audio gear, I might claim that once you have reproduction fidelity at a point where increases in specs. are unlikely to be perceptible (now true for electronics), what is left are look and feel. Ergonomics, color, control functionality, easy to grip and solid feeling knobs, switches, etc.

And - of course - avoid putting a single knob in the middle of a pre-amp.

 

[Harmonie]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/re-tales-5-pro-audio-and-hi-fi-cross-over

Why is there so much separation between the professional audio and audiophile worlds? Is that separation by design, or even necessity? Is it naïve to believe that more crossover could benefit both sides?
On the surface, audiophiles and recording engineers appear to have much in common. Both groups have a deep interest in the conveyance of music's core emotional message. Audio engineers are—or should be—expert in creating the sounds that audiophiles want to hear. They—the engineers—probably spend more time listening intently (though differently) than all but the most zealous audiophiles. So why aren't more audio engineers involved in the hi-fi world?

Strange, I have rather the feeling that in today's world audiophiles get much nearer to pro audio than before.

I also wonder about below:
quote/
Here's a more important distinction: Pro audio requires accuracy in sound reproduction; hi-fi doesn't. "Accuracy is paramount for the recording and mastering engineer," Thomas said.
/unquote

 

[Feelas]

I also wonder about below:
quote/
Here's a more important distinction: Pro audio requires accuracy in sound reproduction; hi-fi doesn't. "Accuracy is paramount for the recording and mastering engineer," Thomas said.
/unquote

Obviously, DT-990 aren't touted as hi-end cans in pro audio, are they?

 

[watchnerd]

I've decided I only really care about high fidelity, as a concept, for my own recordings.

 

[Katji]

The moment that they realized that could market this stuff as "luxury goods" it damned near destroyed the previous science and engineering focus of the hobby.

Very evident when you look at the scene and the...audiophiles[?] - more like "hobbyists" of the 1940s, 50s, into the 60s. 1970s, a shift is apparent...but still no such thing as audiophile speaker cables. Bang & Olufsen made a change, styling, aesthetics. Then the 1980s, the development of the "BPC" (black plastic crap). And then consumer marketing develops more extremely, advances in mass production, and then the further development of "luxury brand" and lifestye marketing to the middle classes.