I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

[tmtomh]

It seems like you make some artificial distinction between the terms 'hifi' and 'audiophile'. Like one is 'good' and the other is 'bad'.

'High Fidelity' translates to 'highly true to the original'. And not to the best possible reproduction, otherwise people would have called it 'Best-fi' or 'Ulti-fi' or something like that. Hi-fi is an old term and refers historically to the DIN 45500 norm (DIN = Deutsche Industrie Norm). This DIN Norm consisted of certain minimum norms (frequency responce, SNR etc.) before you could call sound equipment 'hi-fi'. These DIN Norms are already very old and even lots of cheap modern appliances can easily cope with these DIN norms.
As said Hi-fi is an old term which originated around 1931: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity#DIN_45500.
Compared to current standards the Hi-Fi norm is more or less meaningless and outdated and certainly not as strict as you seem to define it.

According to Wiki an "audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.[1] An audiophile seeks to reproduce the sound of a live musical performance, typically in a room with good acoustics. It is widely agreed that reaching this goal is very difficult and that even the best-regarded recording and playback systems rarely, if ever, achieve it.[2][3]".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

Do you see a distinction between the two terms above? I do not. And why do you think audiophile means 'a coloured sound'? It simply means 'being enthusiastic about hifi'.

In short: The distinction you make between the two is non existent. It is of course possible that some audiophiles go too far in there hobby (as people can do in any hobby), but in the end it is both about hi-fi (or reaching for the best possible sound).

Conclusion: I don't get your point.

I think this comment (which I know is from some time ago) captures the issue nicely, in two specific statements.

One is the Wikipedia definition of "audiophile." To me the first sentence is uncontroversial and I would guess that we would all agree that it describes what an audiophile is, or at least should be: someone enthusiastic ("-phile") about sound ("audio"). But the second sentence is where the door cracks open to allow in the whole culture of audiophilia, which goes beyond the first sentence and in some important ways often ends up contradicting the first sentence. Given the proportion of commercially available music that is not actually a recording of a live performance - along with the fact that a majority of listeners do not necessarily have a live reference for what a particular voice, instrumental performance, or piece of music actually would sound like live - "live music" becomes a kind of euphonic fetish: a lot of people end up chasing a perceptual experience that they believe or fantasize sounds or feels like a live recording. So deep bass "oomph" can feel live precisely because you can feel it. Mid-bass warmth can sound live because it can produce resonances that lead to a perception of a more 3D soundstage. Second-order harmonic distortion in the upper-mids, by creating new musical-sounding harmonics, can lend a feeling of "sweetness" or a tiny bit of extra perceived ambience, which sound and feel "real". And lower to mid-treble elevation can, if it doesn't sound harsh, produce a perception of "air" and "detail" than can make one feel like the music is sort of leaping into the room. So much of audiophile culture is about manufacturers voicing their products to produce one or more of these effects, and audiophiles chasing various forms or combinations of these effects through means that we are all familiar with.

So even though it seems reasonable and logical, I would suggest that "live performance" reproduction has become an audiophile fetish that gets applied across the board to all recordings, even though most can't be reproduced that way in the average listener's home (or anywhere, in the case of most modern studio productions).

The second statement I find interesting is the notion that "high fidelity" is a basic minimum that's lower than - and separate from - "best fidelity" and that "audiophile" refers to the latter and not the former. That point about the DIN-45500 standard is interesting, but I would say as a matter of common sense that the term "high fidelity" long ago stopped being limited to what was possible on common equipment in 1931. There is no "extra fidelity" beyond high fidelity - it's not like pros and engineers in the audio field are saying, "okay, what came out of the mixing desk isn't the same as what went in, but it's close enough because we're only concerned with high fidelity but not total fidelity." So again, I think this is an example of how audiophile culture posits a level of sonic reproduction that is "higher than hi-fi." And I would argue that that "higher than hi-fi" sound is actually less faithful to the source than hi-fi, as it's about the euphonics noted above.

 

[watchnerd]

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.

Well, on the electronics side, much of the issues of the early days are now "solved problems".

It's a mature industry.

It's not really necessary for me to understand the inner workings of my amp any more than it is to understand the inner workings of my microwave in order to use it and enjoy it.

 

[Duckeenie]

Isn't the beauty of pretending that you get to make up your own rules?

 

[Katji]

And the euphonics more about p

Well, on the electronics side, much of the issues of the early days are now "solved problems".

It's a mature industry.

It's not really necessary for me to understand the inner workings of my amp any more than it is to understand the inner workings of my microwave in order to use it and enjoy it.

There is a big difference... It was not necessary to understand the working of amplifiers, for most people, but it was possible for ordinary people, hobbyists to understand the physics of electricity in those audio applications, it was accessible, and so there were all those DIY hobbyists. Now, with increased miniaturisation, SMD and PLC and so on,... a person needs to have elec.eng. education and probably specialisation in the audio side of it to have much understanding of how it works. And so what is left / what there is now for hobbyists...not so much, it seems to me.
Maybe it is [the usual] increased specialisation that has happened.

 

[watchnerd]

And the euphonics more about p


There is a big difference... It was not necessary to understand the working of amplifiers, for most people, but it was possible for ordinary people, hobbyists to understand the physics of electricity in those audio applications, it was accessible, and so there were all those DIY hobbyists. Now, with increased miniaturisation, SMD and PLC and so on,... a person needs to have elec.eng. education and probably specialisation in the audio side of it to have much understanding of how it works. And so what is left / what there is now for hobbyists...not so much, it seems to me.
Maybe it is [the usual] increased specialisation that has happened.

Right.

It's a mature industry -- it's beyond the education of the general public because the remaining problems that aren't yet solved are very esoteric.

I'm not an EE, and have a degree in applied physics, specializing in signal processing, but when I watched Bruno's extended webinar on the Purifi amp, I *maybe* understood 50% of it.

So does my education in science really help me in today's hobby?

Or is it just wishful thinking?

One reason I like LP and reel-to-reel is that I understand the science well-enough to be able to do useful things.

Class D amps, DACs....there is no participation for me. I'm just a dumb appliance user. Just like my microwave.

 

[CurtR]

I clearly hear the perspective of the OP.... and I can't hear the high frequencies like I used to, so I gotta work with what I have now.
But there may be some disguised blessing in the situation... it makes no sense for me to spend $15k on an amp, because I won't be able to hear much of its supposed qualities anyway... so, a nice $1000 receiver from Outlaw or something like that may do me more than "just fine." (I suspect most folks over 40 or 50 would be amazed at how much they are not actually hearing these days, and I'd suggest an audiologist test... and possibly a pair of high-end hearing aids.) Now, I do have some top notch contemporary Marantz components (Ruby), and I'm totally frustrated by their limitations and I'm about to sell 'em and "drop down" to say the Outlaw receiver. I could get rid of three pieces of gear and just have one piece with more practical functionality... and I bet if I blind a/b it, I'd be hard pressed to say the Ruby sounds better, or even know which one was playing. Even if I did hear a diff, I'm not sure I'd consistently pick the Ruby as better.

It's always been speakers that have made the biggest difference to me. And, I have heard "better" objectively (I guess) speakers that I do not like as much as, for example, my Epi 100s (though those are now updated w new capacitor/crossovers and woofers from Human Speakers. The Epi move my heart. They sound clear and natural and are pleasant to listen to every time with any music (and are excellent for movies and tv, too). I have a pair of $3000 modern speakers here, the highly-regarded Q Acoustics Concept 50, and yes those "do things" the Epi don't do, but they also don't as consistently move my emotions like the old Epi. I went out high-end speaker shopping, if $10k qualifies as high end lately, and heard speakers that sounded no better than the Epi, especially in the high frequencies and mids... I have had that experience many many times, so sometimes "objectively better" and "high end" does not necessarily equal subjectively more enjoyable.