• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

MattHooper

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
1,237
Likes
1,658
#62
I'm talking about digital reproduction. The actual contents. Also vinyl nowadays are digitally recorded. I don't know how many complete analog studio are still around today.
But I see what you mean. If you listen to an original vinyl everything change but still in that domain we are not talking about best possible reporduction as can be achivede today. Just the best possible reproduction at that time.
I'm confused as to what you think to be the "best possible reproduction" and how it relates to Hi Fidelity.

Let's take what may seem to be an exaggerated example to unearth the assumptions.

Take a classic album, well-regarded for sound quality, like Steely Dan's "Aja." Let's say the instruments and voices are recorded with the same high quality microphones and by the same talented people, on the same recording equipment, making essentially all the same choices.

Until it comes to a final mastering; the mastering is done instead on the equivalent of a table-top BOSE Wave Radio. (If you've ever heard one, you'd know how colored it sounds).

So THAT is the final product as the mixer/master and artists heard it and signed off on it.

And the album is produced in full CD resolution (or hi-res digital, if you want).

So what we have is a signal that CONTAINS a very rich level of sonic information comparable to the information available on Steely Dan's Aja.
However, in the final process in the studio it was LISTENED TO and mastered on a cheap, small, colored table top speaker. That is "what the artist/mixer heard in the studio and signed off on."

Now, presuming your appeal to Hi Fidelity, what is your "best possible reproduction" scenario?

If you have a pair of big, beautiful Salon 2 speakers, much lauded in these parts, you won't hear anything LIKE what was heard in the studio.
You'll hear big, rich, dimensional, wide frequency response music.

But it will be "anti-hi-fidelity" if reproducing the in-studio-sound is your standard for Hi Fidelity.

But you WILL hear all sorts of information from the music signal in terms of resolution, spatial information, frequency range, timbral information, that would go missing on the Bose Wave radio used to master that album.

On the other hand: If you mean "Hi-Fidelity" is translating to sound whatever the music signal contains, and with as little distortion of that information as possible, then the your listening experience on the Salon 2s will be more Hi Fidelity than what they heard in the studio when mastering.

So...which is it? What would be the "best possible reproduction" in the scenario above? One would mandate using a Bose Wave Radio for playback of that album, the other would better suit something like the Salon 2s.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #63
I don't believe that listening to this wonderfull record AYA on salon 2 can be more accurate then the original studio. Maybe you mean that it can be more interesting. Let's give up the formal sense o HI-FI. I'm talking about fidelity. When you mix you have the total control and talking about fidelity what is going out is the best scenario possible of that recording even if your studio is not necessarily the best. Everything else is emphasis of sounds. I may like it but it's not fidelity. I'm not saying that studio give the best result emotionally speking but for sure is the best possible repoduction you can hear.
 

MattHooper

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
1,237
Likes
1,658
#64
I don't believe that listening to this wonderfull record AYA on salon 2 can be more accurate then the original studio.
Ok, so infer you mean, in the scenario I described, that The Best Scenario Possible for a Hi Fidelity experience would be listening to the album on a Bose Wave Radio?
Correct?


Maybe you mean that it can be more interesting.
It's not about what I mean. I'm trying to uncover what you mean by "Hi Fidelity" and "best possible reproduction."

Let's give up the formal sense o HI-FI. I'm talking about fidelity.
What's the difference?

When you mix you have the total control and talking about fidelity what is going out is the best scenario possible of that recording even if your studio is not necessarily the best. Everything else is emphasis of sounds. I may like it but it's not fidelity. I'm not saying that studio give the best result emotionally speaking but for sure is the best possible repoduction you can hear.
I did not find that to be clear.

Do I understand that your notion of "Fidelity" and "the best possible reproduction" would be hearing exactly the sound coming through the speakers used to mix or master the album?

What do you do with the fact that the types speakers used for making much of the music we listen to had all sorts of variation in sound, in coloration etc? Many studio speakers have not been "accurate" but in fact fairly colored. No system you can buy could "know" what the speakers used to master sounded like and reproduce that sound at home.

Therefore, is your idea of "fidelity" a practical one?
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #66
Not in the slightest. OP is now in the seventh circle of the most confusing of all Hells.
I fell no hell at all. I just see some people don't even try to understand. Probably they fear their game can be broken.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #67
@MattHooper 1) If that is the case that's the best reproduction to feel what ahppened there. So yes.
2) You obviously haven't read my previous post. It's not about H-FI that people like to confuse with formal definition of 1900. I'm talking about fidelity of reproduction as it was in the studio. The best reproduction you can have. Everything else again and again is emotional and subjective.
3) The diference again reside between the formal definition of HIFI and absolute possible fidelity of reproduction i'm talking about.
4) Whatever is your equipment you're going to create final master depending on problem as well. Change equipment and studio and you' ll have a completely different record.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #68
Let's try that way.
Best possible reproduction = Something you can meaure = Objective
Everything else = Emotional driven choice = Subjective.
You may have a lot of fun with subjective choice but it's not objective and it's only pesonal.
If you don't understand that i fear there's no hope.
 

Jimbob54

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
3,563
Likes
3,017
#70
Let's try that way.
Best possible reproduction = Something you can meaure = Objective
Everything else = Emotional driven choice = Subjective.
You may have a lot of fun with subjective choice but it's not objective and it's only pesonal.
If you don't understand that i fear there's no hope.
You can measure bad or coloured performance too.

And I'm not sure over in Camp Subjective its all about emotions. I think its more about influences. X says Y is good so Z believes it is.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #71
You can measure bad or coloured performance too.

And I'm not sure over in Camp Subjective its all about emotions. I think its more about influences. X says Y is good so Z believes it is.
Believing someone words without critical thinking is an emotional state about that someone. Subjective.
 

MattHooper

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
1,237
Likes
1,658
#72
@MattHooper 1) If that is the case that's the best reproduction to feel what ahppened there. So yes.
Ok, so what you mean by "Hi Fidelity" and best case is hearing exactly the sound people heard through the speakers used in the studio.

That brings forth the problem I outlined: given the vast variety of speaker systems used in music production, it will be rare to non-existant to actually have that experience. Therefore it wouldn't seem we'd be able to apply the term "Hi fidelity" to actual playback equipment, at least not to speakers, no matter how neutral or low distortion.

It would only apply to using the same speakers used for any particular recording, and in a similar room. That seems an untenable notion of "hi fidelity" doesn't it?

2) You obviously haven't read my previous post. It's not about H-FI that people like to confuse with formal definition of 1900. I'm talking about fidelity of reproduction as it was in the studio. The best reproduction you can have. Everything else again and again is emotional and subjective.
Ok, then given much recorded music was mixed on speakers of various colorations, it means that even if you have "the best quality speakers available" - the most neutral and low distortion and wide in frequency response, for the most part even this will mean all you get is "emotional and subjective" given it's not going to be what they heard in the studio.

Correct?


Let's try that way.
Best possible reproduction = Something you can meaure = Objective
Wait...what does that mean?

Do studios produce measurements to go with an album? What measurements? What exactly would be "measured" in the production and playback of an album in the studio, that you want to be able to measure and reproduce at home?

I mean, I can understand this if your goal for Hi Fidelity is the music signal encoded on, say, a CD, where you can measure how the reproduction equipment deviates from neutrality and adds distortion or not.

But you keep referencing the studio listening experience as the bar for Hi Fidelity and best possible reproduction. Therefore I'm wondering what measurements you'd be referring to, being used or produced in the studio, that one would be reproducing?


If you don't understand that i fear there's no hope.
There may indeed be no hope. But I am doing my best to understand what you mean. I'm actually asking the type of questions someone would ask, if they wanted to understand your actual point of view.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #73
@MattHopper. Nope. You obviously don't want to understand anything. You just create more confusion as you can to avoid a simple concept.
You have the asnwers to your questions in previous posts. Just read again. And if you don't get it just get along with your ideas. I'll get along with mines. Audiophile is mostly subjective and snake oil is the result of that. I don't like to fool myself.
I bet you are involved in selling audiophile equipments ;)
It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled. No doubt.
 
Last edited:

Inner Space

Active Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
282
Likes
409
#74
Let's try that way.
Best possible reproduction = Something you can meaure = Objective
Everything else = Emotional driven choice = Subjective.
You may have a lot of fun with subjective choice but it's not objective and it's only pesonal.
If you don't understand that i fear there's no hope.
Let's try it this way: you buy a watch online. FedEx delivers it in perfect condition in a timely fashion. You love the watch and wearing it gives you great pleasure.

FedEx = High Fidelity
You = Audiophile

Simple as that. High Fidelity delivers the mastered file in perfect condition; you love the music it contains and listening to it gives you great pleasure.

Two notes: 1) About halfway through hi-fi's modern history, all practical problems were more or less solved, but some audiophiles couldn't handle that apparent "end of history", so they started making things up ... like, really, the watch would have given you way more pleasure if it had been delivered by UPS instead of FedEx - especially if the UPS driver had planned a route containing only left turns. And so on. I think that's where your issue lies. "Audiophile" is a neutral concept - it's silly audiophiles you're complaining about.

Note 2) This has nothing at all to do with hearing what the engineers heard. Not a thing. Zero and nada. Think of it this way - there is no music in a studio control room. None at all. Music is never, ever heard there. Instead, there is an intense semi-industrial process going on, with repeated examination of sounds, over and over, at uncomfortable levels, with determined scrutiny, in the hopes that they can be put together in a way that will function in dozens of different and conflicting use cases. You wouldn't want to hear it. All you can do is hope to eventually get the file in perfect condition. Then you see if you like it. Maybe you won't, but either way the emotion is generated only by the content - not by FedEx or UPS.
 

MattHooper

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
1,237
Likes
1,658
#75
@MattHopper. Nope. You obviously don't want to understand anything. You just create more confusion as you can to avoid a simple concept.
You have the asnwers to your questions in previous posts. Just read again. And if you don't get it just get along with your ideas. I'll get along with mines. Audiophile is mostly subjective and snake oil is the result of that. I don't like to fool myself.
I bet you are involved in selling audiophile equipments ;)
It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled. No doubt.
May I suggest you dial down the haughty, insulting tone?

You started a thread with a complaint and a claim. I've simply been trying to understand your reasoning because, when you look in to the underlying assumptions and implications, what you've written isn't clear. It may be in your mind: but it's not getting on the page.

No I don't sell equipment. I'm as adamant against snake oil b.s. as anyone you will find.

I've been in to audio for most of my life, and have worked in pro sound, recording live sound sources, and mxing in multi-million dollar studios (film/TV and some music) for 3 decades.

I've put a lot of thought and time in to the types of subject we are discussing.

So, try for a moment, to consider that maybe...just maybe...the person you are chatting to is not dumb, or naive, or ignorant, or fooling himself, or out to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Why not consider that, just maybe, you have not been as clear as you think. And maybe...just maybe...this might have to do with not having fully thought through all the implications, which is why you are having trouble answering the questions in a way that is clarifying your point to others.

Of course, it may be me. Maybe I'm a lot more dumb and naive and ignorant than I think. But even if that's the case, insulting my motivations, as if I just want to evade your obvious point or may have some motivation of selling equipment, is uncalled for.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #76
Have you ever been in a recording studio ? There are a lot of standard trick but in the best records out there players are involved with engineers and producers. It's not at all an industrial process. In a good studio it's an artistic procedure along with great technic knowledge.
I disagree with your view of studio and mixing. There are a lot of records ou there that are what they are due to exceptional studios and engineers artistic preformance. View some videos of great album productions and you'll aunderstand what I mean. Please don't talk about self productions that are a different matter. In low cost productions you generally don't lose time in artistic mixing.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #77
May I suggest you dial down the haughty, insulting tone?

You started a thread with a complaint and a claim. I've simply been trying to understand your reasoning because, when you look in to the underlying assumptions and implications, what you've written isn't clear. It may be in your mind: but it's not getting on the page.

No I don't sell equipment. I'm as adamant against snake oil b.s. as anyone you will find.

I've been in to audio for most of my life, and have worked in pro sound, recording live sound sources, and mxing in multi-million dollar studios (film/TV and some music) for 3 decades.

I've put a lot of thought and time in to the types of subject we are discussing.

So, try for a moment, to consider that maybe...just maybe...the person you are chatting to is not dumb, or naive, or ignorant, or fooling himself, or out to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Why not consider that, just maybe, you have not been as clear as you think. And maybe...just maybe...this might have to do with not having fully thought through all the implications, which is why you are having trouble answering the questions in a way that is clarifying your point to others.

Of course, it may be me. Maybe I'm a lot more dumb and naive and ignorant than I think. But even if that's the case, insulting my motivations, as if I just want to evade your obvious point or may have some motivation of selling equipment, is uncalled for.
My concept is too simple to let me believe that you don't understand. So, or you don't want to understand or you have interest in not understading. Maybe i'm wrong but that's what I think.
 

Inner Space

Active Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
282
Likes
409
#79
Have you ever been in a recording studio ? There are a lot of standard trick but in the best records out there players are involved with engineers and producers. It's not at all an industrial process. In a good studio it's an artistic procedure along with great technic knowledge.
I disagree with your view of studio and mixing. There are a lot of records ou there that are what they are due to exceptional studios and engineers artistic preformance. View some videos of great album productions and you'll aunderstand what I mean. Please don't talk about self productions that are a different matter. In low cost productions you generally don't lose time in artistic mixing.
Yes, I have been in a recording studio. Have you? Or have you just watched "videos of great album productions"? In which case you might have seen me.
 
OP
D

diegooo1972

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
172
Thread Starter #80
Yes, I have been in a recording studio. Have you? Or have you just watched "videos of great album productions"? In which case you might have seen me.
Oh i have been many times in a great studio here of a friend of mine. I had a chance to talk to a lot of engineers. Thay generally refer to audiophile as audiofool. And we are talking about milions dollar studio. So yes. I have been in a studio. A lot more expensive then most audiophile euqipments.
 
Top Bottom