I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

[Jimbob54]

I know. I've been wishing we had a popcorn eating emoji to post for conversations like this.

It's the hypersphere of confusion.

 

[Jimbob54]

I know. I've been wishing we had a popcorn eating emoji to post for conversations like this.

Almost as good as the DSD superiority thread.

 

[diegooo1972]

It's the hypersphere of confusion.

I see an hypersphere of trolling instead

 

[MattHooper]

Have you ever been in a recording studio ?

Did you not read what I just wrote?

Yes. I've been involved in many types of recording and studios, for film, music and other areas.

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.

Of course there are exceptional recordings made by exceptional engineers.

The point is that much of the available music library was recorded using playback monitors of varying quality and sound character! The Yamaha NS-10 was ubiquitous as playback monitors in the 80's and well onward (some still use it). It's a colored speaker. Taking your claim about what makes for Hi Fidelity: If you have a very neutral, low distortion speaker as your playback system you will not have a "high fidelity" experience listening to an album because it will sound so different than what they heard in the studio.

And that is to varying degrees true of much more of the music we will be listening to, given the variation among monitors used in recording/mixing.

And that's the general "circle of confusion" problem researchers like Floyd Toole point to.

It's an issues we all grapple with here, and you don't seem to have any principled way of addressing the problem. You've acknowledged the disparity between what one can hear in a studio vs at home on neutral speakers. But you don't seem to be following the implications.

If "hi fidelity" means "producing the sound as heard in the studio" then it implies we can not apply the term "Hi Fidelity" in evaluating equipment, particularly speakers. You couldn't design speakers with the goal of "Hi Fidelity" because it would be impossible for a speaker to replicate the sound of every studio monitor used to make each album. Are you ok with not being able to think of equipment as "hi fidelity" equipment, especially speakers?

If so, you are now using the term "Hi fidelity" in your own way, one that many would not recognize. But then, you'd have been as confusing as the people you seem to be castigating in your original post.

But if you DO want us to be able to design "hi fidelity" equipment....what design characteristics would fit the goal? Thus far, your responses have left questions like these blowing in the breeze.

Again...consider that you may not have the clear conception you think you do, or think you are communicating.

 

[Jimbob54]

I see an hypersphere of trolling instead

Oh, we both know that.

 

[richard12511]

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.

That definition doesn't accurately describe a large portion of the audiophile community. If we go with that definition, then we need another word to describe that other portion of the community that openly admits to not chasing high fidelity sound. Would you consider Steve Guttenberg an audiphile? He makes it very clear that he doesn't give a damn about how accurate the sound is to the source. All he cares about is how much pleasure the sound gives him.

 

[diegooo1972]

In op i had never imagined that people could fine so many trouble in the term high fidelity. Obviously i wasn't talking about the sticker on the equipments but the best fidelity of sound as possible. If you keep on talking about the term on the sticker you have not read all my previous post about it.
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. But you keep on going anywhere else instead to speak about this simple point. Let's talk about this implication that is what I was trying to explain in op.

 

[richard12511]

To me, high fidelity means accurate to the source. Yamaha NS10 are not high fidelity just because that's what the engineer used to produce the song you're listening to. The sound you are hearing is still very different than the sound that exists on the source.

 

[AndyLu]

That definition doesn't accurately describe a large portion of the audiophile community? If we go with that definition, then we need another word to describe that other portion of the community that openly admits to not chasing high fidelity sound. Would you consider Steve Guttenberg an audiphile? He makes it very clear that he doesn't give a damn about how accurate the sound is to the source. All he cares about is how much pleasure the sound gives him.

I was trying to establish some clarity and parameters to form a rudimentary base for discussion. But since the OP keeps moving the goalposts all the time and it is still not clear what this thread is actually about I decided to withdraw myself from this discussion (which you can read in my post after the one you quoted). Discussions like these are pointless. Rehashing definitions ad infinitum is an utter waste of time and leads to nothing. So I am out.

 

[restorer-john]

Discussions like these are pointless. Rehashing definitions ad infinitum is an utter waste of time and leads to nothing. So I am out.

Some people have been in Covid19 lock-down for too long it seems. I've noticed plenty of people going quite nuts over silly things lately, not just on ASR.

These threads are best left alone. A bit like poking a bear.

 

[North_Sky]

It'll be nice getting back to normal, to restore the clean healthy purified air filtration state.


Kiddddinnnnnggggg

* The thread's title is an invitation to anarchist chaos.

 

[solderdude]

I figure we get tired of OP's confusion of what defines HiFi and audiophile. When there is no agreement (in audioland there never is) there will be no clarity/consensus/proper definition of something that is vague in general.


OP is just trying to get us all to redefine the words HiFi (which already has a definition which he doesn't agree with) and what constitutes 'audiophile'.
The latter also is a 'wide' subject where people that one could consider an audiophile don't want to consider themselves as such.

Basically OP wants to call HiFi: Objective based sound reproduction and only when the sound what was present in the studio is replicated.
He wants to redefine 'audiophile' as everything that deviates from that.

A: Sound of the final master is just a recording that one or a few folks have agreed on what the artistic product should be on those speakers/room and acc. to them.
B: Those who have measured any transducer in a room or on the head know fully well that nearly all equipment far exceeds 'HiFi' definitions so only transducers and room determine SQ as well as the 'recorded product quality'.
When you reproduce sound in another room on other speakers you cannot get 'studio sound' nor that of a live recording. Objectively this is impossible.

This means there will always be a deviation and one can define how much deviation is allowed in all aspects to reach the hard - HiFi - audiophile border and thus considers everything HiFi or audiophile. Of course OP knows there should be a 3rd option which is LoFi in this case.

Those that heard an audiophile's setup will all agree it sounds excellent, maybe even better than some HiFi systems (acc. to OP definition) so one cannot consider audiophile systems 'LoFi'.
What happens with people not giving a damn and fully enjoying a crappy BT speaker or whatnot and enjoying the music/artistic part ?
Do they need another definition ?... perhaps musicophile ?

I would suggest OP just comes up with definitions (including tolerances) of what is HiFi (measurable what and how) and what constitutes and audiophile and at which point they become audiophool (which amount of pleasantness exceeds the hifi definition) which would include the definition of what is snake oil and what is not.
When someone get's 'nicer sound' does it matter if it is placebo or not ? It is is money, his perception, his enjoyment. Regardless if he fools himself or not.
When do HiFi, LoFi, audiophile and audiophool fall under the definition of 'music lover', 'fidelity lover', 'sound quality lover' and in the latter case where are the borders.

Either OP clearly defines what is what and why and doesn't care others agree or he defines it
HiFi = unobtainable studio sound within certain tolerances (needs to describe the tolerances)
And 'misguided music enjoying individual who does not care about measurements' and defines what audiophile means to him.

Then we can individually agree or disagree and go our separate ways and leave the OP frustrated because not everyone sees this the way he sees it.

 

[diegooo1972]

@solderdude I just didn't tought in the beginning that a single concept like "best possible reproduction fidelity" could generate such a great confusion.
It's obviously something you are looking for and for sure you can't have 100% in that path. Too many variables.
What i'm trying to point out is that in that path you can only rely on science. Human ears are not good enough for that path so science is the only way to go. In term of objective measures. Out of that measurable path there is, for definition, everything else which is necessarily personal and subjective. I'm ok with everything outside measurable path as everyone else and I agree that the best thing you can have is fun listenining music. I just dislike audiophile products that pretend to be on the science path while they are obviously not. Other then that everything is fine to listen to music if it suits you. In any case this are the kind of answer I expect and thank for your tought.

 

[solderdude]

Yes, but also when designing 'bespoke' systems where deliberate changes are made you can rely on measurements as well.
In both cases the sound can be high fidelity in the sense where 'Hi-Fi' stands for high sound quality.
Let's face it.. I have heard some audiophile systems where there was clearly a violation of some minimum requirements some folks at ASR would adhere to. Yet these systems sound GREAT (well the speakers and room does or the headphone does). I would call that High Fidelity as well.
One could argue to give it another name (MuFi or Plefi or Prefi)# but makes no sense to me as the systems usually sound excellent but in general a bit colored compared to gear that is 'less modified'.

When you only rely on 'science' (measurements and minimum requirements) then the minimum requirements must be known and specified.
Then this gear is certainly meeting hifi criterea providing the minimum requirements are set.
The real debate is WHAT those minimum requirements are to be.
They may well be different for different use cases.
I believe certain minimal requirements that exceed old 'norms' already exist (HiRes logo, THX certified) and would also call this at least HiFi.

What you can suggest is to create a new name for those minimum requirements. Redefining the word HiFi is not the answer I reckon.


# MuFi = Musical Fidelity (hmm.. that's already taken), PleFi = Pleasurable Fidelity, PreFi = Preferred Fidelity.... I bet a lot of other words can be invented.
Maybe SuFi (Superior Fidelity) or TopFi (Top quality Fidelity) ...

 

[b1daly]

Your dichotomy is moot because ‘audiophile’ and’hi-fi’ gear sound identical except for maybe the most ridiculous projects like a very low power tube amp run at high levels.

Can you give us an example of the kind of ‘audiophile‘ gear you are referring to?

 

[diegooo1972]

@solderdude I didn't talk about minimum requirement on purpuse. I just try to obtain best measurement I can. 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. I'm lookin for the best clear reproduction possible and measurable. Then if I need i will add an effect of my choice. I still think that logically speaking measurement put a straight division between objective and subjective choice which still is my point. The minimum requirement are again something that change on personal taste and ideas. Legit for personal experince but not strictly scientific. 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.

 

[diegooo1972]

Your dichotomy is moot because ‘audiophile’ and’hi-fi’ gear sound identical except for maybe the most ridiculous projects like a very low power tube amp run at high levels.

Can you give us an example of the kind of ‘audiophile‘ gear you are referring to?

I'm referring to audiophile equipments that don't rely on measurements. Which left space only to subjective evaluations. Not saying it's bad but it's just not scientific. I prefer emotion vs science but i'm aware of implications of emotionals subjectives choice. That's where a lot of confusion and snake oil products born in audophile domain pretending they are scientfic and then rely on personal listening of the products. Not all but many products in that domain. I don't like that attitude. I may like a lot of audiophile products for different resons but I still can't consider them necessarily best fidelity euiqpments.

 

[Jimbob54]

I'm referring to audiophile equipments that don't rely on measurements. Which left space only to subjective evaluations. Not saying it's bad but it's just not scientific. I prefer emotion vs science but i'm aware of implications of emotionals subjectives choice. That's where a lot of confusion and snake oil products born in audophile domain pretending they are scientfic and then rely on personal listening of the products. Not all but many products in that domain. I don't like that attitude. I may like a lot of audiophile products for different resons but I still can't consider them necessarily best fidelity euiqpments.

Leaving aside obvious snake oil (expensive cables, widgets that do nothing) I suspect most of the electronics and a lot of the transducers do get measured. I know for a fact that PS Audio measure and then pride themselves on tuning by ear- but I bet you they still measure the final product.

Also, all manner of "measurements" - and most bits of spec have quite detailed measurement thresholds detailed. They just might not be very competent from the perspective of very low distortion. But they might intentionally be that way. Yes, you wouldnt want them, neither would I- but thats not snake oil

Im not sure you understand how the industry works

 

[diegooo1972]

Leaving aside obvious snake oil (expensive cables, widgets that do nothing) I suspect most of the electronics and a lot of the transducers do get measured. I know for a fact that PS Audio measure and then pride themselves on tuning by ear- but I bet you they still measure the final product.

Also, all manner of "measurements" - and most bits of spec have quite detailed measurement thresholds detailed. They just might not be very competent from the perspective of very low distortion. But they might intentionally be that way. Yes, you wouldnt want them, neither would I- but thats not snake oil

Im not sure you understand how the industry works

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.

 

[raif71]

To me, high fidelity means accurate to the source. Yamaha NS10 are not high fidelity just because that's what the engineer used to produce the song you're listening to. The sound you are hearing is still very different than the sound that exists on the source.