WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
@AndyLu If HIFI trem is troubling you let's just talk about the best possible reproduction. Other then that, again, we are going to talk about an effect in the chain. Maybe a wonderfull effect but still an effect and not the best possible reproduction. In my first post i was sure my point was about that and not at all about hifi term and definition.
Again that's not the point. Obviosly you can't have the studio equipment, including room and acoustic, for every recording. That's why you will always have two way to choose. One is with best possible measuremente equipment. And the other will always be personal emotions. Considering that the second will vary consitnuosly and change with mood I personally prefer the first way. That said I had a chance to have a beatifull experience with the second but in no way I can talk about it as best possible reproduction.
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.
Again that's not the point. Obviosly you can't have the studio equipment, including room and acoustic, for every recording. That's why you will always have two way to choose. One is with best possible measuremente equipment. And the other will always be personal emotions Considering that the second will vary consitnuosly and change with mood I personally prefer the first way. That say I had a chance to have a beatifull experience with the second but in no way I can talk about it as best possible reproduction.
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.
Oh, ok...digital it is. But is it that important...analog or digital?
* Vinyl is surpassing CD in sales.
And digital music is not recorded on analog machines.
Oh, ok...digital it is. But is it that important...analog or digital?
* Vinyl is surpassing CD in sales.
And digital music is not recorded on analog machines.
Once you left measurable considerations you end in the domain of hearing. And we know that is connected in many way to emotional states. Even if you are a trained listener you can't evaluate another equipment because of the really short time you remember a sound. It just work like that. Emotions are also a big part in haestestic evaluations apart from sound. But i'm not sayng that's bad at all. It just have nothing to do with best possible reproduction. It can be a great experience too but if it's not measurable it's obviously subjective. Subjectivity is emotional driven.
Once you left measurable considerations you end in the domain of hearing. And we know that is connected in many way to emotional states. Even if you are a trained listener you can't evaluate another equipment because of the really short time you remember a sound. It just work like that. Emotions are also a big part in haestestic evaluations apart from sound. But i'm not sayng that's bad at all. It just have nothing to do with best possible reproduction. It can be a great experience too but if it's not measurable it's obviously subjective. Subjectivity is emotional driven.
I think I do understand your intent and I suspect many here at ASR would agree in principle there is a distinction. Another way of putting it might be:
- Case A: The pursuit of technically perfect reproduction of the signal encoded in the source material OR
- Case B: The pursuit of reproduction of the source material with the most pleasing results, even though measurably different from the source.
I think it's not necessary to refer to the experience of perception in the recording studio, which is, first, unknowable, and second probably inconsistent with both of the above cases. Studio monitors can be fabulous or notoriously inaccurate, depending on the intent and/or budget of the studio.
What is considered a "high fidelity" electronic component should change as new technology, improvements, and products are released. I think the upper quartile (somewhere around the blue bars on the SINAD comparison graphs) is a fairly good cutoff for what should be considered respectable modern hi-fi without getting too stringent and exclusive.
The nice thing is that these days even within the upper quartile there are a wide variety of products and price points to suit your needs. Gone are the days where you are locked out of top performing equipment if you are on a strict budget. And most of those best performing components are in the $100-$2000 range and perform very similarly, to the point where you are only paying for additional features/inputs/build and not much of an improvement in fidelity.
Transducers on the other hand are another realm and perhaps make these marginal improvements in signal reproduction a moot point, but DSP and new technologies are a good equalizer
You can try all you want to define what you think Hi-Fi should be. But I guarantee you marketing people don't care about your certification standards.And they are not going to give up using it however and whenever they please.