What objective measurements qualify as "High Fidelity"?

[goryu]

With a standard do we not also set a ceiling for performance?

I prefer to think of it as a floor...

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I prefer to think of it as a floor...

Not sure how that would work. My understanding of any standard is that it can not, by definition be surpassed.

 

[goryu]

Not sure how that would work. My understanding of any standard is that it can not, by definition be surpassed.

Never heard of a minimum standard to pass?

 

[Jim Taylor]

Not sure how that would work. My understanding of any standard is that it can not, by definition be surpassed.

Again, we must recognize the propensity for English to assign many meanings to a word or phrase. This is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "standard"; there are 10 variations on nouns and 4 on adjectives.

I believe that #s 3 and 4 of the noun entries are sufficiently common uses for our purposes ... no?

Jim

 

[Koeitje]

In terms of electronics you can find a decent answer here:

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Killingbeans]

With a standard do we not also set a ceiling for performance?

Not if the only parameters that are "capped", are the ones relating to personal preference.

The rest should be set according to realistic estimates of the thresholds of human hearing.

That way we would avoid mucking about beyond the point of diminishing returns...

Only problem is that this mucking about (or just the idea of it) is 99% of the hobby for most people

 

[sergeauckland]

DIN 45500 was a meritable attempt to codify the meaning of the term "HiFi". If a product met that minimum standard, then it could be so described.

Products we can easily identify as HiFi, like Leak and Quad, of course comfortably exceeded that minimum. Others, like consumer radiograms, generally wouldn't.

In a similar manner, Broadcasting standards were codified in the IBA Code of Practice and various BBC standards. These were an excellent way of ensuring minimum perfomance standards, which although they might look easy to meet, are rather stringent when considering they have to be met 24/7 & 365.

Likewise, DIN 45500 is fine on leaving the factory, but I wonder how many systems would still meet the spec after a few years? Especially tape machines and turntables.

S

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Not if the only parameters that are "capped", are the ones relating to personal preference.

I would think the opposite. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

The rest should be set according to realistic estimates of the thresholds of human hearing.

And how would that apply to speakers/rooms and listeners both at home and during recordings?

Consider for a moment had these issues of standards and concerns over “the circle of confusion” been dealt with in the early 50s. Would we not be stuck with early 50s technologies?

If one sets a studio standard and what was heard in the studio on their monitors becomes the reliable repeatable standard for what is supposed to be heard at home doesn’t that studio playback system set the ceiling for sound quality?

I picked that era for the obvious reason. We were still in mono. But also there were limitations on speaker design and build.

How would any advancement not violate the established studio standard and resurrect the dreaded circle of confusion?

That way we would avoid mucking about beyond the point of diminishing returns...

Only problem is that this mucking about (or just the idea of it) is 99% of the hobby for most people

Diminishing returns is also subjective.

 

[pablolie]

Not sure how that would work. My understanding of any standard is that it can not, by definition be surpassed.

Standards you have to comply with. They have mandatory parts, they have optional parts, and some allow for vendor specific extensions. Hence, I see them as a minimum requirement when a customer demands compliance. At least that's in my industry, not disputing others may see them as "guidelines".

I think DIN45500 is now the Euro EN61305, but its relevance in HiFi seems non-existing since no one seems to care.

 

[Killingbeans]

I would think the opposite. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

And how would that apply to speakers/rooms and listeners both at home and during recordings?

I think you are right when you say we misunderstand each other.

Speakers/rooms are exactly the part that I claim to be most colored by personal preference.

Some might enjoy omnidirectional speakers, some might enjoy "laser beam/head in a vise" speakers. Some might enjoy "dead" rooms, some might enjoy "lively" rooms.

The only way to get a standard going is to pick the attributes that satisfy most people in most situations.

Consider for a moment had these issues of standards and concerns over “the circle of confusion” been dealt with in the early 50s. Would we not be stuck with early 50s technologies?

No? Why would it? Those 50's standards would have been amended, updated and ultimately replaced by new standards over the years.

And they would still be valid.

If you had 50's recordings made to follow the standards of the peak audio technology of those times, you'd have clear guidelines telling you how to recreate the experience with whatever technology is available today. Same would be the case with all other standards. Past, present and future.

If one sets a studio standard and what was heard in the studio on their monitors becomes the reliable repeatable standard for what is supposed to be heard at home doesn’t that studio playback system set the ceiling for sound quality?

Yes? But I can't see why different tiers shouldn't be included in the standard.

You'd might make a 'bronze', a 'silver' and a 'gold' tier. Each with different levels of strictness in regards to acoustics.

The 'gold' tier would have to adhere to everything modern audio science has found essential in achieving top performance. You'd have to be nuts to think you could improve upon it with your home setup in any meaningful way.

How would any advancement not violate the established studio standard and resurrect the dreaded circle of confusion?

Advancements would bring about new standards.

Not a problem though. It could possibly become messy, but the confusion would be gone.

Diminishing returns is also subjective.

I absolutely do not agree.

1000% additional resources giving 0.1% more performance is past the point diminishing returns, no matter how you look at it.

The hobby is obsessed with the idea of the audio lemon being infinitely squeezable. Nobody stops and considers whether the last bit of juice is even detectable

 

[MattHooper]

As I see it, fidelity is a useless concept for our purposes and has been for decades. It was a useful marketing term back in the day but as an engineering goal I can't see how to use it.

All recorded music is artifice. So fidelity to what?

I disagree that fidelity is a useless concept.

I think terms like "fidelity" only become useless if you make them so. And one way of doing that is approaching the subject with unrealistic demands. If you demand perfection then you'll render plenty of useful criteria useless.

To back up a bit: I've often argued that various approaches to the audio hobby are reasonable. And I certainly think "fidelity" can be a useful concept in one such approach.
So taking one approach, a fairly popular one here: "We only have the recorded signal, so I want to reproduce that signal with High Fidelity."

Well...why? One could say to better hear what they heard in the control room. But then there's the circle of confusion. (Though as I've also argued, that doesn't rule out the goal as useless). So then one can just abandon that reason and say that the recorded signal STILL represents information about the choices made by the artist/engineers. It's a record of all sorts of choices, the different amplitude relationships in the sounds via the mix, the panning, the choices of reverbs, the choice of instruments, etc.

So the idea is, that the recording contains a great deal of information about the artistic choices that went in to the recording. And so you want to translate that information with as little distortion of that information as you can manage, and you'll hear the proper balance of information as it is in that signal. So, you choose low distortion source, amps, speakers etc. And this version of High Fidelity allows you to actually have some good idea of when you are actually moving towards or away from that goal, and in an objective, measurable way.

Again, does this mean you are transported to the studio to hear it as it sounded exactly through the studio sound system? No. But what it does mean is that, insofar as you are transcribing that information in the recording without losing information or obscuring it, you ARE hearing information about the artist's choices. You will be able to pick out the exact type of reverb they added to the vocals, you'll be able to hear - and perhaps even identify - exactly the reverb they chose for the guitar, and exactly what effects. Lower distortion will mean differences in the signal will be better preserved, so you'll hear information that tells you the differences in acoustic guitars, or other instruments, that were carefully selected for the track on the basis of those specific qualities. Etc, etc. This doesn't mean that you HAVE to geek out in trying to identify the technical choices in the mix, but in any case in reproducing the signal with fidelity/low distortion, you are getting lots of information about the recording and what choices the artists made to make it sound that way.

And a technical version of High Fidelity to the signal can let you know when you are getting further from or closer too that goal.

So I think the folks who are just using High Fidelity To The Signal as their goal have a fine case to make.

As it happens, I'm more in the school of "wanting my system to please me (which also includes some nod towards what I think of as "natural/believable" sonic traits for reproducing acoustic instruments as well)" so I am ok with a certain level of coloration IF that aids my enjoyment. However, far from just abandoning High Fidelity To The Signal, I also have that goal. That's because I really do love geeking out over the differences in recordings. I really do want the individual character of each recording to come through, and I want to "hear in to the details" of recordings with ease. So I don't want colorations strong enough to cover those differences up. Further, High Fidelity is generally tied to Lower Distortion in audio gear, including speakers. And generally speaking, as a trend, lower distortion tends to sound better. I don't want for instance a burr of distortion making my ears bleed. Or a coloration that makes all male singers sound too chesty or bloated or unnaturally resonant, etc. And so some level of neutrality and low distortion is also something I care about.

Basically, as I've said, I think various approaches are defensible, with elements of various not being mutually exclusive.

 

[kemmler3D]

"high" is a subjective term, so more useful for marketing than forming objective criteria.

As such, I think just pick a number you think seems good for each of those values/specs and use that as your definition of hi-fi.

If you want to add a whiff of objectivity, use scientifically observed thresholds of audibility for all of those values.

If you want to name-drop, get someone with more authority to do it.

All recorded music is artifice. So fidelity to what?

Well, the recorded music. Whether that has any reference outside of itself is another question.

 

[Multicore]

I think the term hi-fi was useful in marketing more ambitious playback systems back when purely mechanical systems were still in use and the electronic systems were mostly pretty bad. During this transition phase high fidelity had poetic value. It expresses the aspiration to have equipment that could be more truthful. It's a catchy idea that probably helped to shift some product.

Today, when dealing with the differences between modern systems and components, it's just not a useful concept. When we're choosing between Kef and Genelec or between Sennheiser and whatever it's no longer a question of truthfulness. It's a question of what gives you satisfaction at what price with how much fuss for how long etc? I think the idea of fidelity as a way of measuring such utility began its obsolescence in the 70s and should have been completely retired by now.

 

[Multicore]

All recorded music is artifice. So fidelity to what?

Well, the recorded music. Whether that has any reference outside of itself is another question.

When I use EQ to fix this or that, for example to fix what I regard as a defect in a recording, or when I down-mix an annoying stereo mix to mono, is my system now low fidelity? And if it is, what use is this notion of fidelity to me?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Those 50's standards would have been amended, updated and ultimately replaced by new standards over the years.

And they would still be valid.

My experiences with ASR and certain new technology makes me think it would be like pulling teeth

If you had 50's recordings made to follow the standards of the peak audio technology of those times, you'd have clear guidelines telling you how to recreate the experience with whatever technology is available today. Same would be the case with all other standards. Past, present and future.

But you have a situation where newer better technology deviates from accuracy. I have seen this debate numerous times here on ASR

Advancements would bring about new standards.

Not a problem though. It could possibly become messy, but the confusion would be gone.

I do not share your optimism

I absolutely do not agree. (About diminishing returns being subjective)

1000% additional resources giving 0.1% more performance is past the point diminishing returns, no matter how you look at it.

No matter how I look at it? If I look at it from the perspective of an Olympic sprinter and that 0.1% being the difference between gold and silver and the subsequent money made off endorsements I’d say doing ten times as much work paid off big time.

Diminishing returns are subjective.

 

[kemmler3D]

When I use EQ to fix this or that, for example to fix what I regard as a defect in a recording, or when I down-mix an annoying stereo mix to mono, is my system now low fidelity? And if it is, what use is this notion of fidelity to me?

Maybe a better way to think of it: To what extent CAN your system reproduce the signal without distortion?

If you don't want to reproduce the signal unmodified, we can have a debate about that. But if you don't have the ability to in the first place, maybe we will find more universal agreement there is something to improve.

 

[Multicore]

Maybe a better way to think of it: To what extent CAN your system reproduce the signal without distortion?

If you don't want to reproduce the signal unmodified, we can have a debate about that. But if you don't have the ability to in the first place, maybe we will find more universal agreement there is something to improve.

Yes. And we have ways to express and to measure that ability. We don't need to involve fidelity to do it. Trying to relate fidelity to the objective measures that have proven their value confuses matters. That's why I think the concept isn't useful.

 

[MattHooper]

I think the term hi-fi was useful in marketing more ambitious playback systems back when purely mechanical systems were still in use and the electronic systems were mostly pretty bad. During this transition phase high fidelity had poetic value. It expresses the aspiration to have equipment that could be more truthful. It's a catchy idea that probably helped to shift some product.

Today, when dealing with the differences between modern systems and components, it's just not a useful concept.

I disagree, for the reasons I gave.

When we're choosing between Kef and Genelec or between Sennheiser and whatever it's no longer a question of truthfulness.

But that's only the case, at least on the high fidelity view I gave, insofar as those brands are more high fidelity than a great many alternatives.

It's a question of what gives you satisfaction at what price with how much fuss for how long etc?

I agree. But that doesn't make the idea of high fidelity moot. High Fidelity can be part of what brings someone satisfaction, and help actually guide them to that satisfaction, given that goal. I mean, plenty of people here can just buy Benchmark amps and be satisfied, simply because they know they are, measurably, High Fidelity devices.

I think the idea of fidelity as a way of measuring such utility began its obsolescence in the 70s and should have been completely retired by now.

What use then, do you think there is in the type of measurements Amir provides?

 

[Jim Taylor]

Here are my thoughts. They are worth exactly what you paid for them.

For the residential listener, there are three areas of audio, and therefore three areas regarding "fidelity":

1) The recording.
For a consumer listening in their home, this may not fit in with our preferences, but in the end it is what it is, like a pill that you hold in your hand. Lke it or not, you either take the pill or you don't. The consumer can't re-record a session or re-master a mix at will.

2) The electronics.
This is the path from the recording to the speaker. There is much that can be discussed in this area; different amps with different characteristics, maybe EQ, maybe distortion. However, all the characteristics will show up in testing and measurements. Whether they're good or bad, they can't hide.

3) The loudspeaker.
Now we're getting to the elephant in the room. And I mean "in the room" literally, since the room has a great effect on what we hear from a speaker. The recording can't change, the electronics can't hide, but the loudspeaker can not only occupy bottom-rung for accuracy, but can also change, like a chameleon, in different rooms ... or different positions in the same room.

I accept #1.
I think #2 is a mature technology.
But what about #3 ... the loudspeaker-cum-room? Do headphones solve this accuracy/fidelity problem? Is the loudspeaker even a solvable problem? Does the Second Venue Problem mean that no loudspeaker can ever offer true fidelity?

I believe that all of the really big problems of high fidelity lie with the speakers and the room. A truly exhaustive set of measurements of loudspeakers may give you a pretty good idea of how a speaker performs on-axis, but how much of The Great Unknown is in the room?

Unfortunately, I have no quantitative answer for that.

Jim

 

[Chrispy]

Can't imagine high fidelity judgement being solely subjective. Probably best approached by objective measurement then tweaking to preference.