@terryforsythe just what is your point? Of course there are objective measurements of high fidelity....perhaps not the highest fidelity, but sufficient in terms of signal integrity and audibility thresholds.
-
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!
What objective measurements qualify as "High Fidelity"?
- Thread starter terryforsythe
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #162
Is there even a speaker available that is transparent in DBT?Transparent in a DBT
OP
- Thread Starter
- #163
What started this thread was another thread in which the term high fidelity was used in an amorphous manner. My point is that the term "high fidelity" is somewhat intangible. To say something is high fidelity is akin to saying something tastes good. It may taste good to me, but maybe not to you. I may say that for a system to be high fidelity, it must provide, from source through the speakers, a flat frequency response from 20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 0.2 dB with SINAD greater than 115 dB, and driver compression less than 0.1 dB at 102 dB SPL. Do you agree? If not, then what objective measurements qualify an audio system as being high fidelity?
Maybe, instead of throwing around the term "high fidelity" like it has a specific meaning upon which everyone agrees, we should be specific as to the objective measurements we are discussing. If we are going to use the term "high fidelity", then there should be objective specifications that define what that term means. Maybe this is the appropriate forum to get that started... But, good luck on getting everyone to agree on the specifications.
Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 983
I don’t think so. What would be the reference in such a test? It would be tricky
Fidelity....
sigh...
You need to be able to do the equivalent of comparing the image on a screen to the image through a window...
It is a matter not of measurements, but the verisimilitude to human eyes (or in our case primarily ears).
Measurments.... are not the "measure" of fidelity... Measurements do help us to try to identify some aspects that contribute to fidelity, but they are a modeling tool, not a true measure of fidelity.
My old Quad ESL57's for all their limitations (limited high end and low end extension, narrow dispersion of high frequencies, strictly limited SPL) - they could and can reproduce the human voice in a manner that provides the sort of verisimilitude that I am talking about... No other speaker that I have personally experienced has achieved that specific form of "magic"...
Assuming you have an appropriate recording... of a human voice you are intimately familiar with (eg: family member you interact with regularly) - then you can test that verissimilitude directly.
With the ESL57's sitting in the MLP - the voice was very very "real" - with only spatial cues and room cues giving things away (which is where listening from just outside the listening room, with the door open (obviously) could then provide a truly "spooky" real sounding result.
You can take an ESL57, measure it, and compare it to dozens of high end speakers... the results will be clear - it is a dated and limited design, with a beamy high end, limited SPL, limited high end extension and little bass.... all the flaws can be identified in the measurements... and it can be directly compared to speakers that have NONE of those flaws.
But the ESL57 will provide "fidelity" - and 99.9% of other speakers, without those flaws, will fail this test.
What does this tell me?
The measurements we take, although providing some indication of various qualities, do not provide us with a measure of fidelity.
We really don't know, and/or have yet to create, a metric that truly measures/applies to Fidelity.
Yes, I have moved away from the ESL57... I was looking for wider listening zone, deeper bass, higher SPL's
And my first step was another Quad ESL the ESL63, then the ESL989, then I moved to "standard" speakers...
And for all the areas of performance that each of these other speakers have improved, none of them have succeeded in providing the same level of Fidelity in the critical midrange.
So yeah - at the raw signal level with the electronics, we can verify that the signal is clean, undistorted (or minimally distorted - within specific parameters) - but then it hits the speaker.... and we are back in the dark ages, floundering around trying to understand what makes one speaker really exceptional vs another being merely good. (with Fidelity being the main criteria)
sigh...
You need to be able to do the equivalent of comparing the image on a screen to the image through a window...
It is a matter not of measurements, but the verisimilitude to human eyes (or in our case primarily ears).
Measurments.... are not the "measure" of fidelity... Measurements do help us to try to identify some aspects that contribute to fidelity, but they are a modeling tool, not a true measure of fidelity.
My old Quad ESL57's for all their limitations (limited high end and low end extension, narrow dispersion of high frequencies, strictly limited SPL) - they could and can reproduce the human voice in a manner that provides the sort of verisimilitude that I am talking about... No other speaker that I have personally experienced has achieved that specific form of "magic"...
Assuming you have an appropriate recording... of a human voice you are intimately familiar with (eg: family member you interact with regularly) - then you can test that verissimilitude directly.
With the ESL57's sitting in the MLP - the voice was very very "real" - with only spatial cues and room cues giving things away (which is where listening from just outside the listening room, with the door open (obviously) could then provide a truly "spooky" real sounding result.
You can take an ESL57, measure it, and compare it to dozens of high end speakers... the results will be clear - it is a dated and limited design, with a beamy high end, limited SPL, limited high end extension and little bass.... all the flaws can be identified in the measurements... and it can be directly compared to speakers that have NONE of those flaws.
But the ESL57 will provide "fidelity" - and 99.9% of other speakers, without those flaws, will fail this test.
What does this tell me?
The measurements we take, although providing some indication of various qualities, do not provide us with a measure of fidelity.
We really don't know, and/or have yet to create, a metric that truly measures/applies to Fidelity.
Yes, I have moved away from the ESL57... I was looking for wider listening zone, deeper bass, higher SPL's
And my first step was another Quad ESL the ESL63, then the ESL989, then I moved to "standard" speakers...
And for all the areas of performance that each of these other speakers have improved, none of them have succeeded in providing the same level of Fidelity in the critical midrange.
So yeah - at the raw signal level with the electronics, we can verify that the signal is clean, undistorted (or minimally distorted - within specific parameters) - but then it hits the speaker.... and we are back in the dark ages, floundering around trying to understand what makes one speaker really exceptional vs another being merely good. (with Fidelity being the main criteria)
OP
- Thread Starter
- #166
The reference would have to be a live performance. But, no speaker I have heard would pass this test.
There is something about live music that even the best audio systems (at least the ones I have heard) cannot fully reproduce. So, I guess it could be argued that we do not currently have the technology to build an audio system that truly is high fidelity.
No, don't think the taste thing correlates at all, as that is more a preference than reference. I might use your frequency response somewhat useful, the SINAD a bit too much, but sounds like pretty good driver performance (which still is far poorer than electronics generally). I dislike "hi-fi" being a marketing thing for some sort of supposed current peak in such....higher and highest are only so meaningful let alone simply "high". We generally have hi fidelity audio reproduction in so many ways I find "audiophiles" splitting hairs on what is or is not "hi-fi" gear or whatever to be as meaningless as if they believe in power cords, special cables, lifters, whatever other audiophool nonsense they may believe in.
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,310
- Likes
- 13,972
I did those type of live versus reproduced comparisons with a number of loudspeakers I used to have years ago. Though I remember that was after I moved from owning my Quad 63’s.
He's trying to argue anti-science simply for the sake of argument.
No, who said there was ???
No its not, at least not today in the realm of electronics and being capable of a "straight wire with gain" performance level.
There is a lot of gear being being sold today that is "voiced" to be not transparent, in 2024 that does exclude it from being considered Hi Fi. It may "sound good" to some, but it's not Hi Fi.
Yeah the devil's advocate thing I recognize and am often guilty ofHe's trying to argue anti-science simply for the sake of argument.
No, who said there was ???
No its not, at least not today in the realm of electronics and being capable of a "straight wire with gain" performance level.
There is a lot of gear being being sold today that is "voiced" to be not transparent, in 2024 that does exclude it from being considered Hi Fi. It may "sound good" to some, but it's not Hi Fi.
However, in this case it's just needing more sarcastic emojis or something.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #171
No. I'm arguing that we need to do a better job at following science, not just spewing a bunch of BS and claiming it is science.He's trying to argue anti-science simply for the sake of argument.
Lead the way....
OP
- Thread Starter
- #173
Good. Now we need to determine what are the objective references to be used for "high fidelity" if we insist on using that term.
Maybe we lay out specifications that must be met for equipment to be classified as being "high fidelity". Maybe we do that for this forum, and it may take hold elsewhere.
Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise, when operated at precisely matched levels (±0.1 dB) and not clipped. Of course, the larger your room and the less efficient your speakers, the more watts you need to avoid clipping.
Peter Aczel
Peter Aczel
What do you mean "we" kemo sabe?
Transparent
You tell me what isn't
OP
- Thread Starter
- #177
Let's continue with this:
Electronics (e.g., amplifiers and DACs)
1. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR): 115 dB min. throughout specified power range
2. Total harmonic distortion (THD): -115 dB max. throughout specified power range
3. SINAD - Not important so long as SNR and THD meet thresholds
4. Intermodulation distortion (IMD): -115 dB max throughout specified power range
5. Stereo separation: -70 dB min. 20 Hz - 20 kHz throughout specified power range
6. Frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 0.1 dB ( for amplifiers, throughout specified power range with a resistive load and with a load having a complex impedance - this would need to be defined).
7. Output impedance (amplifiers): 0.1 ohm max.
Speakers and speaker/subwoofer combinations
1. On-axis frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 1.5 dB @ 1W/1m
2. Horizontal off-axis frequency response: -6 dB +/- 1.5 dB 500 Hz - 15 kHz @ 1W/1m @ a specific angle that is greater than 50 degrees
2. Vertical off-axis frequency response: -3 dB +/- 1.5 dB 500 Hz - 15 kHz @ 1W/1m @ a specific angle that is greater than 20 degrees
3. THD: 0.5% max 100 Hz - 20 kHz @ 96 dB; 1.0% max 40 Hz - 100 Hz @ 96 dB; 3.0% max 20 Hz - 40 Hz @ 96 dB
4. Dynamic range (compression): 0.5 dB max 20 Hz - 20 kHz comparing 102 dB to 76 dB @ 1m
Feel free to propose change/update these specifications and to propose new specifications.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #178
Well, considering all of your posts in this thread, it seems to be a subject that is of interest to you.
If you don't want to participate, that's fine.
My point was it's more "you" than "we". Time to step it up.
I agree - but more than not being able to pass the test... I don't believe we actually know precisely what is lacking to be able to pass that test.
Similar threads
- Poll
