So just what is Hi-Fi or in its full form High Fidelity?

[AJSki2fly]

So spurred on by a couple of recent threads and discussions on Experimentation in Amplification and the history of members "Hi-fi" it made me consider just what we mean by the term Hi-Fi?

So I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts, views and experiences on the topic. Site as many or few examples as you like, god or bad or even mediocre for that matter, depending on what you consider to be "Hi-Fi" or not.

It over to you.:)

[Barry]

The term was coined by the US loudspeaker manufacturer Hartley, meaning a "high (degree) of faithfulness" to the recorded sound. But some could argue that it could equally mean a high degree of faithfulness to the recorded performance. And with that we are entering the vague, subjective and totally unquantifiable realm of musical enjoyment, emotion and engagement with what has been recorded.

I prefer to listen to a system that relays 'warts and all' of what is on the recording, rather than something that is nice and comfortable. For me the criterion is how close does it get to a live unamplified performance. But it's still an elusive aim: I can be as greatly moved by something heard on a cheap transistor radio, as I can on a system costing several tens of thousand pounds.

I was always amused/puzzled by the fact that at audio shows some of the most expensive systems sounded the worse, and quite frankly nothing like real music.

So, not a definative answer - but then I don't think you were really expecting one.

[walpurgis]

I was always amused/puzzled by the fact that at audio shows some of the most expensive systems sounded the worse, and quite frankly nothing like real music.

So true. I thought that many times whilst touring the shows.

[Audio Al]

Well if it aint got hifi on it it aint hifi or is it :scratch:

I have hifi on the top rack shelf

and on the lower shelvs as well , so is it middle fi ,

I also have it on the lower shelves , I still think its hifi

Lastly I have floor fi on the floor like :D:ner:

[Firebottle]

It's a good question. I agree with Barry wanting to hear 'warts and all' from any recording.

Many moons ago the DIN 45500 standard put some numbers to the expected performance but I would expect much better than that now.
Grundig have put the monika 'hi fi' on yesteryear equipment that I assume met the DIN standard. I guess B&O and Philips have done the same.

I wonder if any organisation has published an updated Hi-Fi specification?

[User211]

I think a lot of people probably don't realise what good Hi-Fi systems achieve.

Just a cheap Rowland digital recording of me playing my acoustic back on my Hi-Fi system at larger than real life volume provides an astonishing amount of detail and aural insight. Far more than I ever hear playing the damn thing.

Its basically a forensic examination of an aural event. Surely that's Hi-Fi.

[Barry]

If it's 'larger than real life volume' then it's not realistic.

[Firebottle]

I think a lot of people probably don't realise what good Hi-Fi systems achieve.

I'm sure that is very true as most these days are of the smartphone/earbud generation.
I often think when listening to vinyl of how most would be amazed at the experience of an old format.

[User211]

If it's 'larger than real life volume' then it's not realistic.Is looking through a magnifying glass unrealistic?

Or does it just tell you more about reality?

[struth]

Is looking through a magnifying glass unrealistic?

Or does it just tell you more about reality?Inclined to agree... Depending on where the extra volume comes from of course

[Barry]

Is looking through a magnifying glass unrealistic?

Or does it just tell you more about reality?

Yes - everything is larger than in reality.

Does it just tell you more about reality? No - it tells you more about a certain, but limited, aspect of reality.

[User211]

Yes - everything is larger than in reality.

Does it just tell you more about reality? No - it tells you more about a certain, but limited, aspect of reality.But is it larger than in reality?

It's only your perception of size that tells you that.

What you see through the glass is real.

Suggest we try another line or we'll end up in deep discussions about the nature of reality.

Or is that really what this thread is about?

[walpurgis]

A live performance is the Highest Fi. Everything else is just a variably successful attempt to mimic this. :)

[AJSki2fly]

Hi-Fi surely is in the ear of the beholder😉, so what is used to reproduce music and in what format is dependent on the perception of the individual listening, is it not about the experience and not what reproduces the music? 😘

[Redox]

I thought post war musical consumption was based around AM radio and 78 RPM discs. With the advent of the Long Player the term High Fidelity was used to differentiate with modern pickups and the like. Really just a marketing term to sell to more consumer electronics.

[walpurgis]

No. Hi-Fi may have been very much a minority speciality pre-WW2, but it certainly existed.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

No. Hi-Fi may have been very much a minority speciality pre-WW2, but it certainly existed.

It was demonstrated in the form of FM radio , which can be read in the aptly named book Man of High Fidelity

http://www.njarc.org/books/man-of-high-fidelity.pdf

' Suddenly out of the silence came Runyon's supernaturally clear voice:
"This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on frequency
modulation at two and a half meters."

A hush fell over the large audience. Waves of two and a half meters (110 megacycles)
were waves so short that up until then they had been regarded as too weak to carry a message
across a street. Moreover, W2AG's announced transmitter power was barely enough to light one
good-sized electric bulb. Yet these shortwaves and weak power were not only carrying a
message over the seventeen miles from Yonkers, but carrying it by a method of modulation
which the textbooks still held to be of no value. And doing it with a life-like clarity never heard
on even the best clear-channel stations in the regular broadcasting band.

The demonstration that ensued became a part of the Major's standard repertoire in
showing off the remarkable properties of his new broadcasting system. A glass of water was
poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded like a glass of water being poured and not,
as in the "sound effects" on ordinary radio, like a waterfall. A paper was crumpled and torn; it
sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. An oriental gong was softly struck and its
overtones hung shimmering in the meeting hall's arrested air. Sousa marches were played from
records and a piano solo and guitar number were performed by local talent in the Runyon livingroom.

The music was projected with a "liveness" rarely if ever heard before from a radio "music
box." The absence of background noise and the lack of distortion in FM circuits made music
stand out against the velvety silence with a presence that was something new in auditory
experiences. The secret lay in the achievement of a signal-to-noise ratio of 100-to-l or better, as
against 30-to-l on the best AM stations.

[bob4333]

One thing's for certain- the Hi-Fi you think you hear now is inevitably different to the Hi-Fi you heard in your 20's. And it's got nothing to do with the plugged in hardware. :(

[AJSki2fly]

I thought post war musical consumption was based around AM radio and 78 RPM discs. With the advent of the Long Player the term High Fidelity was used to differentiate with modern pickups and the like. Really just a marketing term to sell to more consumer electronics.

Here is the Wikipedia definition for what its worth, but it shows a view the there was poorer SQ until the late 40's.


High fidelity (often shortened to hi-fi or hifi) is a term used by listeners, audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts to refer to high-quality reproduction of sound. This is in contrast to the lower quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, AM radio, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s.

Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.

it goes on to site these:-

Beginning in 1948, several innovations created the conditions that made major improvements of home-audio quality possible:



Reel-to-reel audio tape recording, based on technology taken from Germany after WWII, helped musical artists such as Bing Crosby make and distribute recordings with better fidelity.
The advent of the 33⅓ rpm Long Play (LP) microgroove vinyl record, with lower surface noise and quantitatively specified equalization curves as well as noise-reduction and dynamic range systems. Classical music fans, who were opinion leaders in the audio market, quickly adopted LPs because, unlike with older records, most classical works would fit on a single LP.
FM radio, with wider audio bandwidth and less susceptibility to signal interference and fading than AM radio.
Better amplifier designs, with more attention to frequency response and much higher power output capability, reproducing audio without perceptible distortion.
New loudspeaker designs, including acoustic suspension, developed by Edgar Villchur and Henry Kloss with improved bass frequency response.


It goes on to say:-


Listening tests
Listening tests are used by hi-fi manufacturers, audiophile magazines and audio engineering researchers and scientists. If a listening test is done in such a way that the listener who is assessing the sound quality of a component or recording can see the components that are being used for the test (e.g., the same musical piece listened to through a tube power amplifier and a solid state amplifier), then it is possible that the listener's pre-existing biases towards or against certain components or brands could affect their judgment. To respond to this issue, researchers began to use blind tests, in which the researchers can see the components being tested, but the listeners undergoing the experiments can't. In a double-blind experiment, neither the listeners nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group, or which type of audio component is being used for which listening sample.


I think the above is probably a reasonably text book type of definition and how SQ of Hi-Fi is or can be evaluated but what is interesting is what you think is Hi-Fi and what is not.

So for example you might consider that an old Pye 35 valve radio is not Hi-Fi at all but that a modern single box DAB radio or Streaming Speaker is. I am not actually saying this is my view it is just a possible example.

Over to you......

[walpurgis]

There is no threshold that was crossed and we suddenly found ourselves in the age of HiFi. Even a good big acoustic gramophone can turn in a startlingly good sound.

[walpurgis]

The DIN standard for Hi-Fi sound quality was often touted in the sixties and seventies, DIN 4550 I believe it was and it offered a minimum standard for the time. But that was certainly not definitive.

[AJSki2fly]

The DIN standard for Hi-Fi sound quality was often touted in the sixties and seventies, DIN 4550 I believe it was and it offered a minimum standard for the time. But that was certainly not definitive.

Hi Fi Techniques. DIN 45500 (https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/BTHE074012.xhtml). I believe a German standard from 1976, reportedly a 70 page document split by different types of "Hi-Fi" equipment (turntables, amplifiers, tuners, tape machines, etc) defining what each should be built to from a quality point of view and sound output quality.

Unfortunately I cannot find a copy at present to post a link to.

[Jac Hawk]

Apart from i guess an orchestra isn't most music amplified before we hear in anyway, i mean if i go to see a band play live everything from the guitars, drums keyboards and voices are going through a whole hash of electronics before finally a wall of sound is projected at me and at much greater volume than is humanly possible, what i'm saying is that even live music isn't really live because what i'm actually hearing is the speaker stacks.

[walpurgis]

Hi Fi Techniques. DIN 45500 (https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/BTHE074012.xhtml). I believe a German standard from 1976, reportedly a 70 page document split by different types of "Hi-Fi" equipment (turntables, amplifiers, tuners, tape machines, etc) defining what each should be built to from a quality point of view and sound output quality.

Unfortunately I cannot find a copy at present to post a link to.

Yes, I believe that was it. Although the 1976 date must surely be a later or revised publication of the standard. I'm sure it was in use before that.

[Puffin]

IMO whether a system is Hifi or not is solely based on the perception of the listener. Everyone has a different perception of what is "good" sound. How do you define Hifi when everyone's ears and perception are different?

I agree with the comments about demos at Hifi shows. I went to loads in the 80s and 90s and a high price tag and blingtastic looks wasn't very often a recipe for good sound....IMO...of course.

[walpurgis]

I found a reference to DIN 45500-1, quoting a 1965 date. https://standards.globalspec.com/std/9957073/DIN%2045500-1

One has to remember that this was the Geman standard and does not preclude anything else from that time or before from being H-Fi.

[AJSki2fly]

Yes, I believe that was it. Although the 1976 date must surely be a later or revised publication of the standard. I'm sure it was in use before that.

There is also this IEC 61305 (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5255#additionalinfo) that appears to originate in 1995, it looks like there are 5 parts to it, covering measurement methods, and equipment design requirements. Each volume is only £30 if you fancy a scintillating read.:lol:

What I find more interesting is peoples thoughts on what is Hi-Fi or High Fidelity for them, be it equipment or overall percieved sound produced. Obviously one persons Hi-Fi maybe another Low-Fo and visa-versa.

[guy]

I think a lot of people probably don't realise what good Hi-Fi systems achieve.

Just a cheap Rowland digital recording of me playing my acoustic back on my Hi-Fi system at larger than real life volume provides an astonishing amount of detail and aural insight. Far more than I ever hear playing the damn thing.

Its basically a forensic examination of an aural event. Surely that's Hi-Fi.

I like that observation a great deal :)

For me I prefer to use the phrase "music system" - although that can sound pretentious.
I am sure that my system is not "hi fi" in terms of measurements/fidelity to the original, but it does make me feel happy/excited/emotional (at times).

Can searching for "hi-fi" as in " forensic examination of an aural event" get in the way of the musical experience?

[walpurgis]

Some horn speakers using 'full range' drivers will be limited in bandwidth and only offer useful output from say 50Hz to 12kHz, but still produce a sound full of vitality and life (and colourations :)) that many might like.

I am myself currently experimenting some very rare later sixties Japanese, high sensitivity 6.5 inch extended range units and horn tweeters. Not sure whether to go for a quarter wave or other enclosure type yet though.

[Barry]

I like that observation a great deal :)

For me I prefer to use the phrase "music system" - although that can sound pretentious.
I am sure that my system is not "hi fi" in terms of measurements/fidelity to the original, but it does make me feel happy/excited/emotional (at times).

Can searching for "hi-fi" as in " forensic examination of an aural event" get in the way of the musical experience?

That is what I was hinting at in my first post. Fidelity to what - the original sound, or to the emotion felt by the musical experience?

I can, at times, experience great happiness, excitement and emotion with something I hear on a cheap transistor radio. I may hear more detail and greater bandwidth and stereo soundstaging on my home system, but not necessarily greater enjoyment.

[RobbieGong]

So spurred on by a couple of recent threads and discussions on Experimentation in Amplification and the history of members "Hi-fi" it made me consider just what we mean by the term Hi-Fi?

So I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts, views and experiences on the topic. Site as many or few examples as you like, god or bad or even mediocre for that matter, depending on what you consider to be "Hi-Fi" or not.

It over to you.:)


Only just spotted this Adrian and very spooky as I've been meaning to post a thread like this for a while.

Oh! and thanks again, these are the kind of posts I really like and regard as good and proper hifi forum posts - hopefully there'll be no fights :D

I'm working from home so will try to contribute as soon as I get a good chance, later :)

[Redox]

So, with today's digital recording and playback we should be talking about ultra fidelity.

[AJSki2fly]

So, with today's digital recording and playback we should be talking about ultra fidelity.

Well I think that is a very contentious point, IMHO digital can sound pretty crap especially if compressed, and also it needs good quality gear to get the best out of it and for it to sound "Musical" or "Natural", very much wanting of better words to describe. A good example of this is if you listen to say Radio 3 or 4 on DAB or digital streaming and also on a reasonable FM Tuner and signal and just switch between the two and listen to the difference, the digital one sounds harsh and lacking in depth, whereas the FM one will sound very natural.

You do not need to spend much to do this, just by a Denon TU-260L II tuner from ebay for about £20-30 if you live in a good signal area or a Sansui TU-S7 if you need a tuner to pick up weaker signals, plug it in an have a listen. I have recently done this and even of Radio 2 I would say the FM broadcast on most music is up at CD level or certainly sounds so.

[paulf-2007]

If it's 'larger than real life volume' then it's not realistic.
Agreed, it's like hd tv looks better than reality. Even my I phone looks sharper than what I see when looking at the screen and around it.

[Macca]

Well I think that is a very contentious point, IMHO digital can sound pretty crap especially if compressed, and also it needs good quality gear to get the best out of it and for it to sound "Musical" or "Natural", very much wanting of better words to describe. A good example of this is if you listen to say Radio 3 or 4 on DAB or digital streaming and also on a reasonable FM Tuner and signal and just switch between the two and listen to the difference, the digital one sounds harsh and lacking in depth, whereas the FM one will sound very natural.

You do not need to spend much to do this, just by a Denon TU-260L II tuner from ebay for about £20-30 if you live in a good signal area or a Sansui TU-S7 if you need a tuner to pick up weaker signals, plug it in an have a listen. I have recently done this and even of Radio 2 I would say the FM broadcast on most music is up at CD level or certainly sounds so.

But FM has been digital since the late 1970s, Not the same as DAB but the transmissions are digitally processed. This is also true of almost all vinyl LPs pressed after circa 1980

[Pigmy Pony]

I think a lot of people probably don't realise what good Hi-Fi systems achieve.

Just a cheap Rowland digital recording of me playing my acoustic back on my Hi-Fi system at larger than real life volume provides an astonishing amount of detail and aural insight. Far more than I ever hear playing the damn thing.

Its basically a forensic examination of an aural event. Surely that's Hi-Fi.

If anyone here found themselves with a system that did this, they would probably waste no time tweaking it to make the sound better suit their tastes. Which leads me to the conclusion that we think we want hifi, but really we just want a sound that appeals to us.

And that suits me just fine :)

[AJSki2fly]

But FM has been digital since the late 1970s, Not the same as DAB but the transmissions are digitally processed. This is also true of almost all vinyl LPs pressed after circa 1980

Well that’s news to me, are you sure you are not referring to the digital data transmission that was piggybacked on it for text info?

Just found this in Wkipedia

“FM broadcasting is a method of radio broadcasting using frequency modulation (FM). Invented in 1933 by American engineer Edwin Armstrong, wide-band FM is used worldwide to provide high fidelity sound over broadcast radio. FM broadcasting is capable of higher fidelity—that is, more accurate reproduction of the original program sound—than other broadcasting technologies, such as AM broadcasting or DAB radio. Therefore, FM is used for most broadcasts of music or general audio (in the audio spectrum). FM radio stations use the very high frequency range of radio frequencies.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Firebottle]

Yes but the links to the FM transmitters use digital links.

[RobbieGong]

If anyone here found themselves with a system that did this, they would probably waste no time tweaking it to make the sound better suit their tastes. Which leads me to the conclusion that we think we want hifi, but really we just want a sound that appeals to us.

And that suits me just fine :)

Yep, pretty much what I was going to say.

More people than would admit, know or realise actually don't want hi-fi in the true sense, which is realising (through being into hifi thus doing what we do), a system that reproduces or presents the recorded music in a way that is faithful to the original.

And here also is what is often missed, that the faithful is in respect of what has been recorded so that means and includes warts an all, as said warts are often in there with the recorded music, which is more so evident with bad recordings.

Therefore in my view of course, if you are not for the warts an all, spend time building a system that plays every 'nice' to your ears then you are not into hifi :sofa:

Those who do actually seek to build a system that is very revealing, neutral, where no two tracks sound the same generally will tell you that a system like that can be brutal in terms of what it will expose and present out of any given track being played, trust me I know.

It's not for everyone, I deliberately went that way, once I knew the path I wanted to take and yes, great tracks are just that - a delight and a thrill, but bad ones ! :eek: man !! there's all sorts of cr&p in some recordings, distortion, tininess, poor balance of frequencies, brightness, much of the stuff we wish wasn't there and some of us try to eliminate - somehow........

True hi - fidelity is a trade-off - Yep ! There's a point where you've built your system to a degree, it's reached a level then - good quality component parts, where things kind of come together and you also realise your hearing more, more of everything and in particular, when it's really getting there, not only is there the detail, nuances, depth, micro/macro detail but more information within in each individual part, so vocal and instrumental textural information revealed, the actual way lines are sung and played, different to what you thought it was, even on fave albums you've played to death and that's exactly it, it's not just the good stuf that will get revealed, extracted and presented, of course not, at this point in particular, whatsoever is in the recording will be revealed and presented, only makes sense, but oh how we sometimes start searching around to understand whats the weakest link, what needs to be changed 'improved' :scratch: :lol:

Again, that's hi fidelity, in it's fullness - The 'joy' of achieving a system that is 'faithful' in its revelation and presentation of the recorded music, not glossed, sweetened, overly warmed, beefed, coloured, flavoured......

The true definition of real hi-fidelity is therefore - good bad and the ugly, not everythings nice :D

I repeat, true hi-fidelity is not for everybody ;)

[Pharos]

I like that observation a great deal :)

For me I prefer to use the phrase "music system" - although that can sound pretentious.
I am sure that my system is not "hi fi" in terms of measurements/fidelity to the original, but it does make me feel happy/excited/emotional (at times).

Can searching for "hi-fi" as in " forensic examination of an aural event" get in the way of the musical experience?

Yes, because IMO one reaches a point at which the system is so revealing that it goes beyond that required to completely retrieve all of the art, and then reveals all of the crafting of the art which may contain obvious errors and irrelevant details, and I agree with Robert.

This results in a different frame of mind from the listener, completely different from that when being immersed in the artistic experience.

I am now in that rather uncomfortable position, but my desire for forensic reality is greater than listening to art in a 'dream' when I have already absorbed it. When new art is heard, if it is very good, it will work as art until I've understood it's ethos, and then I analyse it.

For me the enjoyment of art is in the discovery which it facilitates, and so it tends to be transient and hence ephemeral, and once I have 'learnt' what it has to say it loses its power; it is a form of education to me.

[AJSki2fly]

Yep, pretty much what I was going to say.

More people than would admit, know or realise actually don't want hi-fi in the true sense, which is realising (through being into hifi thus doing what we do), a system that reproduces or presents the recorded music in a way that is faithful to the original.

And here also is what is often missed, that the faithful is in respect of what has been recorded so that means and includes warts an all, as said warts are often in there with the recorded music, which is more so evident with bad recordings.

Therefore in my view of course, if you are not for the warts an all, spend time building a system that plays every 'nice' to your ears then you are not into hifi :sofa:

Those who do actually seek to build a system that is very revealing, neutral, where no two tracks sound the same generally will tell you that a system like that can be brutal in terms of what it will expose and present out of any given track being played, trust me I know.

It's not for everyone, I deliberately went that way, once I knew the path I wanted to take and yes, great tracks are just that - a delight and a thrill, but bad ones ! :eek: man !! there's all sorts of cr&p in some recordings, distortion, tininess, poor balance of frequencies, brightness, much of the stuff we wish wasn't there and some of us try to eliminate - somehow........

True hi - fidelity is a trade-off - Yep ! There's a point where you've built your system to a degree, it's reached a level then - good quality component parts, where things kind of come together and you also realise your hearing more, more of everything and in particular, when it's really getting there, not only is there the detail, nuances, depth, micro/macro detail but more information within in each individual part, so vocal and instrumental textural information revealed, the actual way lines are sung and played, different to what you thought it was, even on fave albums you've played to death and that's exactly it, it's not just the good stuf that will get revealed, extracted and presented, of course not, at this point in particular, whatsoever is in the recording will be revealed and presented, only makes sense, but oh how we sometimes start searching around to understand whats the weakest link, what needs to be changed 'improved' :scratch: :lol:

Again, that's hi fidelity, in it's fullness - The 'joy' of achieving a system that is 'faithful' in its revelation and presentation of the recorded music, not glossed, sweetened, overly warmed, beefed, coloured, flavoured......

The true definition of real hi-fidelity is therefore - good bad and the ugly, not everythings nice :D

I repeat, true hi-fidelity is not for everybody ;)

Yes Robbie, very well put. I have formed the opinion that there is actually a lot of equipment out there that actually is hi-fi as it is capable of being revealing when correctly set up and equipment is matched and partnered well. Also I believe that this can be achieved on sensible budgets of sub £5k if you can cherry pick the good gear and match for synergy. Obviously if you spend more then you will likely extract more neutrality, clarity and detail, but not everything you play will sound great (as you point out) and the warts and all feeling will become more extreme.

My system in the last 4 years has gone through various changes, me trying to pursue sonic nirvana. At times I was completely confused as a changed produced an unexpected result, for example an LP that previously sounded quite good was now dull or another grating and harsh. So I asked myself why, and thought hard about when it sounded better before and what I had changed the had like made it sound worse to me.

Then I realised that some gear had worked together better than others producing a more balanced rendition across the audible spectrum for me, and some gear even though not exactly budget gear especially in the turntable arena were either poor in reproduction and worse coloured the sound in some way. In this case if I put a great well produced and recorded record on it would sound good and I would be happy, but as soon as I moved to the not so good recording or badly produced ones it all sound dull and boring. Once I identified the cause and moved to a TT that actually introduced less of its sonic stamp on the output then it all improved, and the wow moment came more often. I initially achieved this with the Voyd TT, and got just as good results from a JELCO arm on it as an SME IV. This taught me something I had moved from a more expensive set up that on paper and in reviews was supposed to do the business but actually did not. So do not believe what a review says, even if lots of people have brought the product, remember marketing is a powerful thing. Secondly there are some great cost effective gems out there that are just as good as gear 4 or 5 times the cost.

What I now have is a system that is imo musical and as neutral as can be in my listening room, perhaps a better definition would be transparent. If I put on one of those well known great recordings then it really is a big wow, at the same time if I put on a poor recording or bad pressing the it becomes an oh disappointing listen. But as you point out I now know it’s not the system it is what I am feeding into it that’s poor, I have proved this to myself now several times by buying several copies of the same recording as I wanted a wow moment if possible, and yes I found better copies.

This opened my eyes to also what happens in HIFI shops and listening sessions. Thinking back over many years dealers would say oh you must hear this track or that one, I now realise they were selecting the best recordings to produce the wow factor and draw me into to believing I had found what I wanted and get me to open my wallet. So my advise is always listen to a selection of average tracks to see if what you are thinking of buying sounds as you want it to, if it doesn’t then forget it and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Yes, because IMO one reaches a point at which the system is so revealing that it goes beyond that required to completely retrieve all of the art, and then reveals all of the crafting of the art which may contain obvious errors and irrelevant details, and I agree with Robert.

This results in a different frame of mind from the listener, completely different from that when being immersed in the artistic experience.

I am now in that rather uncomfortable position, but my desire for forensic reality is greater than listening to art in a 'dream' when I have already absorbed it. When new art is heard, if it is very good, it will work as art until I've understood it's ethos, and then I analyse it.

For me the enjoyment of art is in the discovery which it facilitates, and so it tends to be transient and hence ephemeral, and once I have 'learnt' what it has to say it loses its power; it is a form of education to me.

There are no irrelevant details, rather what is the recording- is the recording. as example King Crimsons Larks tongues in aspic LTIA Part 2 - have you ever heard the singing ( yes singing ) John Wetton is doing at the end of that piece ? Entirely relevant detail, that most audio systems cannot retrieve.

The three main aspects missing in the majority of audio systems are 1. Timing 2. Current drive of source , attenuation, and amplification equipment. 3. and Companding to preserve the original dynamic range
When and if those parameters are addressed we can truly enjoy high fidelity sound, that replicates the original performance, and its not only nice, but begins to explore, our actual capability of perception .

[Macca]

I'm old school so 'hifi' for me is high fidelity to the recording. Not to live sound, not to the real sound of instruments, but to the recording. Absolute fidelity isn't really possible, so we have to settle for high fidelity. So I try to avoid equipment that colours the sound. Not that easy to get high quality equipment that is free of colouration, in general the more you pay the more 'tweaked' the sound is.

The closer to hi-fi I've got the less I worry about the quality of recordings. Recordings that sounded poor on lesser systems suddenly make sense as neutrality is approached. Aside from the fact that almost all professional recordings are at least adequate, the recording is what I want to hear, even if it is flawed. I like to hear Neil Young bashing into the mic stand on 'Tonight's The Night.' That's all a part of it for me. I try to avoid remixes and re-masters for the same reason. I don't want to hear a classic recording cleaned up and sanitised.

if the system makes a mainstream recording sound poor or so bad it is unlistenable, then the set up is not as neutral as you hope. The engineers knew what they were doing, the artist knew what they wanted, I prefer to trust them rather than have the system pour its own brand of sauce over everything to homogenise the sound. I generally avoid 'boutique' equipment for this reason. It gets boring to me having everything sound like it was recorded in the same studio around the same time period. I don't bother with vinyl now for the same reason. Some don't care about this, good luck to them. It's all a personal journey.

[Pharos]

There are no irrelevant details, rather what is the recording- is the recording. as example King Crimsons Larks tongues in aspic LTIA Part 2 - have you ever heard the singing ( yes singing ) John Wetton is doing at the end of that piece ? Entirely relevant detail, that most audio systems cannot retrieve.

The three main aspects missing in the majority of audio systems are 1. Timing 2. Current drive of source , attenuation, and amplification equipment. 3. and Companding to preserve the original dynamic range
When and if those parameters are addressed we can truly enjoy high fidelity sound, that replicates the original performance, and its not only nice, but begins to explore, our actual capability of perception .

I think that since nothing man creates is ever perfect, there are details which are irrelevant to the artist's intent, errors and mistakes which may be regarded as 'noise' from an artistic point of view, I am not referring to that which the artiste desires to convey which we can describe as 'signal', but undesirable incurred errors.

And to your point Martin about NY's banging of a mic stand, that is a very human part of a performance. but on Leonard Cohens New Skins For The Old Ceremony, on vinyl, one track starts with a very obvious hum, this being edited out on CD, this an example of an undesired irrelevant detail.

[AJSki2fly]

I think that since nothing man creates is ever perfect, there are details which are irrelevant to the artist's intent, errors and mistakes which may be regarded as 'noise' from an artistic point of view, I am not referring to that which the artiste desires to convey which we can describe as 'signal', but undesirable incurred errors.

And to your point Martin about NY's banging of a mic stand, that is a very human part of a performance. but on Leonard Cohens New Skins For The Old Ceremony, on vinyl, one track starts with a very obvious hum, this being edited out on CD, this an example of an undesired irrelevant detail.

You reminded me of a similar issue with a CD. Hawkwind Space Ritual, a copy I had on cd1 played on my Meridian 508 had an earth hum. Initially I thought it was my system but realised it was not when I put CD2 on and it went away. If I played Cd1 with lesser cod the you could not hear the earth hum.

I have a vinyl repress and either it had been edited out or my expensive Moving coil can’t extract it, somehow I do not think that is the case based on what it gets from other records.

Martin, I think you make some very good points and agree neutral is best and the more detail you can get the better, warts or not on replay, and that goes for digital or analogue imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oddball]

I'm old school so 'hifi' for me is high fidelity to the recording. Not to live sound, not to the real sound of instruments, but to the recording. Absolute fidelity isn't really possible, so we have to settle for high fidelity. So I try to avoid equipment that colours the sound. Not that easy to get high quality equipment that is free of colouration, in general the more you pay the more 'tweaked' the sound is.

The closer to hi-fi I've got the less I worry about the quality of recordings. Recordings that sounded poor on lesser systems suddenly make sense as neutrality is approached. Aside from the fact that almost all professional recordings are at least adequate, the recording is what I want to hear, even if it is flawed. I like to hear Neil Young bashing into the mic stand on 'Tonight's The Night.' That's all a part of it for me. I try to avoid remixes and re-masters for the same reason. I don't want to hear a classic recording cleaned up and sanitised.

if the system makes a mainstream recording sound poor or so bad it is unlistenable, then the set up is not as neutral as you hope. The engineers knew what they were doing, the artist knew what they wanted, I prefer to trust them rather than have the system pour its own brand of sauce over everything to homogenise the sound. I generally avoid 'boutique' equipment for this reason. It gets boring to me having everything sound like it was recorded in the same studio around the same time period. I don't bother with vinyl now for the same reason. Some don't care about this, good luck to them. It's all a personal journey.

Nailed it in one Macca;)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I think that since nothing man creates is ever perfect, there are details which are irrelevant to the artist's intent, errors and mistakes which may be regarded as 'noise' from an artistic point of view, I am not referring to that which the artiste desires to convey which we can describe as 'signal', but undesirable incurred errors..

To me details that occur during the recording are all desirable, as they reveal and preserve information about the moment or minutes- days the recording took place. Without them - well it is just not the same.

[AJSki2fly]

To me details that occur during the recording are all desirable, as they reveal and preserve information about the moment or minutes- days the recording took place. Without them - well it is just not the same.

So what does this mean for you in terms of a system or yours, what is important and what isn’t in your opinion?

[Pharos]

Does this include details of errors which neither the artists or producers have intended, and would rather were not in the mix?

[Light Dependant Resistor]

So what does this mean for you in terms of a system or yours, what is important and what isn’t in your opinion?

i can describe some of the detail i am listening for, if that helps to describe its importance . If we play Vangelis Antactica, he recorded this at Nemo studios London, studios he set up
and used DBX Type 1. I know what type 1 DBX can do, as I use it myself on two sources, hence I know its contribution on and off. I am listening for the detail that DBX provides.
I am also marveling at the ability of 30 ips reel to reel tape in the same recording, and reflecting on Vangelis history as when as a child he entered a shop and was listening to the sound of
items gently touched, as this the same skill he applies to all his music, reveling in pianissimo and forte. i am also listening to the multi tracks of percussion and keyboards and how they
combine effortlessly in each piece.

If we discuss what might appear as not important ( but actually is ) lets listen to Billy Thorpe and the Aztecs live at Sunbury , Billy says at track 3 "special cheerio to all the guys at the white Horse who are here"
he is referring the the White horse Hotel at Nunawading Melbourne. The recording of the Aztecs playing is simply amazing, as it was a night, it has some of the best portrayal of where they stood on
the stage that night, the recording preserves exactly where they stood. The recording engineer was John French http://www.noise11.com/news/r-i-p-australian-producer-john-french-20170919
have a guess what I am doing... yes sourcing the two Madder Lake recordings John did. In live at Sunbury the guitar valve amps Strauss used 6x KT88, you can almost smell them on in this recording
the mixing John French did in the dark leaves anything Led Zeppelin did, as a comparably loud rock band, in the dust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKXqZ-dQBFo

Everything in the recording to me is important, as it has preserved a moment in time with a live recording, or has preserved years of effort in a recording studio
including historical moments that led to the recording occurring. I am continually researching music and its detail including detail not heard, that adds to the detail that is heard.
I have discussed two loved recordings, do you need more ?

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Does this include details of errors which neither the artists or producers have intended, and would rather were not in the mix?

On some recordings less than satisfactory mixes are included, for instance Yes Fragile emerges many years later with alternative mixes. These are important to hear as they reveal some of the difficulties,
the band had to gain perfection with the same piece. On Jimi Hendrix Rainbow bridge, Hey Baby, after a beautiful guitar intro, Hendrix says " Is the microphone on " preserving that is important, as it reveals
exactly what Eddie Kramer said, that Hendrix was extremely shy of his own voice in recording studios, with it we see a little of Hendrix character, without it, it would not be the same.

So no squeaky clean, the recording reveals exactly what happened, up to the point of what we know about how many efforts it took and revealed in alternative versions.
A live recording being squeaky clean, Yes it exists ie King Crimson Asbury Park Casino, Larks Tongues in aspic Part 2 - is perfection in a word.

Another great example was the quiz I started about Pictures at an Exhibition Ricardo Muti recording, where a subway train is heard, similarly if you wish to you can identify the actual train station
such is the detail incidental that identifies the history of recordings. I will find a link for that thread ( L needed in Philadelphia ) https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?66245-Philadephia-Met-Riccardo-Muti-Mussorsky-Quiz&highlight=Quiz+Mussorsky

[AJSki2fly]

Hi Chris, I get where you are coming from you, want what you listen to be presented as closely and accurately to the original recording as is possible because you want to hear it a it was recorded.

This is also where I come from but unfortunately with a lot of modern recordings the end output is far from what was originally put down digitally IMO, mainly because the dynamics are played around with and the bottom end is pushed up and so it turns into a wall of sound, primarily I believe aimed at replay on on the go head phones and downloads with compression. All very disappointing and tedious to listen to IMHO.

Cheers

Adrian

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Hi Chris, I get where you are coming from you, want what you listen to be presented as closely and accurately to the original recording as is possible because you want to hear it a it was recorded.

This is also where I come from but unfortunately with a lot of modern recordings the end output is far from what was originally put down digitally IMO, mainly because the dynamics are played around with and the bottom end is pushed up and so it turns into a wall of sound, primarily I believe aimed at replay on on the go head phones and downloads with compression. All very disappointing and tedious to listen to IMHO.

Cheers

Adrian

Hi Adrian
i steer clear of those sorts of recordings, Tuning to FM radio here is a great example of everything that can go wrong when engineers setting up equipment do not actually listen but are under instruction from management
to achieve a certain sound. The classical music station though is an exception and gets everything right. Thankfully we can call on over 62 years of great recordings, with certain labels, ie Miles Davis Kind of Blue
through to Jakob Bro on ECM Returnings.

[Macca]

Hi Chris, I get where you are coming from you, want what you listen to be presented as closely and accurately to the original recording as is possible because you want to hear it a it was recorded.

This is also where I come from but unfortunately with a lot of modern recordings the end output is far from what was originally put down digitally IMO, mainly because the dynamics are played around with and the bottom end is pushed up and so it turns into a wall of sound, primarily I believe aimed at replay on on the go head phones and downloads with compression. All very disappointing and tedious to listen to IMHO.

Cheers

Adrian

I've only got one recording that is so dynamically compressed it is unlistenable, and that's a best of The Bee-Gees. It was only a quid though so I can live with the disappointment.

if I want to get picky the Eagles remasters I have are a little too compressed for my liking, but still sound good. Then again I usually look for the original release rather than the re-master and I don't buy any 'current' music so not really an issue for me.

[AJSki2fly]

Hi Adrian
i steer clear of those sorts of recordings, Tuning to FM radio here is a great example of everything that can go wrong when engineers setting up equipment do not actually listen but are under instruction from management
to achieve a certain sound. The classical music station though is an exception and gets everything right. Thankfully we can call on over 62 years of great recordings, with certain labels, ie Miles Davis Kind of Blue
through to Jakob Bro on ECM Returnings.

Yes me too, what I find really irritating is when this sort of mix also finds it way through to vinyl. For example I have a copy of Rival Sons ‎– Hollow Bones on vinyl, a great band and album, but the mix is on the edge, low end being pushed too much, maybe the band wanted it to sound that way, but it detracts for me. I have noticed similar effects on some of re-released albums, a few of the Deep Purple's and Pink Floyd's have lost something in the re-mix, even though they are supposed to be an improvement, I am not sure what is causing this, I have tried to investigate to determine if the original analog master has been used or a later digital one or if is has been transfer and then digitally re-mastered, whatever has gone on a few do not sound right to me, and I have original pressings to compare with.

[walpurgis]

best of The Bee-Gees.

I didn't know there was such a thing. :)

[AJSki2fly]

I didn't know there was such a thing. :)

Haa-Haa-Haa:lol:

[Pigmy Pony]

I didn't know there was such a thing. :)

It was released as a 7" flexi, and came free with Smash hits magazine :)

[Pigmy Pony]

Yes me too, what I find really irritating is when this sort of mix also finds it way through to vinyl. For example I have a copy of Rival Sons ‎– Hollow Bones on vinyl, a great band and album, but the mix is on the edge, low end being pushed too much, maybe the band wanted it to sound that way, but it detracts for me. I have noticed similar effects on some of re-released albums, a few of the Deep Purple's and Pink Floyd's have lost something in the re-mix, even though they are supposed to be an improvement, I am not sure what is causing this, I have tried to investigate to determine if the original analog master has been used or a later digital one or if is has been transfer and then digitally re-mastered, whatever has gone on a few do not sound right to me, and I have original pressings to compare with.

I have re-releases of Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here, and find both to be rather thick and slow sounding in the bass, and the top end (as I remember it being) severely recessed. I did even think it might be due to my high-tone deafness, or even a VTA issue. Anyway, I'm going the same way as Macca, and stop buying remasters, and just find the tidiest original presses I can afford.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I have re-releases of Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here, and find both to be rather thick and slow sounding in the bass, and the top end (as I remember it being) severely recessed. I did even think it might be due to my high-tone deafness, or even a VTA issue. Anyway, I'm going the same way as Macca, and stop buying remasters, and just find the tidiest original presses I can afford.

Dave Gilmour on DSOTM is the real star, there is some pretty intricate guitar playing, he was after a particular tone which he gets. DSOTM is an example of an important piece of music history, I cannot fault its quality, as real effort was made to preserve all the individual parts that make it up. It typifies the Abbey Rd studio sound and talent of Alan Parsons as engineer . Wish you Were here though is different, I will comment further tomorrow, getting a bit late here.

[AJSki2fly]

I have re-releases of Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here, and find both to be rather thick and slow sounding in the bass, and the top end (as I remember it being) severely recessed. I did even think it might be due to my high-tone deafness, or even a VTA issue. Anyway, I'm going the same way as Macca, and stop buying remasters, and just find the tidiest original presses I can afford.

Yes I agree, the WYEH I have is not too bad but would prefer an early copy, but tend to be pricey. Meddle is alright in parts but Echoes has lost its zing imo, some compression of sorts going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pharos]

My use of signal and noise with regard to artistic content on the recording, is I think relevant. Art is always written from an ethos, and often great pains are taken to express this ethos. Certain mistakes artistically may have been decided by the artist and the producers to be deliberately left as a part of the art. I consider this to be desirable, and hence the signal.

Noise for me is the technical failings which were not intended or agreed upon by the artists or producer, and only serve to lessen or corrupt the artistic message.

I also think that re-mastering has become a routine procedure, probably pushed because of the desire to sell higher resolution media, and it is problematic. Many younger remasterers do so as a routine procedure, and have not grown up with the art concerned in its initial release heyday. As a result they may not appreciate the zeitgeist of that time, but they then just tweek masters to 'sound good' to their sensibilities, these often very different from those originally producing the music.

The result for me is often lifeless and with exaggerations of certain aspects, and a loss of ethos.

It is the essence of the soul of the artist I want to know about.

[Barry]

I asked a similar question to Adrian's a few years ago - and it promoted a quite vigorous discussion. https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?4835-Fidelity-to-what-Or-what-are-we-tying-to-achieve-with-all-our-expensive-gear

But like this thread it got no closer to providing a definative answer, and like this thread simply revealed that all listeners required different things from their systems.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Dave Gilmour on DSOTM is the real star, there is some pretty intricate guitar playing, he was after a particular tone which he gets. DSOTM is an example of an important piece of music history, I cannot fault its quality, as real effort was made to preserve all the individual parts that make it up. It typifies the Abbey Rd studio sound and talent of Alan Parsons as engineer . Wish you Were here though is different, I will comment further tomorrow, getting a bit late here.

Back to Wish You Were Here, which might have been or should have been referring to the loss of Alan Parsons as engineer, replaced by Brian Humphries,as WYWH has some great playing on it, but lacks the skills to bring all the elements needed together. It is in mixing terms, a mess, there are electronics timing issues leading to poor audio quality. There is considerable engineering work on Gilmour's guitar, that comes annoyingly into and out of focus, as though David was talking to Brian more so than the other band members, and Brian just did not know how to get the studio masterpiece that DSOTM is.

Alan Parsons in comparison, seemed to have the ability to know exactly what the band members needed in DSOTM, and was willing to experiment with pioneering techniques such as using numerous recorders recording the same track, as each recorder had some ability to provide, so Alan totally understood the musicians, and had a masterful capability of knowing equipment backwards related to the band members instruments, A recipe that was unique, and defined Pink Floyd's ability to use a studio, to their benefit.

We can read here there is lack of understanding about the mixing console in WYWH, not a good place to start with recording Pink Floyd https://www.soundonsound.com/people/pink-floyd-shine-you-crazy-diamond The track quality alters from one piece to the next, There appears as opportunity to get Rick Wrights keyboard sound to be the complement of David's guitar in Shine but it is lifeless, compared to the complementary playing on DSOTM, but picks up as a tour de force of keyboard ability in Welcome to the machine, So its a funny combination of some tracks being what Pink Floyd could achieve, but lacking the engineering skill, that was heard on DSOTM

If ever a remix of it occurs, begin with Rick Wrights keyboard tracks, give them landscape in the mixing, rather than the dry dreadful place they occupy, noting there is outstanding playing by Rick but the engineering of where the keyboard is positioned is IMO hopeless, other than Welcome to the machine where it suddenly springs to life.

[Pigmy Pony]

I asked a similar question to Adrian's a few years ago - and it promoted a quite vigourous discussion. https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?4835-Fidelity-to-what-Or-what-are-we-tying-to-achieve-with-all-our-expensive-gear

But like this thread it got no closer to providing a definative answer, and like this thread simply revealed that all listeners required different things from their systems.

Which I think we all know anyway, and is the point I was trying to make earlier.

[Barry]

Which I think we all know anyway, and is the point I was trying to make earlier.

Just though Members might like to read what other Members back then had to say on the matter. But I agree it is largely an unanswerable question: in some ways all opinions and views are equally valid.

[Pigmy Pony]

Just though Members might like to read what other Members back then had to say on the matter. But I agree it is largely an unanswerable question: in some ways all opinions and views are equally valid.

Just read through that old thread - so nothing's changed really, and there's no reason why it should! We like what we like :)

Something else I noted from that thread: Andre's tendency to bugger off is nothing new, and wasn't even a new thing back then. Hurry back Andre, we need you! Even change your username (again) if you like, how about "Decksmasher" or "Tonearmageddon" :D