Fidelity to what? Or what are we tying to achieve with all our expensive gear?

The phrase "....the suspension of disbelief..." comes to mind when trying to describe a systems' abilities, or otherwise. Does your system enable you to enter the realm of music and forget about 'hifi'? If so, then isn't that something worth the time, trouble and expense?
How this is achieved will be different for each of us as we all have differing expectations and tastes but I find it less than helpful when equipment is described in terms of its' bass or mid or whatever other hi-fi parameter you care to name. Surely it matters not how deep the bass or crystalline the highs if the sound has no musical coherence or merit, if the system is incapable of reproducing the nuances of performance that go to making a believable musical event then all the tonal accuracy, harmonic richness, sound staging abilities are just a waste of time.
The systems that draw you in and surprise and delight will these days, I believe, be those that manage to combine the best attributes of what in the past were often the opposing qualities of performance above all else v. sonic purity above all else.

Regards

'The closest approach to the original sound' might be a good tagline but IMO it is like the mythical questing beast that could be hunted but never caught.

I think we would all agree that changing any component will always result in a different presentation of the music, albeit subtle in many cases. It may not be better or worse, just different. So what is 'accurate' and what is 'the original sound'?

With 100% acoustic recordings I agree that there must be a definitive benchmark for reproduction - with all other types of music there cannot be adefinitive 'original sound'.

When a band lays down tracks in the studio how do they listen to what they have recorded to see if they are happy with it? - Whatever kit they have in the studio. Could be the desk monitors, could be a dedicated playback system - most studios widely diverge here - there is no standard.

At a gig what are we actually listening to? - a big (and more often than not dog-rough sounding) hi-fi.

What's most important for me is not how faithfully we are 'reproducing the original recording' but how 'well' it sounds when reproduced. If your system sounds beautiful and entrancing no matter what is played then you are on the right lines. If you are just hearing air being moved at different (albeit the correct) freqencies then you are going wrong.

Ever been listening to someone elses system when they play you something and ask your opinion on the sound? 'Hmm... sounds a bit rough' you say (trying to sugar coat it:)). 'Ah!', they say 'but that is what that record sounds like' - that is a system that doesn't work.

I remember years ago going to Sheffield City Hall with a rather tasty young female item to see Thunder. The sound was so bad we listened to the whole gig in the bar where the sound was much better. There's no way I want my Hi-Fi to sound 'live'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haselsh1

I remember years ago going to Sheffield City Hall with a rather tasty young female item to see Thunder. The sound was so bad we listened to the whole gig in the bar where the sound was much better. There's no way I want my Hi-Fi to sound 'live'.

---

Live sound doesn't have to be bad but I agree it almost always is. Its just that most PAs are built for endurance rather than sound quality (the really expensive Tannoy rigs being one exception) and most sound engineers listen to music on a Dixon's midi system and have no frame of reference for quality sound.

I did security at a Thunder gig once - they got a lot of 'action' the jammy bas***ds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Live sound doesn't have to be bad but I agree it almost always is. Its just that most PAs are built for endurance rather than sound quality (the really expensive Tannoy rigs being one exception) and most sound engineers listen to music on a Dixon's midi system and have no frame of reference for quality sound.

I did security at a Thunder gig once - they got a lot of 'action' the jammy bas***ds!

---

More action than I did that night. The young bit of kit I was with was married and I do have some standards but the old pork dagger wanted a go.

From The Grave

Somehow missed this thread when it first came and some excellent reflections about sound.
I guess I want a few things the first id to be emotionally involved in the music for this to happen I need to sense the energy (dynamics) of the music and for it to be realistic enough to have the illusion of the musicians in the room, so the sound has to be believable.
I am extremely lucky that I can either have a bit more presence which gives me a better illusion of the live event or a bit more detailed and tighter. Depending on my mood and the music I am listening I will choose either approach
My system is pretty stealth like close my eyes and I just get a sense of the music being filled in the room, it also has lots of scale and has rock solid rhythms that makes drums and tablas sound realistic.
Every time I hear a system I hear something that slightly unique and think this is due to different rooms and different approaches as to which is right I have no idea I tend to believe we end up with systems based on our preferences and hearing.

Can we achieve the potency of real sound? No, but there are some baselines I do strive for and that give me great satisfaction when listening to music (e.g. studio albums, for which there is no baseline):

1. the system must be dynamically competent and honest. I don't want my sound rounded or warmed up. A brass instrument played close is an incredible thing and can sound quite dirty. I want it to sound that way on my system. Drums need to have attack and not be limp.

2. the system's tonality must be neutral. I know what a live piano sounds like and it's not easy to achieve realism. Remember it's a percussion instrument and the 'strike' has to sound that way.

3. human voice is very important to me. I don't want males to sound plummy or females to sound shrieky. Spoken voice on BBC R4 is a great test of a system's overall competence.

I do try to achieve truth to concert sound for classical music, although it will at its best only be a good attempt. As for live rock sound, that is not a baseline I use since most gigs sound awful.

Do I enjoy the sound my system makes? Definitely, and my focus these days is on buying more music.

I thought high fidelity was just a marketing term. There are no measurements or tolerances that qualify anything to be high fidelity. At what point would something become high fidelity and not medium or low fidelity?
I've always considered that I have a music system. I try to achieve a sound that pleases me.

It's up to you. If you consider your system has a high fidelity to the original sound, then it's hi-fidelity. Harry Pearson calls it the high end. The terminology doesn't matter, and the judgement is purely subjective.