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

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

[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