HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

You are now being silly argumentative for the sake of it, you know exactly what I mean. You have a history in this.

My explanations are clear and precise, yours are muddled. Why should a definition of hi-fi say music, it is a taken, the same as a definition of water doesn't say it is wet - i.e. it is part of the bloody thing, without it we would not be talking about it.

Find the word wet in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water there is no such thing as water that isn't wet, without being wet or moist in our environment then it doesn't exist.

It is the same with hi-fi, without music in some form there would be no hi-fi.

What you write isn't strictly true. You can claim High Fidelity for other things apart from sound replay, pictures for example.
If you want to start a discussion about music then really you need to ask a different question.
Writing that my explanation is muddled while yours is clear and precise is obviously not the case.
Go and listen to some music.

We have hi-fi to listen to music. Most of us at least buy hi-fi to hear our music better. The two go hand in hand and can't be separated. You can't have hi-fi for the sake of listening to a test tone though that might be useful at the early design stage. If you designed hi-fi to measure good on a test tone there is no guarantee it will perform the purpose of reproducing music properly. In fact it likely will sound crap.

To me hifi means the reproduction of sound as accurately as possible. By implication this means the reproduction of recorded music, otherwise what is the point.

Hi-fi as a definite meaning as welder as pointed out.

There seems little point in trying to argue it means something different. The arguement should be wether the tenants of hifi are the ones that give you the best means of evaluating your equipment.

Then show me an article when hi-fi relates to anything but music, I have never seen one. The only things I can think of are birdsong and steam trains and they are fringe if not strictly music.

AND per usual someone with an agenda deflects the thread into semantic nonsense even though everyone knows what is being discussed.

I never normally contribute to such threads, on a personal level hifi is a means to achieving sound reproduction and within the hifi I know there are many ways this can be done- initially I was lead to believe this was only possible with high end British manufacturers and this started my passion sometimes an obsession. Strangely I soon realised hifi was not always high end expensive equipment and that even diy / plough your own field approach to equipment ownership was possible. Hifi to me is now a loose term that is misused to promote playback products - MY hi-fi WAS about owning something that said I have a good music system and sound was secondary but NOW I would be happy to ‘hide’ the boxes and let the music stand for itself- I have a music system where music enjoyment is the priority

It is because the definition has been so abused that I am trying to establish a new accepted definition. Per usual it is the slurpers who have corrupted it as they are scared their music is not good enough, or to try and deflect people from judging by the pleasure it gives them. Buy on specs, buy on mind bumbling eeediotic non words / expressions then good luck to you - per usual you are being used.

To the average person hifi is a Bluetooth speaker (might not be cheap) playing compressed music from their phone.

And eeediot 18 year old hormone swamped male teenagers think they are racing drivers with a pimped Vauxhall Corsa with a sports exhaust. Delusion is a constant problem, but in defence of Bluetooth mostly that is because they have heard no better or can't afford better or just don't care.

If we can't a agree a definition then what chance do they stand.