HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

I doubt anyone could come up with a definition of what constitutes 'good music' that would satisfy everyone. It's entirely subjective. So someone who regards drum 'n bass as 'good music' would probably have different needs from an audio/hifi system than someone who only listened to classical music.

there is no such thing as water that isn't wet

Ice in a sub zero environment.

Not sure how we got from what is HiFi to what is good music?

Hi Fi means High Fidelity and the term was coined to describe the mediums ability to accurately reproduce either the source, or the media.

The only way to accurately reproduce a CD is to copy it to another CD. If you want to convert it sound waves, then you have to compare it to the sound waves that created the source. The source is but a intermediate carrier of information in this case. So what original sound do you want to reproduce with accuracy. The sound in the concert hall?, the sound in the mastering studio?, the sound of the orchestra playing in your room (assuming it would fit) as they are all different. And that doesn't start to cover music that didnt start as a recording with a microphone in a space.

Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Not sure how we got from what is HiFi to what is good music?

Due to thread being dragged off topic, perhaps if I post the OP and start again.

*************************************************************************************************

What does hi-fi mean
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:12 pm

We have looked at this, but to be specific it seems to me there are three alternative.

1/ fidelity to the specifications
2/ fidelity to the sound
3/ fidelity to the music

It is not either or but perhaps if we give a percentage of importance.

For me
1/ 10%
2/ 20%
3/ 70%

For me this is once the design and production process is done, #1 is far more important up to that point

Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:18 pm

Hi Fi means High Fidelity and the term was coined to describe the mediums ability to accurately reproduce either the source, or the media.

The only way to accurately reproduce a CD is to copy it to another CD. If you want to convert it sound waves, then you have to compare it to the sound waves that created the source. The source is but a intermediate carrier of information in this case. So what original sound do you want to reproduce with accuracy. The sound in the concert hall?, the sound in the mastering studio?, the sound of the orchestra playing in your room (assuming it would fit) as they are all different. And that doesn't start to cover music that didnt start as a recording with a microphone in a space.

I would probably agree with this. While the data is in the digital domain and allowing for no errors in transfer.
Transfer to file is usually good enough for the ear not to be able to discern errors, but granted, not perfect. A great deal depends on the algorithms used in the process.

This is what makes the whole idea of High Fidelity such nonsense.
You cannot reproduce the sounds made in a studio or concert hall with a two channel system of electronics. Most stereo systems cannot even accurately reproduce from source.
Given music (live) including studio, comes from a number of point sources, often has frequencies that even modern microphones can’t pick up and transmit with accuracy, one isn’t really listening to any more than a percentage of the live experience. Of course, the whole emotional engagement (which is what Richard is talking about if I’ve understood correctly) is missing. What you can emotionally engage with is the representation constructed by engineers.
This is why I can’t listen to classical music on a stereo system and get any satisfaction from it. Too much information is missing to make the reproduction credible.

You are using the wrong equipment then.

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:28 pm You are using the wrong equipment then.

True that.

Seriously, not specific to you, but it is part of this conversation. Have you noticed how some systems make so called classical sound shite! I am at a loss how they achieve this. It strikes me the so called PRAT systems seem to do this, it is like they impose their own timing on everything, only stuff that makes you artificially waggle your foot seems acceptable.

You know its funny. All the Hi Fi forum gurus say much the same 'you've got a crap system, or your deaf'.
Yet I've gone to listen to other systems and I can't hear any improvement and often they sound a lot worse than what I have.
I could be deaf, but then I've been deaf for a very long time. I've heard a few systems in the 45 odd years I've been interested in this hobby.
I really enjoy listening to what I play on my stereo and given I've got close to 2500 albums the deafness doesn't seem to stop me wanting more and listening, which I do most nights.
I accept the limitations of the system. Every system has them. It's what one is prepared to put up with in the end. I've got it playing now and I'm not gritting my teeth in annoyance.

PRAT Systems?