Real vs Hi-FI

[cooky1257]

I am of the opinion that this 'damage' should include level, dynamic range, scale and bandwidth. Others will have other criteria but my own possibly explains my preference for full size studio monitor type loudspeakers.
Many so called audiophile speakers can't even do a reasonable rendition of a handclap let alone a rimshot, hi-hat, bass line, kick drum-rather like a porthole, yeah it's transparent but the view is somewhat restricted....

 

[darrenyeats]

I can appreciate a good transparent system and how it reveals differences between recordings - indeed I get a kick out of this myself, which is why my own system leans this way.

But why claim that other approaches are "wrong"?! As stated, perhaps there is something fundamentally "off" with mic-transparent line-speaker chain that needs correcting. Or maybe it's off only for certain listeners and/or certain listening spaces. Or maybe someone wants the cymbals in their Miles Davis record to sound real, regardless of how that recording compares to other recordings they don't own. For them then, their way IS LITERALLY better.

I know from my own experience that clinging to a technical script is really comforting, it gives something to cling to mentally, and gives a feeling of security because I can tick boxes mentally as "sorted". But I think mental flexibility is ultimately more healthy.

 

[Werner]

but what about fidelity to the recording?

That is even worse.

'Fidelity to the original event' is broken because nearly no-one has witnessed the original event and thus is in no position to judge.

The fidelity of a sound in a room to a recording is broken because a recording has no sound.
It is like comparing apples to colours.


Yes, a recording has no sound. If I gave you a recording and a totally unlimited budget, can you assemble a system and a room that will allow me to hear 'the sound' of that recording?

There is a sagan of possible renditions of a given recording. All are different. Some have more merit, some less. Some are appreciated by a majority of listeners, some only by a few eccentrics. But the notion of absolute fidelity is inexistent, contrary to quite a few other disciplines and media.

 

[maxflinn]

I can see some wrinkles in it, but what about fidelity to the recording? That accepts that you are at least conceptually attempting to reproduce the notional mike feed. I accept that the speaker in the room messes around with all of that.

I'm in complete agreement though that one should be honest with oneself about what one is really looking for in terms of fidelity and pleasure.
There is a paradox at work here though- "fiddling around with things until they sound nice" doesn't sound like much of a hobby, let alone a quest. So whilst we might all be better off fiddling around with the signal till it sounds nice, there is an entrenched religious belief in one form or another held by most audio OCD types of every persuasion that things will only sound nice (or at least will only sound best) by being more faithful (whatever that means to them). And in order so be satisfying a change therefore has to persuade us that it is linked to improved fidelity.

Hence achieving a result by obviously messing around with the signal is a turn off- tonal change by cable swapping is ok but tonal change by graphic equaliser is bad. Who ever says I like NOS dacs because of the frequency droop? Who wants dsp to match vinyl? So strangely despite the knots it ties us up in, most people can't entirely dispense with the concept of fidelity and won't want to make a change unless they believe that it will enhance fidelity.

Strange isn't it how much ink is spilled about digital source components bearing in mind how much bigger a difference it will make to moving your speakers? But more difficult to persuade oneself that moving the speakers will make them more faithful. Why so few rows about speakers? Because we know they are a matter of taste.

That's interesting and made me think about whether there might be some sub-conscious thought processes going on that relate to trust in others, or the need to believe in others in some way.

So using a graphic equaliser may be a logical way to tailor a sound to suit, but perhaps people prefer using cables which are endorsed by others that they perceive as experts, that they may look up to and admire/respect, as doing so - even if there is little to no audible change - may on a sub-conscious level/s - allow them to feel more comfortable that they've done the right thing, based on trusting a broader use of perceived knowledge.

 

[adamdea]

That is even worse.

'Fidelity to the original event' is broken because nearly no-one has witnessed the original event and thus is in no position to judge.

The fidelity of a sound in a room to a recording is broken because a recording has no sound.
It is like comparing apples to colours.


Yes, a recording has no sound. If I gave you a recording and a totally unlimited budget, can you assemble a system and a room that will allow me to hear 'the sound' of that recording?

There is a sagan of possible renditions of a given recording. All are different. Some have more merit, some less. Some are appreciated by a majority of listeners, some only by a few eccentrics. But the notion of absolute fidelity is inexistent, contrary to quite a few other disciplines and media.

I get that a stereo acoustic event is notional- but it still seems to me that you can meaningfully compare the signal as it gets to the loudspeaker with the recording. It's after that that it gets weird and its debatable as to what it would mean to experience that recording.

That dispenses with absolute fidelity, but I suspect that most people would agree that there are some respects in which one can say that one approach is more faithful than another. One is tempted to distinguish between the information in a recording and its presentation, although the distinction would be bound to blur quickly: clearly no one would say that low passing an orchestral musical recording at 5khz would make it more faithful

My point in any event is that whilst fidelity is a highly flawed and contestable concept, the problem is that it is at the heart of the practice and belief system that underpins this thing of ours. Reminds me of the book by Don Cupitt "Taking leave of God" in which he argues that it's time for Christians to ....

 

[adamdea]

That's interesting and made me think about whether there might be some sub-conscious thought processes going on that relate to trust in others, or the need to believe in others in some way.

So using a graphic equaliser may be a logical way to tailor a sound to suit, but perhaps people prefer using cables which are endorsed by others that they perceive as experts, that they may look up to and admire/respect, as doing so - even if there is little to no audible change - may on a sub-conscious level/s - allow them to feel more comfortable that they've done the right thing, based on trusting a broader use of perceived knowledge.

Oh quite. But what I was specifically getting at is that there is a sort of ideology which developed around the idea that one had to interfere with the signal as little as possible (get rid of tone controls etc). IT might have made some sense with analog signals (although I'm still not convinced that getting rid of tone controls was worth it there either) but its very dubious in digital audio.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous intuitive appeal for going for the option which appears to involve less interference=more fidelity. In many cases this revolves around either ignoring or not grasping the fact that one is fiddling with the signal or going for the option which is more "natural" ie involves letting some component distort things itself rather than being involved in setting the parameters- which makes you complicit in the infidelity(turning a nob) and aware of the arbitrariness of it: how high to I turn it? Have I set it just right?)

 

[redmedicine]

Something I didn't realise was how important the physicality of some instruments is. I heard a live solo clarinet doing a piece by Malcolm Arnold last year at a distance of about ten feet and was quite shocked at how loud and strong the sound was. It felt the sound was pressing against me in a completely different way from the electric instruments I'm used to. I've also noticed (again with acoustic type jazz) that I literally can't listen to some pieces other than through the moderately decent set up in our front room.

 

[pure sound]

clearly no one would say that low passing an orchestral musical recording at 5khz would make it more faithful

One might if the chosen loudspeaker had a pronounced rising response above 5kHz. (An extreme example sure but the principle is the same)

 

[Chefren]

Fidelity to what, exactly?

This is a very good point that unless you are simply trying to record a live event as accurately as possible (which is not a very common way to do a recording), there is no reference and even then the reference isn't available for comparisons anymore.

Take a typical action movie as an even clearer example; the picture is a mix of filmed material, traditional special effects, CGI and various levels of post-processing done to the image (speed-ups and slow-downs etc) and the sound is a collage of sounds captured during filming, sounds recored in the studio, music and stock effects. In this mix there isn't an original except for the recording itself, so fidelity can't be assessed.