The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, semente said:

I've just come across this very interesting piece:

 

Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

 

As I've nearly 30 years experience within the high end industry, I felt that it may be about time that I shared a few considerations, with any discerning person who may be interested, as no one else seems to be similarly inclined.

We should, after all, know where our beliefs come from, and if we think we have reasons for what we believe, that is often a mistake.

"FI" is the abbreviated form of the word "FIDELITY", ie. "HIFI" would indicate a steadfast devotion to music, or musical event in this case. A singular integrity, if you will.

"STEREO" has nothing at all to do with the number "2". "STEREO" actually means solid, or three dimensional, ie. a 3D soundstage in this context.

 

by Peter Djordjevic / Audio Freaks

 

http://www.audiophile.no/en/articles-tests-reviews/item/1396-conventional-hi-fi-wisdom-is-almost-always-invaryably-wrong

 

 

Here's a small taster:

 

Many like what they like because of certain "perceived" qualities, which they focus upon, without which they cannot do.

These perceived qualities, sadly, are most often different forms of DISTORTION; these thoughtless creations of habit are systematic human mistakes which are known as “cognitive biases”, which play havoc with our perceptions and abilities to accurately judge and observe.

A fifty foot tall vocalist, five metre wide violin, right in front of the listener's nose, and every single recording infused with a golden warmth, for example, cannot reasonably be regarded as realistic, nor laudable, even though the presentation may be very immediate and impressive.

When visitors listen to my demonstrations of low distortion, high energy systems at shows, a lot of the music played, does include a proper, realistic and low noise soundstage presented BEHIND the loudspeakers, and I am in no doubt that this is a foreign experience for most listeners

A more immediate and close presentation will SEEM to be clearer and detailed, and many will swear that it is, but, in fact,this is illusory.

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are effectively unable to make any worthwhile observation nor judgement concerning what they’ve listened to.

It is very often something like showing a card trick to a dog.

The reaction is about the same.

The bottom line here is that there is only one audio “truth” in the world. A playback system (that includes the recording) either sounds like music playing in a real space (as opposed to playing inside of a recording console and its ancillary equipment) or it doesn’t. No system or the recordings played on it meets that criteria - no matter how expensive or how “state-of-the-art” that system might be!

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

To me the "audio truth" is what's on the recording - no matter what the mastering engineer had in his head at the time; and if the result shows cringingly bad choices - I'm thinking Amy Winehouse tracks here - what the source data says, is what you should hear.

Then, sir, you are wrong. The “truth” is real music played in a real space. Anything else is mere artifice. Real sounding recordings are very rare and extremely far between. The fact that you, or anybody else might like the artifice more than the real thing is neither here nor there. If one does not understand that High Fidelity means a high degree of faithfulness (or accuracy) to real music. Then the term is meaningless. 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

If then one chooses to play with the data, via fancy DSP, etc - to change the presentation - that's now an entirely different scenario.

That depends on whether or not “changing the presentation” results in the perceived sound being more “accurate” to the original performance.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, JediJoker said:

 

Poppycock. Utter elitist nonsense. You're completely disregarding undeniably real music that does not and, in some cases, cannot exist in a real space. Maybe it's wrong to call the best of such recordings "high fidelity," but the history of recorded music is littered with excellent examples thereof. If you choose not to appreciate a great recording because it's not "real music played in a real space," that's your loss and I pity you.

That’s like saying that if you don’t like brussels sprouts that it’s “your loss, and I pity you”. No, it’s not my loss. If I don’t like something, I don’t like it and I am missing nothing. 

On the other hand, you have taken my comments out of context. I was discussing “Fi” in absolute terms in response to Frank’s insistence that Fi is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. I was merely pointing out that since Hi-Fi means a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound, there must be an original sound to compare. Now, it doesn’t matter whether we’re discussing a full symphony orchestra on stage, or the Grateful Dead on stage, that’s the real sound to which I was referring. IOW, if a system is accurate to the real sound of live music (whatever that sound will be) then everything will sound right through it. OTOH, if a Stradivarius sounds like an Guarneri violin and a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a Gibson, then, even though they both might sound very good to some ears, you can’t rightly call such a system High-Fidelity, because it isn’t “faithful” to anything. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Hi George —

 

It is just as reasonable to assume that Fidelity — in this case — means accurate reproduction of the recording.  That would of course, include music created in a studio or computer just as much as an orchestral performance. 

 

 Everyone’s mileage is gonna vary on that one.😁

 

Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean accurate reproduction of the recording. If that’s what it meant, then an Edison cylinder player could be considered High-Fidelity!

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Yeah, but that is exactly what that means in a lot of situations. Such as when talking about hi-fi gear.  ¯\(°_o)/¯

I think you mean that it’s what a large sample of audiophiles think that it means. But that does not make it so. If that’s what you mean, then I agree. That it really and literally means “a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound”, doesn’t alter the fact, that while it is a worthy goal, even the best cost-is-no-object system cannot even approach the ultimate goal of an audio system that sounds exactly like the original live event.

[gmgraves]

On 5/29/2019 at 9:01 AM, Summit said:

 

High fidelity is kind of vague but mostly refer to the pre-recorded live sound while accuracy refers to the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound.

 

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary#kIWfHoIKDwKvb8JR.99

For future reference, I prefer the definition that High-Fidelity means a “high degree of faithfulness to the original sound” , NOT the recording. 

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

I understand why you might go with that.  In the case of electronic reproduction however there is only the signal it is presented with.  If you had something that alters a signal to make it sound more real that is good, but high fidelity it isn't.  Your definitions seems more of "sounds real" than a matter of fidelity. 

Not really. Since I make my own recordings, and have more than a few, my definition is based upon my recordings sounding as much like the original event (I was there, after all) as is possible. Also, “sounds more real” is the definition of High-Fidelity. I realize that much electronically “realized” music does not exist as an actual event and, as you say, is only a signal, but that’s largely irrelevant. If live, unamplified music sounds real when played back, then electronic music will be accurate to the original signal as well. At least that’s how I see it.

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

Not a denier.  Climate change is real enough.  But it is a tough problem.  Maybe the solution is don't have children and lower the world population. 

It is THE solution to most of the world’s problems! It’s interesting. I remember in the late 1960’s one couldn’t turn on the radio without hearing about population control. There were ideas about how to accomplish a reduction of world population ranging from mandatory regulation of the number of children a couple can have (like the Chinese did) to taxing couples severely for each additional child they have (probably the way most democracies would address such a program), then suddenly, the topic was dropped, and you rarely heard about it any more. 

 

I did did my part. I remained single and childless (at least, as far as I know. There are none that I can claim  )!

10 hours ago, esldude said:

 

I don't think it is the total chaos and end of human life.  It can eventually get pretty bad, but that is more than 50 years away which does mean it is after I'll be here.  So I can't do much.  It will be dealt with by those people around then.  Not in favor of leaving trouble for those that come after,  but I've not seen any good answers that are really capable of being implemented.  Too many solutions involve some sort of benevolent dictator to make everyone do right, and those just don't have a good history of working out. 

I think that severely increasing the taxes on those who have more than one child, coupled with huge tax breaks for couples who remain childless or who stay single, would work. Remember those few cases that fall between the cracks are not that important as long as the vast majority of the earth’s population follows through on the plan. Economic sanctions and incentives would be enough, I firmly believe. No dictator beyond the IRS necessary!

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

I agree that plastic makes good containers but there's also a lot of junk made in plastic that we don't need and can avoid.

Governments should put pressure on Business to reduce plastic.

Something needs to be done about packaging, period. I’m one person and the amount of trash that I throw out weekly alarms me. Every time that I go into the kitchen to fix a meal or a snack results in some can, bag or styrofoam tray being discarded!