Hi-Fi...What Is The Goal?

[musichal]

Goals are good, but it's also a journey. Enjoy the landscape. Uhh, soundscape?

 

[mgosdin]

The Site went down just as I hit "Post Reply" yesterday so, let's try it again.

I've always defined "High Fidelity" as getting the most personally satisfying reproduction of a musical experience using the best equipment that finances allow for.

That's why today's environment, with so much good equipment available - sometimes for pennies on the dollar - and plentiful sage advice from this & other groups. I'm able to enjoy "High Fidelity" more than ever.

Mark Gosdin

 

[jrtrent]

Is the goal

To use a good system to enjoy the music

or

The persue the ultimate system?

What are you views?

There are many ways to enjoy the hobby, including more options than you listed, and whatever makes a person happy in hi-fi is legitimate. For me, though, it is definitely the first. I agree with what Art Dudley wrote in HiFi Heretic back in 1987. In his introduction to a review of some modestly priced preamps (HiFi Heretic, number eight, 1987) he was defending this class of equipment as a legitimate choice for long-term satisfaction, not dismissing it as a short-term stop-gap simply because something better was available. He made a distinction between hi-fi as a means of bringing music into your home, and hi-fi as a "jockishly obsessive exercise where what you have in mind is to keep trading gear season after season, with even new components viewed from the start as mere stations along the way." Paraphrasing a bit to shorten it up, he contended that investing in a mid-priced system--and stopping there--is a perfectly satisfactory way of bringing music into your home, that the goal of hi-fi should be to assemble a real music system you can keep and enjoy, and not be just another pastime you can dump cash into.

I've been fortunate enough to have heard a wide variety of systems, some at prices many times over my annual salary, and I know that even a fairly modest system can let me thoroughly enjoy my records, providing a level of performance I'm happy to return to even after hearing something I can readily acknowledge as "better." Linn used to say that each person has his own level of musical expectation that needs to be met in order to enjoy their music collection; once my level is reached, I know that "improvements" won't result in either increased pleasure from or increased time spent with my records, so no, I don't need to pursue the ultimate system to successfully bring music into my home.

 

[Condorsat]

I keep written goals for everything (including my audio rig) ... updated at least once a year ... check in every so often to stay on course. Too numerous to mention (change every year) and are only particularly important to me and my desires for my audio systems.

An aircraft is actually off course 95% of the time ... automated systems create course corrections and get them back on track .. they are really good at getting where they intend to go.
My personal audio goals are my system for staying on course.

 

[nailer]

Lot's of maneuver room between the OP's choices, the first of which is readily achievable and the latter nigh impossible.

 

[richardgrant]

My dynamic priority switching (DPS™) mechanism must be on the blink, because I seem to be running at about 10/90 right now. The time seems ripe to replace my vintage system with something new, and the gear side is all I can think about.

In fact my chief involvement with music lately has been to assemble a playlist of sound-test tracks for evaluating prospective purchases -- mostly old favorites going back to about 1970, but also a few demanding pieces like symphonic works, and tricky bits like old R&B that I only have in mediocre (at best) quality recordings. It's occurred to me lately that given my particular musical tastes, a lot of the stuff in my collection is distinctly less than hi-fi, so I'm kind of interested in how it sounds through different equipment. Maybe I want something more warm and forgiving, even at the expense of, say, high-end brightness. I don't know. And of course budget is a factor.

Maybe it's more like 3/97.

 

[Ds2000]

2 parts for me. Excellent gear is art in its own right, so playing the music I love through it is art playing art.

 

[frahengeo]

I pursue both, but will not let the pursuit of the ultimate music reproduction deter me from listening to music.

 

[darkblue94]

I don't listen to music. It's all about the gear. I can sit and listen to test tones and pink noise for hours if the gear is good enough.

Go figure.

 

[telemike]

I'm realizing that some good solid mid-fi gear is good enough for me to enjoy listening to music. I've been chasing the dragon and all I end doing is lose money

 

[matteos]

Is the goal

To use a good system to enjoy the music

or

The persue the ultimate system?

What are you views?

The goals for my HiFi... Mostly met.

Resolution - I want to hear the room the audio was recorded. I don't want my room to sound like my room. I want my room to sound like the music hall or studio that it was recorded in. I want to hear the LoFi room with perhaps not the greatest acoustics that Bob Marley was in. I want to hear the hall that Getz/Gilberto played in.

Soundstage - Musicians are in the place they were standing when they recorded. Not some splodge of audio that's all mixed together. Drummer at the back, vocalist on the left etc

Clarity - Each instrument is clearly different from the other. They occupy different spaces... Leading to the hardest IMO to achieve.

Holographic imaging - Once you've heard it... You can never go back. It's a little different to the above 3 although they are all similar. It's all very well having a clearly defined bass and guitar and pointing out where they stand on the stage... But truly good imaging sounds like that bass or that guitar is literally being played in front of you. You could reach out and touch it... Play a note. I think truly holographic imaging only really comes from live performances or studio performances where little to nothing was done by the sound engineer.. A simple few microphones to record. In fact the better the recordings (The less done to them) the easier all of this is to achieve.

I'm pretty much there with my HiFi.. I think imaging could improve with a different Preamp to what I have... IMO once you've got to the point where music basically sounds live in your room you have reached HiFi and you probably don't care much anymore about going to see shows or wasting time watching TV.

 

[ldatlof]

My goal is to have a system that I enjoy for the least amount of money possible. I have reached my goal.

Though I do have 3 tube amps and a tube receiver that I rotate into the main system every once in a while which kind of contradicts my fist sentence.

 

[RT Fan]

I like gear but love music! I have more money invested in my music collection than I do in the equipment that reproduces it. It sounds good to me & that is all that matters.

 

[sKiZo]

Define "ultimate system" ?

I went with the Rube Goldberg approach ... <G>

The real fun for me was deal shopping and then doing complete restoration on each piece. That and getting the best possible SQ out of the gear I have. In that regard, it's not just an avocation, it's an obsession ...

 

[Nightwisher]

An amazing system is nothing if you can't enjoy amazing music on it, IMO, so music always has to come first for me. That being said, I want my music to sound the best that it can and I enjoy experimenting with different gear.

 

[Spinning45s]

The gear is a means to an end and that end is the music!

 

[Dr. Morbius]

Gear is always going to be part of the equation in regards to music reproduction. They are inseparable. How big of a part is the true question and that's going to vary among individuals.

 

[Markoneswift]

Personally, I enjoy music and I enjoy gear. I enjoy the aesthetic of gear as much as I enjoy the sound it makes. I also enjoy that the gear takes me paths that, until recently, I had never travelled such as speaker repair, simple electronics, woodwork etc etc. For me it's an ever evolving experience. To that end, does the music take a bit of a back seat to the gear - well yes, because music doesn't require fixing

 

[robert_kc]

My primary goal for my hi-fi systems is to deliver an accurate and enjoyable facsimile of classical music, based on what I recall hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (i.e., a live performance involving natural instruments and no electronics). IME a full scale symphony cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy via recorded music. Where there are inevitable imperfections in the reproduced sound, I want those imperfections to be pleasant sounding.

Secondary goals:

• Several of my hi-fi systems serve double duty for movies. My goal for movies is intelligibility of dialog, good quality sound for music embedded in movies, and reasonable dynamic impact without being assaulted by obnoxious low-frequency-effects. (Fortunately two of my subwoofers have multiple presets for volume on the remote control.)
• I occasionally use my hi-fi for background music when I have friends over for cocktails. (The system in my living room can play music throughout the first floor.)
• Last but not least: I enjoy collecting vintage vacuum tube amps that sound good and look good, and I enjoy tinkering around (e.g., tube rolling) in order to optimize sound quality.

 

[HTWillie]

Hi-Fi, by definition, is about the gear.

People still "enjoy the music" in low-fi.

I enjoy the music better when it's playing on a better system.