Hi-Fi...What Is The Goal?

[Djcoolray]

HIFI....

Only means high fidelity !

So, it must mean equipment capable of high fidelity. It's funny how people add the conjecture of their own personal preference towards a definition. Then more distortion a unit has, the less HIFI it is...

 

[Nightwisher]

You are describing a conundrum, a vicious circle, a catch 22, chicken or the egg sort of thing.. Of course one watch by night, one watch by day.. If you get confused listen to the music play!

For me personally, I enjoy the music no matter what system it is on but I can usually enjoy it more on a better system. However, that depends on my mood. This morning actually, I was rocking out more and more engaged with my Klipsch iPod dock while I was in the shower than with my main system this week. The music just hit my mood right.

 

[MJB1959]

Hopefully this analogy helps, when I was 12 (1972), I first heard Edgar Winters' Frankenstein, I absolutely loved that song, Free Ride too, It always sounded good whether it was the AM Radio, the Fm stereo or the lp I finally was able to get. Now I can still hear that same album on much nicer gear and it sounds all that much better, so, the music is great, and the gear can make it sound better, but at the end of the day, it's the music.

 

[matteos]

I'm of the opinion that it is impossible to make recorded music sound "live", for the simple reason that it isn't. I can't re-create a concert in my front room, even with music that was recorded live. There isn't enough space, there aren't several hundred(or thousand) people around me, and my speakers can't move enough air. I accepted that fact long ago. And studio recordings can never, EVER sound live. Many times, the band didn't even play a whole SONG together in the studio, much less an entire album. Most studio recordings are a combination of several 'takes', processed to sound a certain way. What you wind up with is an engineer's interpretation of what the producer tells him the band wants it to sound like. They can't know what gear anyone is going to use to play it back through, or how room acoustics will change the nature of the recording. Even if I had all the same equipment they used to master an individual record/cd, my front room has different acoustics than the studio. I probably don't even have the same brand of headphones the engineer used. To say my rig sounds live is just so much self-delusion.

I like music, but it doesn't just happen, it takes gear. The most that I can realistically hope for is that the gear I have chosen is capable of reproducing recorded sound of such fidelity as is pleasing to me. And if my listening session today was any indicator, I have achieved my goal. This doesn't mean I can't make it sound better, whether by tweaking things or adding new gear, just that I can't find enough to complain about to make me want to. Yet...

In some ways you're right.. never going to get a stadium gig sounding like a stadium.. but a four piece unamplified jazz band.. that can be done to a good degree

 

[RatMudd]

My goal is to have as natural sound as possible and to hear all the nuances and details that are actually present on the recording (fingers on guitar strings, breathing, background "add-in's" or "easter eggs" that artists put in for us audio freaks, the room acoustics, the rattle of a snare drum after being hit, the hollowness of a horned instrument, etc). I want to hear every variable possible. All this along with some fake clarity and thump. I'm just a blue collar guy so that's why I'm such a Yamaha amp fan. I wish I could hear or afford some very expensive stuff... I'd probably be an all analog tube and reel-to-reel fan. But for my slim wallet, I love the Yamaha "Natural Sound" with CD and vinyl and DVD. With some tuning and the right speakers, it sounds great.

Details at low volume are also a must.

With great equipment (including some low-mid budget stuff) it's almost possible to listen to a song or movie 100 times and hear something new each time, depending on the recording engineers, studio, concert placement, and recording gear, etc... or the person holding the boom mic on a set. There is just a thousand different variables that make this an easy hobby to be entertained with, when my hands aren't on another of my many hobbies.

That's what hi-fi means to me

P.S. But saving your ears at the same time (thats hard to control sometimes, haha).

 

[JoeESP9]

I'm in complete agreement with robert_kc and post #57.

Doesn't anyone remember that the term HiFi (High Fidelity) came from the sentence "To reproduce with a high degree of fidelity".

 

[Poultrygeist]

For me it's about the journey not the destination.

And my journey requires experimentation and trying different things, most of which I've learned from audio forums.

 

[Condorsat]

I'm of the opinion that it is impossible to make recorded music sound "live", for the simple reason that it isn't. I can't re-create a concert in my front room, even with music that was recorded live. There isn't enough space, there aren't several hundred(or thousand) people around me, and my speakers can't move enough air. I accepted that fact long ago. And studio recordings can never, EVER sound live. Many times, the band didn't even play a whole SONG together in the studio, much less an entire album. Most studio recordings are a combination of several 'takes', processed to sound a certain way. What you wind up with is an engineer's interpretation of what the producer tells him the band wants it to sound like. They can't know what gear anyone is going to use to play it back through, or how room acoustics will change the nature of the recording. Even if I had all the same equipment they used to master an individual record/cd, my front room has different acoustics than the studio. I probably don't even have the same brand of headphones the engineer used. To say my rig sounds live is just so much self-delusion.

Good point ... it's why the particular definition below ... has never been relevant to me ymmv... I listen to Classic Rock & Pop mostly. I like my audio rig to play 90% + of the recordings I like to listen too well.




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A key goal of audiophiles is to capture the experience of a live musical performance in a room with good acoustics, and reproduce it at home. It is widely agreed that this is very difficult and that even the best-regarded recording and playback systems rarely, if ever, achieve it.

 

[whell]

It seems like the older I get, the less I care about "gear" and the more I care about enjoying music. Part of it is certainly that I've got a system now that works really well for my needs. But I just don't get jazzed about "the latest and greatest" like I used to.

 

[Tom Brennan]

The goal was simple, I wanted the best sound possible (given economic constraints) from my hi-fis. What good sound actually is isn't the point.

 

[nailer]

To get the best possible requires knowing what good is.

 

[Tom Brennan]

To get the best possible requires knowing what good is.

Maybe. But as I said, that's not my point.

Anyway, in this hobby good is subjective. For instance loudspeaker engineers don't even agree on what a perfect loudspeaker should do, much less make one. People decide for themselves what's good when there are no objective goal posts.

 

[nailer]

Objective goal posts are subjectively determined and perfection is an unachievable goal.

 

[electronjohn]

One possible definition of "fidelity" is "faithfulness to the original". Applies to both my wife & music I'm 100& on one & getting close on the other.

 

[Alobar]

For me personally, I enjoy the music no matter what system it is on but I can usually enjoy it more on a better system. However, that depends on my mood. This morning actually, I was rocking out more and more engaged with my Klipsch iPod dock while I was in the shower than with my main system this week. The music just hit my mood right.

I seem to be on an opposite trajectory. I live remote in what is usually a very quiet place surrounded by high mountains in every direction, and fjords. I can hear a waterfall running 1/4 mile away or early in the am, hear small waves lapping up on the rocks, and when it is calm there isn't a sound otherwise. Other than on a long flight somewhere in which I use sound canceling headphones, I prefer not to listen to music at all unless it is sometime after 5pm and I am sitting in my listening chair. I guess I like the quiet during the day too much.

 

[Superampman]

Your interest can't be Hi-Fi if it isn't to accurately play back the recording whether good or bad.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Your interest can't be Hi-Fi if it isn't to accurately play back the recording whether good or bad.

The rub here is that it's damned near impossible for an audiophile to know when a recording is being played back accurately.

 

[E-Stat]

To get my daily emotional fix with music...

 

[willyrover]

Gear: 75%
Listening: 25%

I tend to listen to music the most when I've found a new piece of gear, or upgraded something, or built something. It's all about hearing something new in a familiar song. If my system stopped changing, I think I'd lose interest quickly.

 

[Superampman]

The rub here is that it's damned near impossible for an audiophile to know when a recording is being played back accurately.

Sure, and that's what makes it a hobby. The more real it sounds, the closer you are. You can't make it better than it is.