High fidelity

[Covenanter]

I saw somewhere on this forum a post which suggested that a hi-fi system didn’t need to reproduce something that sounded like the original performance. Now the “fi” part of hi-fi is short for “fidelity” which means truthfulness so hi-fi means something like “highly truthful to the original”.

I seriously wonder whether posters to this forum are actually interested in “hi-fi” or in something which simply sounds good. Now there is nothing wrong with having a great sounding system but if it can’t reproduce original performances it ain’t hi-fi! Now there’s nothing wrong with that but we shouldn’t deceive ourselves!

Similarly there are highly favourable reviews of speakers on this site which I know from listening to them can’t actually reproduce the sound of a piano! I know what pianos sound like, I live less than 1 mile from Symphony Hall in Birmingham and have been going to concerts for 50 years! I am willing to suggest that the reviewers on this site don't really know whay they are talking about. How can they justify giving a high rating to a speaker which can't reproduce accurate sound? They either can't hear properly or ...

So, whilst I hate to be controversial, is this site simply a sham?

Discuss!!!

Chris

 

[plastic penguin]

Why is it a sham? it could be if you took, which you seem to have done, the word hi-fi and looked it up in a dictionary. To me hi-fi is TWO-CHANNEL stereo.

Every individual has their own take on how there system should sound. Me? It has to be fun. It needs to put a big smile on my face. My system does that FOR ME. That's hi-fi. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway no-one has press ganged you into contributing. If you don't like this forum you have two choices: Look up other forums or press the 'OFF' button on you computer.

 

[CnoEvil]

This is one of those polemic debates that seldom gets consensus (but plenty of argument).

There are those who feel that a system should be completely neutral and faithful to the recording......then there are those that want fidelity to the actual instruments and don't worry how that happens (since nobody only the recording engineer knows exactly how it should sound).

The former group like to see measurements and objective tests to prove this accuracy, while the latter group don't give a stuff, as long as it sounds subjectively right.

 

[mykspence]

Any 'hi-fi' can only attempt to reproduce the sounds that are fed into it. Which isn't going to be how the instruments sound when heard first hand.

As for not wanting to be controversial, it's obvious that's exactly what you're trying (not very well) to be.

 

[MajorFubar]

So you've heard highly-rated speakers which in your opinion can't accurately reproduce the sound of a solo piano.

Hardly makes them universally crap does it?

Nor does it make the reviews a lie, a con, nor anything else.

 

[lindsayt]

Most of the recordings that I have are good enough to sound like the instruments when heard by a member of the audience in the concert hall, or in the recording booth. Some hi-fi systems are good enough to do a good recreation of the recording, some aren't.

Covenanter, which speakers have you heard that don't recreate piano well?

 

[matthewpiano]

Sorry, but going regularly to Symphony Hall doesn't mean you know enough about what pianos sound like to decide whether a particular speaker accurately reproduces them.

Put any two pianos side by side and they will sound different, even if played by exactly the same performer in exactly the same way. Even if they are both the same make and model of piano. Put those two pianos into different acoustics and they will sound different again.

Unless you can put a pair of speakers in the same room as the actual piano on which the recording was made you can't even start to say with any rigour how much 'fidelity' those speakers bring. Even then there are the in-between stages such as microphone choice, engineering choices etc. that are virtually impossible to account for.

See where this is going?

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I saw somewhere on this forum a post which suggested that a hi-fi system didn’t need to reproduce something that sounded like the original performance. Now the “fi” part of hi-fi is short for “fidelity” which means truthfulness so hi-fi means something like “highly truthful to the original”. I seriously wonder whether posters to this forum are actually interested in “hi-fi” or in something which simply sounds good. Now there is nothing wrong with having a great sounding system but if it can’t reproduce original performances it ain’t hi-fi! Now there’s nothing wrong with that but we shouldn’t deceive ourselves! Similarly there are highly favourable reviews of speakers on this site which I know from listening to them can’t actually reproduce the sound of a piano! I know what pianos sound like, I live less than 1 mile from Symphony Hall in Birmingham and have been going to concerts for 50 years! I am willing to suggest that the reviewers on this site don't really know whay they are talking about. How can they justify giving a high rating to a speaker which can't reproduce accurate sound? They either can't hear properly or ... So, whilst I hate to be controversial, is this site simply a sham? Discuss!!! Chris

personally, I'm simply separating forum from the mag. I just enjoy reading the forum and contributing to threads that interest me and I feel I can bring something in. the mag on the other hand is too superficial in it's reviewing technique for my liking. I would gladly see some measurements along listening impressions to back them up or contradict. and I think that rewards scale got very much inflated. you see 5* reviews all too often IMO, where 5* should be reserved for only exceptional products, I guess. it's hard to get any guidance when everything around is 5*. it's no different if I had no knowledge about products beforehand and just went into the shop to audition what's there already.

anyway, in case of what I think hi-fi is, or should be, I'm completely on your side. hi-fi is all about as best sound reproduction as possible IMO. otherwise it's not hi-fi. but it's also true there are many philosophies as to which means of sound reproduction bring you closest to the real thing. there's no single solution. like SET + efficient speakers vs. SS power plants + hard to drive speakers. or oversampling vs. non oversampling. or a lot of negative feedback or no feedback at all. or active speakers vs. passive speakers. or box speakers vs. open baffle speakers. etc. but which solution is the best, most faithful and most realistic? I guess the power to answer that question lies only in hands of the listener.

BTW, just out of curiosity, could you name speakers which in your opinion can replicate the sound of piano faithfully?

 

[FennerMachine]

Hi-Fi systems are partially about compromise.

Without silly money some aspect of the sound can always be improved upon.

Even then an expensive system might not reproduce exactly what the artist intended.

A speaker that can reproduce a piano well might struggle with something else and vice versa.

Also, trying to reproduce a 'live' performance is almost impossible as lots of recordings are made from lots of separate components (voice, instruments, backing singers) recorded separately, put together then 'fiddled' with to get the sound the artist, label and sound engineer want.

You can really only hope to reproduce live performances as 'live' if they have been recorded and mastered VERY will.

As systems are about compromise a speaker that might not replicate a piano well might do other things very well indeed and as a result may suit someone who rarely listens to piano music.

Some systems (source, amp, speakers) are even said to be well suited for classical music but fall when presented with rock. The same can be said in reverse.

There are some systems that do well with both but do neither masterfully.

Then you get some systems that seem to work with whatever you through at them.

But all of these systems can be improved upon one way or another.

I'll stop there with an essay as I almost started writing a book!

 

[Al ears]

Hi-Fi systems are all about compromise.

You are never actually going to accurately reproduce the concert recorded in The Royal Albert Hall in your living room, no matter how hard you try.

What you aim for is something that you think replicates it as best as possible!

Oh, and while we're on about speakers and pianos, can anyone show me a speaker that can accurately reproduce the full range of a piano that I can a) actually afford, and b) actually fit in a modern home's living room??

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Listening to music in a concert hall is no indication of the tue sound of anything.

Its like listening to someone singing in a tiled bathroom, then hearing said person singing in the living room. Accoustics of an area have a major impact on what you hear. So while the piano in question may sound a certain way in the contcert hall, that is no indication to what you will hear in a sound treated room. Yet the piano out put will be the same ( you guys see what I did there?)

The main difference listening to a 'live' accoustic performance and via hi fi is seperation of instruments plucks, strums tone etc, and note degridation. Even listening to an 'electric' performance (if mics & speakers are used) is not an accurate indicator of what these instruments 'should' sound like and is dependent on equipment used. (the same fobbles as you'll find in hi fi can be applied here) Also how your ears and brain dissifer the info it recieves is also a factor.

So nothing wrong with reviewers giving hi scores to equ that gives them what they want from the music they listen to.

 

[Covenanter]

Ok I was deliberately trying to be controversial but it does seem to me that the forum is largely about what a former (female) marketing manager of mine called “willy waggling”. The habit of listing equipment owned at the bottom of each post is an example of this. Personally I don’t care if you have the Okey Cokey 5000 or not. It’s like personalised number plates, the only people who are impressed are the owner and those people who are not worth impressing! I certainly don’t care what equipment you have in your bedroom or your bathroom. I only do two things in my bedroom, one of them is sleeping and the other isn’t, and neither require the use of any equipment, hi-fi or other.

What I am interested in is listening to music and in what experiences people have with equipment which may enhance that listening. I’ve picked up all sorts of useful and interesting stuff from this forum, indeed I read through a lot of it before choosing kit to audition, but you have to wade through a lot of frankly less interesting stuff to get to the gold.

The point I was making about “fidelity” was that unless you have heard live performances you wouldn’t know what was or wasn’t accurate. Perhaps the mag should change its name to “What nice sound”? I don’t think that you can ever completely replicate a live performance in your home but I do think you can get quite close and that is what I am interested in.

Chris

PS I don’t think all pianos sound the same but I do think they sound like pianos! For example most pianos are tuned to A440 but I believe in Russia they are tuned to A442. Not sure I could hear the difference but I know that some could.

PPS The speakers that I auditioned which had problems with piano music were the MA BX5s. As I posted elsewhere, after a lengthy audition process gradually increasing the quality of the speakers I’d narrowed my choice to them or the KEF Q500s and I thought the MAs were great and better than the KEFS with “pop” music, Cream tracks for example seemed more integrated, and, whilst the KEFS were a bit more analytical and revealing with solo instruments and voices, I thought the MAs were the better all-round speaker. Then I got out my last test CD, Marta Argerich playing the Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto and I couldn’t believe my ears! These speakers which had sounded great now sounded simply wrong, as I said elsewhere “like a recording of a piano rather than a piano”. I did a double take and had the guy at Superfi play the same passage twice on the MAs and on the KEFS in quick succession to make sure that I wasn’t going mad. I wasn’t. I seriously wonder if the reviewers here play a wide enough spectrum of music to get a balanced view (and I’m not being snobbish about music, tastes differ and whatever floats your boat is fine by me). BTW the KEFS have got better on “pop” music as I have run them in or maybe my ears have got more used to the way they reproduce it.

 

[BenLaw]

Ok I was deliberately trying to be controversial but it does seem to me that the forum is largely about what a former (female) marketing manager of mine called “willy waggling”. The habit of listing equipment owned at the bottom of each post is an example of this. Personally I don’t care if you have the Okey Cokey 5000 or not. It’s like personalised number plates, the only people who are impressed are the owner and those people who are not worth impressing! I certainly don’t care what equipment you have in your bedroom or your bathroom. I only do two things in my bedroom, one of them is sleeping and the other isn’t, and neither require the use of any equipment, hi-fi or other.

So in your first post you slag off the magazine that hosts / funds this forum, and in your second you slag off a sizeable proportion of the mebers of the forum, very well done.

 

[stevebrock]

Come on chaps this is a discussion forum, yes the OP is entitled to his opinion and we have to respect that, in the same vein I agree that hifi to me is 2 channel stereo!

 

[GSB]

as for displaying a sig,i thought the reason was to identify what one is useing for the benefit of those that answer ones questions or problems :wall:

 

[lindsayt]

Ok I was deliberately trying to be controversial but it does seem to me that the forum is largely about what a former (female) marketing manager of mine called “willy waggling”. The habit of listing equipment owned at the bottom of each post is an example of this. Personally I don’t care if you have the Okey Cokey 5000 or not. It’s like personalised number plates, the only people who are impressed are the owner and those people who are not worth impressing! I certainly don’t care what equipment you have in your bedroom or your bathroom. I only do two things in my bedroom, one of them is sleeping and the other isn’t, and neither require the use of any equipment, hi-fi or other.

So in your first post you slag off the magazine that hosts / funds this forum, and in your second you slag off a sizeable proportion of the mebers of the forum, very well done.

Ben do you disagree with any points that Covenanter has made? If so which points and why?

Whilst I think he could have expressed himself a bit more diplomatically I agree with everything he's said in this thread.

I know where he is coming from when he mentions speakers like the MA's not being good with piano music. Some speakers struggle to recreate the rich tone, timbre and dynamics of a piano, just as some record players struggle to recreate the pitch stability, tone, timbre, detail and dynamics of pianos.

 

[plastic penguin]

Ok I was deliberately trying to be controversial but it does seem to me that the forum is largely about what a former (female) marketing manager of mine called “willy waggling”. The habit of listing equipment owned at the bottom of each post is an example of this. Personally I don’t care if you have the Okey Cokey 5000 or not. It’s like personalised number plates, the only people who are impressed are the owner and those people who are not worth impressing! I certainly don’t care what equipment you have in your bedroom or your bathroom. I only do two things in my bedroom, one of them is sleeping and the other isn’t, and neither require the use of any equipment, hi-fi or other.

What I am interested in is listening to music and in what experiences people have with equipment which may enhance that listening. I’ve picked up all sorts of useful and interesting stuff from this forum, indeed I read through a lot of it before choosing kit to audition, but you have to wade through a lot of frankly less interesting stuff to get to the gold.

The point I was making about “fidelity” was that unless you have heard live performances you wouldn’t know what was or wasn’t accurate. Perhaps the mag should change its name to “What nice sound”? I don’t think that you can ever completely replicate a live performance in your home but I do think you can get quite close and that is what I am interested in.

Chris

PS I don’t think all pianos sound the same but I do think they sound like pianos! For example most pianos are tuned to A440 but I believe in Russia they are tuned to A442. Not sure I could hear the difference but I know that some could.

PPS The speakers that I auditioned which had problems with piano music were the MA BX5s. As I posted elsewhere, after a lengthy audition process gradually increasing the quality of the speakers I’d narrowed my choice to them or the KEF Q500s and I thought the MAs were great and better than the KEFS with “pop” music, Cream tracks for example seemed more integrated, and, whilst the KEFS were a bit more analytical and revealing with solo instruments and voices, I thought the MAs were the better all-round speaker. Then I got out my last test CD, Marta Argerich playing the Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto and I couldn’t believe my ears! These speakers which had sounded great now sounded simply wrong, as I said elsewhere “like a recording of a piano rather than a piano”. I did a double take and had the guy at Superfi play the same passage twice on the MAs and on the KEFS in quick succession to make sure that I wasn’t going mad. I wasn’t. I seriously wonder if the reviewers here play a wide enough spectrum of music to get a balanced view (and I’m not being snobbish about music, tastes differ and whatever floats your boat is fine by me). BTW the KEFS have got better on “pop” music as I have run them in or maybe my ears have got more used to the way they reproduce it.

All you're trying to do now is to dampen down your original post. Clearly you do have a gripe with the forum and the members, and what they don't know about real instruments.

I've never come across someone so patronising!!

A couple of members are piano players, another plays guitar in a rock/pop band, another plays drums in a heavy metal outfit... numerous others who play intruments of one sort or another. And since 1975 I've been to more gigs of all venue sizes than you can shake a stick at, so I have a pretty good idea of what a real instrument should sound like. This has no bearing on how my system sounds.

I love my set-up because it gives me and my family years of enjoyment, and not how accurate or inaccurate it sounds.

 

[GSB]

could the same critism be levaled at PA's.....?

an accoustic drum kit sounds completley different over a PA imho.

 

[busb]

So, whilst I hate to be controversial, is this site simply a sham? Discuss!!! Chris

God forbid, of course you're not trying to be contraversial! As for competing in the Most Poplular Poster award, you have some stiff competition from Thomsonuxb (or myself for that matter)!

Although I largely argree that concert going of acoustic music does give one a degree of experience what music should sound like at home, many or even most will dissagree. My view is that HiFi is edging closer but brass instruments don't have the attack & edge they do live & noticeably so!

As for the intended "purpose" of HiFi, again, opinions will vary. My own view is that no part of my HiFi should convey any emotion whatsoever - none, zilch! Wht it should do is get out of the way & let the music carry the emotional content without adding or subtracting from that as much as physics allows. Some people desire a "warm" sound which I have difficulty interpreting as anything other than seeking coloration - ulimately it's each to their own even when visiting over people's homes where the bass tone control is wound up or speakers booming against a wall.

 

[BenLaw]

Ben do you disagree with any points that Covenanter has made? If so which points and why?

Whilst I think he could have expressed himself a bit more diplomatically I agree with everything he's said in this thread.

I know where he is coming from when he mentions speakers like the MA's not being good with piano music. Some speakers struggle to recreate the rich tone, timbre and dynamics of a piano, just as some record players struggle to recreate the pitch stability, tone, timbre, detail and dynamics of pianos.

A fair question lindsay, and when it is asked politely rather than with needless and intentional confrontation, I'm more than prepared to answer civilly.

I personally agree with the sentiments in the first 2 paras of the OP. OTOH I don't see any point trying to start an argument over it, as there's a vast range of different kit to cater for all possible tastes and as long as people have kit they like that makes music sound how they like, then I don't really care what they call it, nor do I expect them to come on this or any other forum and start specifying whether their kit is 'hifi' or uses some other description.

I disagree with the sentiment in the third para of the OP. I haven't heard them, but it wouldn't surprise me if the BX5s can't properly reproduce piano. These are cheap, small box speakers with limitations and compromises. As the OP says, they do some things very well, and others not so well. This doesn't necessarily prevent them being 5 star speakers, given that WHF has a relative and price comparable star system. So they are saying BX5s are one of the top rank of speakers in that price range, doing more well and less badly than other similar products. 5 stars does not mean they are perfect in every regard. I know that you will understand the inherent limitations of such a speaker.

I also, therefore, disagree that WHF reviewers do not know what they are talking about. I don't always agree with them (although IME they rarely give a proper lemon 5 stars or an absolute winner 2 or 3 stars), but they are experienced and knowledgable subjective reviewers, with overly damped listening rooms and an occasional abundance of enthusiasm and journalistic flair. As they themselves say, never rely on their reviews without listening yourself.

I think he's being a ***** in the first para of his second post. I recognise some people consider elaborate sigs to be showing off, but again it doesn't bother me in the slightest, life's too short. We're all enthusiasts, so personally I find it interesting to see what others have. For those new to the forum, it can be useful to know what kit someone has in order to weigh up their opinion. If a specific product is recommended it can be useful to see if the poster owns it (they may have good experience) or doesn't own it (it may be a more impartial view). I also love to see photos of other people's kit, and encourage posting of photos where I can. It would be a bit hypocritical of me not to put my own photos up in those circumstances. I hope it isn't generally considered 'willy waggling', as that is the reason why; I hope some people get pleasure at looking at the photos, and those that don't need not look at them.

That para demonstrated the OP's needlessly confrontational attitude. In addtition to the two things the OP listed, I use my bedroom for dressing, reading, making phone calls, browsing the internet, watching TV, watching discs, listening to music, eating, drinking etc etc

The third para of his second post is subjectivism masquerading as objectivism. As has been well pointed out, comparing a concert one goes to (without presumably having a CD of that actual performance to make a direct comparison) with what one hears at home does not assist. Measurements can be used if he wants to check how faithful particular kit is, but if he wants to go down that route clearly he should be buying a different magazine from WHF. The insinuation that anyone who buys kit that they 'merely' 'like the sound of' has not heard any 'live performances' is patronising and offensive.

 

[BenLaw]

As for competing in the Most Poplular Poster award, you have some stiff competition from Thomsonuxb (or myself for that matter)!

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news busb, but you're a million miles away from those two! And personally I wouldn't even put you third

 

[busb]

as for displaying a sig,i thought the reason was to identify what one is useing for the benefit of those that answer ones questions or problems :wall:

Exactly. Although in my case listing the radios I have in my kitchen & bathroom is probably a little OTT! Hint therfore taken.

 

[busb]

As for competing in the Most Poplular Poster award, you have some stiff competition from Thomsonuxb (or myself for that matter)!

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news busb, but you're a million miles away from those two! And personally I wouldn't even put you third

I just considered it good form to say that out of diplomacy! But hey, thanks & I promise to try harder!

 

[CnoEvil]

I also love to see photos of other people's kit, and encourage posting of photos where I can. It would be a bit hypocritical of me not to put my own photos up in those circumstances. I hope it isn't generally considered 'willy waggling', as that is the reason why; I hope some people get pleasure at looking at the photos, and those that don't need not look at them.

Hurrumph!

By pushing me into posting photos of my system, you've now turned me into a "willie waggler," which I'm not at all sure that I'm pleased about!! :wall:

 

[BenLaw]

I also love to see photos of other people's kit, and encourage posting of photos where I can. It would be a bit hypocritical of me not to put my own photos up in those circumstances. I hope it isn't generally considered 'willy waggling', as that is the reason why; I hope some people get pleasure at looking at the photos, and those that don't need not look at them.

Hurrumph! By pushing me into posting photos of my system, you've now turned me into a "willie waggler," which I'm not at all sure that I'm pleased about!! :wall:

In your case, if you've got an impressive willy that you've been talking about for ages and loads of people want to see, then waggle away. Or something.