How do you measure how ‘HiFi’ something is?

[MajorFubar]

I was listening to the Themes album by Vangelis on cassette last night. In every measurable and scientifically-quantifiable way, it is inferior to the CD I own of the same album, because cassettes are less technically-competent than CDs, in the same way that records also are. So using technical competency as a method of ranking how HiFi something potentially will be, the cassette medium cannot possibly be considered as HiFi as CDs.

Yet I found the cassette version of the album far more enjoyable and immersive to listen to than the CD version. Assuming that the mastertape is at least as equally enjoyable and immersive to listen to, then the cassette version of the album, to my ears, is more HiFi than the CD, because it more faithfully reproduces those vital qualities.

But how can you quantify ‘enjoyment’ and ‘immersive’ so that you can put them on a new product’s spec sheet? If you could measure them, then it seems that totally against all odds my cassette deck (and probably my turntable) would have better figures for those two specs than my CD player and HRT DAC, even though the CDP and DAC would be vastly superior in every other measurable specification.

Certainly to my ears, those two qualities, which I feel are fundamental to how HiFi something is, are not inherently related to technical proficiency, bit-perfect datastreams, impressive S/N ratios, huge DRs nor anything else which is currently sold to us as being important.

 

[BenLaw]

You ask davedotco and accept his answer as final.

Btw, 'rudimental'?!

 

[MajorFubar]

Poor grammar! Now corrected, sorry.

 

[BenLaw]

Do you listen to much liquid funk or jungle?

 

[iQ Speakers]

Somebody read my mind :rofl:

 

[steve_1979]

Ok here's my attempt at a sensible answer (sorry guys).

High fidelity basically means low distortion. So you could just measure the amount of distortion to tell how 'hifi' something is. It wouldn't be all that simple though as there are different types of distortion and deciding which ones are the most important is open to argument.

 

[chebby]

How do you measure how ‘HiFi’ something is?

How well it reproduces a well recorded BBC Radio production (like the one I am currently listening to).

With the lights low and the volume turned up (to the point where foreground voices match the levels of our own at the same distance) it's uncanny.

You really do reach the point where the acoustics of the spaces people are talking in (churches, cafes, pubs, cars, offices, outdoors in towns, outdoors in the countryside etc.) and the noises (of their clothes when they move, birdsong, distant cars driving past etc.) subsume the acoustic properties of the room you are listening in. This all helps the story take over and - to use your word - immerse you in their world.

This is not necessarily format dependent. It happens with a good FM broadcast, CD replay and rips from my BBC CDs played back via AirPlay (320K AAC) like the example I linked above.

 

[CnoEvil]

You can't measure subjective qualities, except with your own ears.

How for example, do you measure authenticity, believability, emotional content, realism, immediacy, authority and refinement - these are the sort of things I look for in a system.

 

[MajorFubar]

Do you listen to much liquid funk or jungle?

No.

 

[Bigsounds]

I don't understand HiFi terminology, it's all meaningless gobbledygook to keep readers entertained, to me it either sounds one of three things, good, average or poor, but if you to write a review saying I thought it sounded good no one would read it or buy it unless it was dressed up with flowery language, saying something has a very hfi sound is just another one of those meaningless expression chucked about that is open to the readers own interpretation.

Fidelity means faithful, so being faithful to the original signal which will be impossible because everything is a compromise including our room which adds to the distortions that have gone before it.

The solution,?, quit worrying.

 

[CnoEvil]

The solution,?, quit worrying.

The solution is to get the system that brings the music to life.....put enjoyment at the heart of the decision process, and trust what you like.

 

[Um]

I don't understand HiFi terminology, it's all meaningless gobbledygook to keep readers entertained, to me it either sounds one of three things, good, average or poor, but if you to write a review saying I thought it sounded good no one would read it or buy it unless it was dressed up with flowery language, saying something has a very hfi sound is just another one of those meaningless expression chucked about that is open to the readers own interpretation.

Fidelity means faithful, so being faithful to the original signal which will be impossible because everything is a compromise including our room which adds to the distortions that have gone before it.

The solution,?, quit worrying.

yeah ....... What he said

 

[Leeps]

True hi-fidelity and musical enjoyment are sometimes experienced at the same time and sometimes they are not. Much depends on whether you actually want to listen to the original sound the producer intended, or whether your tastes disagree with him/her.
This may help to explain how some manufacturers known for a little coloration of the signal (Roksan, Spendor) find many loyal customers and why spending more money on hifi kit may or may not result in a smile on your face.

 

[MajorFubar]

True hi-fidelity and musical enjoyment are sometimes experienced at the same time and sometimes they are not. Much depends on whether you actually want to listen to the original sound the producer intended, or whether your tastes disagree with him/her.

This is true, but the point I was making...isn't a piece of equipment which conveys emotion and involvement (and all those other immeasurable quaities) just as (or more) 'HiFi' than something which is technically superior, but fails to convey them.

 

[CnoEvil]

...and why spending more money on hifi kit may or may not result in a smile on your face.

I spent the morning listening to expensive systems that did exactly that.....whereas the systems at a fraction of the cost made me smile.

 

[lindsayt]

Assuming you listened to both versions at about the same volume, if the cassette version sounds better it is better.

If it sounds better, chances are it is closer to the original multi-tracked performances in the ways that are most important to your ears.

There are lots of aspects of sound reproduction that can't be measured with laboratory equipment, but can be heard by our ears.

The master tape version of that album is very likely to sound a few steps better than the cassette version when played on a properly adjusted professional tape machine.

 

[davedotco]

The solution,?, quit worrying.

The solution is to get the system that brings the music to life.....put enjoyment at the heart of the decision process, and trust what you like.

I am mostly with you on this, the only caveat being that I think experience of what a variety of real music sounds like makes the decision process both easier and more likely to produce a system that will satisfy in the longer term.

We have spoken about this before, whether it is better to reproduce the music as closely as possible to what is actually on the disc (or whatever format) or to try and get as close as possible to the essence of the musical performance itself.

I have always favoured the latter appoach though I do sympathise with those who feel that reproducing the disc as 'accurately' as possible, through equipment that is as 'transparent' as possible results in the best system.

As someone who has an interest in the whole record, produce, playback process I can see the attraction of choosing such a system.

 

[Covenanter]

We have spoken about this before, whether it is better to reproduce the music as closely as possible to what is actually on the disc (or whatever format) or to try and get as close as possible to the essence of the musical performance itself.

I suppose my problem is to understand how a system can achieve the latter without doing the former! What is it that a system can add or subtract from the recording that brings us closer to the performance?

I suppose we are talking about a system doing something that a particular listener wants to hear rather than anything else.

Chris

 

[MajorFubar]

I did an experiment last night.

Going back to the album which started this train of thought for me ('Themes' by Vangelis). I recorded a few tracks from the CD version using my CD63 KI to a new-ish TDK SA tape and had a good listen afterwards. The result: it sounded like a really good recording of the CD, but somehow it still failed to be as emotively involving and captivating as the original cassette tape of the same album. Read into that what you will.

 

[davedotco]

We have spoken about this before, whether it is better to reproduce the music as closely as possible to what is actually on the disc (or whatever format) or to try and get as close as possible to the essence of the musical performance itself.

I suppose my problem is to understand how a system can achieve the latter without doing the former! What is it that a system can add or subtract from the recording that brings us closer to the performance?

I suppose we are talking about a system doing something that a particular listener wants to hear rather than anything else.

Chris

Good question, and one that I struggle with myself much of the time.

Best I can do is this, I guess we have all heard systems that clearly favour one style of music over another, systems, for example that emphasise pace and drive some rock and jazz material to great effect, yet fall apart when required to reproduce the temporal and tonal complexities of, say, acoustic or classical material.

I used (as a dealer) to hear this sort of thing all the time, but the limitations of such a system are pretty clear to anyone, I would think.

However there are a few components and systems that seem to have something of a trick, they somehow manage to make all types of music sound more lifelike, irrespective of the style and without apparantly emphasising anything. I know that in rational terms that is probably nonsense but it does seem to happen, God knows how.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

No..no, I'm sorry but you're just making this stuff up, maybe you hate the digital medium but sitting there saying the tape was more immersive than the cd version...stop it, just stop it.

Maybe you prefer low res music, low hiss, poor dynamics I don't know, but you're making this stuff up, don't know why these guys are entertaining you.

Cassette tape.......just stop it.

 

[steve_1979]

I did an experiment last night.

Going back to the album which started this train of thought for me ('Themes' by Vangelis). I recorded a few tracks from the CD version using my CD63 KI to a new-ish TDK SA tape and had a good listen afterwards. The result: it sounded like a really good recording of the CD, but somehow it still failed to be as emotively involving and captivating as the original cassette tape of the same album. Read into that what you will.

Could the CD and tape versions just be differently 'mastered' versions of the same album?

 

[Mr.H]

I did an experiment last night.

Going back to the album which started this train of thought for me ('Themes' by Vangelis). I recorded a few tracks from the CD version using my CD63 KI to a new-ish TDK SA tape and had a good listen afterwards. The result: it sounded like a really good recording of the CD, but somehow it still failed to be as emotively involving and captivating as the original cassette tape of the same album. Read into that what you will.

You did your experiment the wrong way around! You need to record the output of your cassette deck with a computer and burn that to a CD and compare the two, making sure not to clip during the recording process and then ensuring equal playback levels when comparing how "cassette" and then "cassette recorded onto CD" sound relative to each other.

As others have said "HiFi" literally stands for "high fidelity" and this is possible to measure with test equipment e.g. distortion, frequency response, dynamic range etc. As you said, in almost every conceivable way cassette is inferior to CD (in strict "fidelity" terms) so there is something about the character of cassette sound (the way the playback medium alters/distorts the signal) that you prefer over CD, in the case of this particular album.

That having been said, are you sure that the two recordings are mastered the same? Have you analysed both with dynamic range analysis software? Perhaps the CD version has suffered dynamic range compression during the mastering process (not an inherent problem with the CD medium) due to the loudness war.

 

[lindsayt]

Assuming MajorFubar is using the cassette deck listed in his signature, we're not talking about listening to any old budget cassette deck. We're talking about listening to a Nakamichi DR-1. One of the best cassette decks ever made.

 

[MajorFubar]

No..no, I'm sorry but you're just making this stuff up, maybe you hate the digital medium but sitting there saying the tape was more immersive than the cd version...stop it, just stop it.

Maybe you prefer low res music, low hiss, poor dynamics I don't know, but you're making this stuff up, don't know why these guys are entertaining you.

Cassette tape.......just stop it.

Maybe you've just never heard a decent cassette player? Suspect with your very dismissive narrow-minded attitude that you haven't. And by decent it doesn't have to be a Nak, just not some cheap nasty piece of cr-p made by Matsui or similar, which Joe Public thinks is the beginning and end. I can show you recordings that you'd be hard-pushed to tell from the original source.

And no, I don't hate the digital medium. In fact compared to some, I was an early investor, some 25+ years ago when 'digital replay' meant 'CDs'.