It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[Anonymous]

I like this thread. It's slowly vexing through all of the usual hifi forum argument topics. Maybe we can cover them all and banish it to hell. If you believe in hell. But we all know that exists...

Some of the more recent points seem to revolve around the definition of hifi. On a simple level there's always appeared to be two camps: those that aim for accuracy and those that like colourations. The latter is where the greatest amount of subjectivity comes into it because different people like different things. Measurement is best, but how can you find an approach to measure your own preference? I doubt we can, but in theory it's possible.

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

 

[Anonymous]

So why the objection to scientific fact?

No objection to scientific fact here. Just the objection to the way 'science' is bandied around as if only a (very) few companies apply it's principles to the design of their products and the rest must therefore be relying on folklore or pixie-dust or Shamenism instead!

And because of the way 'science' is bandied around as if only the purchasers of a very few, selected products are cogniscent of scientific principles and are, therefore, capable of true objectivism. (Compared to the rest of us idiots - who listen to a product to decide whether we like the sound - who are obviously hopelessly unenlightened 'subjectivists' who reject science!)

All hi-fi and AV components are based on sound scientific principles applied to their respective technologies, otherwise they wouldn't work.

Your response seems to be out of context, Chebby. Nobody is arguing the science necessary to design and build the electronics. Thanks for the helpful underlining as it wouldn't have been as patronising without it and your intention would have been missed. I don't think that a lot of hifi equipment designers use the science to the ultimate aim of accurate audio reproduction but rather go for colourations to meet the market requirements. Isn't this partly what the UK audio industry is famous for?

 

[BenLaw]

I don't think that a lot of hifi equipment designers use the science to the ultimate aim of accurate audio reproduction but rather go for colourations to meet the market requirements. Isn't this partly what the UK audio industry is famous for?

Without any value judgments, +1

 

[Alec]

I don't think that a lot of hifi equipment designers use the science to the ultimate aim of accurate audio reproduction but rather go for colourations to meet the market requirements. Isn't this partly what the UK audio industry is famous for?

Without any value judgments, +1

+2

 

[BenLaw]

So why the objection to scientific fact?

No objection to scientific fact here. Just the objection to the way 'science' is bandied around as if only a (very) few companies apply it's principles to the design of their products and the rest must therefore be relying on folklore or pixie-dust or Shamenism instead!

Although I don't believe your point is valid with cables. Having previously trawled through the websites of many manufacturers, there is clearly only 'pseudo-science' being used as marketing supposedly to support claims of why cable x is transparent, or 'black', or textured, or whatever.

 

[SteveR750]

You could "prove" scientifically the accuracy of audio reproduction failry easily, but since a home hi fi system is not an professional studio or bhusiness then accuracy is only important to the sbjective demands of the beholder. The trace on the oscilloscope is completely irrelevant in that respect, and I thought the industry had moved on from the 70s Japanese obession with trech specs (even if they were presented in an optimistically positive way) For home hi fi, how meany people are really going to be affected by the outcome of blind testing? Interesting subject to debate and stimulate the grey matter perhaps, but for most of us that's all it amounts to.

Fair enough. Some would argue that what you are in to in that case is not hifi. And in saying that I make no value judgement.

IMO Hi Fi is at least partly about hardware, otherwise what are you left with...music? (or sound)

 

[SteveR750]

I don't think that a lot of hifi equipment designers use the science to the ultimate aim of accurate audio reproduction but rather go for colourations to meet the market requirements. Isn't this partly what the UK audio industry is famous for?

Without any value judgments, +1

+2

and 3

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

How do you technically measure music?? It's just rubbish.

well, this is total nonsense. how could you expect to recreate something which nature you don't know? you'd probably have more luck hitting bullseye with a dart blindfolded than designing hi-fi without knowledge of music and sounds. 2 words my ignorant friend - Fourier Transform. every complex wave can be stripped down so it can be represented by sinusoids and cosines. if you're feeling strong enough you could have a read. just one of many articles on the topic.

so, if you have a graph of the original wave you just have to design a hi-fi which will be able to faithfully recreate it. easy - peasy.

as Ken Ishiwata says simply assembling the best components (capictors, ICs etc) won't guarantee the best hifi.

and who is Ken Ishiwata? just some ambassador of one of the brands competing in budget market. what else would you expect him to say? :clap:

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

maybe I shouldn't be even writing because I feel it's a joke. but here it is. there's no loss to wav equivalent on decompressing of compressed file. analogy to RAR or ZIP files.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I don't think that a lot of hifi equipment designers use the science to the ultimate aim of accurate audio reproduction but rather go for colourations to meet the market requirements.

I think this is very good point. if it wasn't so then (hold on!) - everything would sound the same...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[John Duncan]

On a simple level there's always appeared to be two camps: those that aim for accuracy and those that like colourations. The latter is where the greatest amount of subjectivity comes into it because different people like different things.

Accuracy is impossible. And before you ask, this is not a dig at any manufacturer...

Whilst in theory active speakers are more technically accurate, if you play something through them that was mastered at Abbey Road, you won't hear what they heard, since their setup is passive and is therefore distorted. So what you're hearing is an accurate representation of what was on tape, but not an accurate representation of what was heard in the control room. So you might as well listen to different hifis and see which one you *enjoy* the best. Which is what I'm doing

I have just thought of this argument and like it a lot. Am I being too simplistic?

 

[matthewpiano]

John, this is a more succinct version of my argument and I agree with you completely. Not too simplistic, merely realistic.

 

[SteveR750]

and is precisely my view too.

 

[Alec]

Am I being too simplistic?

Yes, a little And playing with definitions of "accuracte". You seem to be saying it's accurate on actives (ans this is the first time I've touched on that in this thread) but not what was heard in the studio, and therefore, well, innacurate.

Digging at folk is fine (I know you weren't) but some read things between the lines which are not there. I really am only saying what I have written on the lines.

 

[the record spot]

I tend to go with the music that was heard in the studio will sound different to that which ends up on the disc or download you buy. By the time it's been produced, mastered, then later remastered (and sometimes remastered again a la Peter Gabriel or the Stones to name but two), then your system - accurate or otherwise - is just making a stab at what it's got to work with.

Achieving neutrality, which I think is what we're also talking about, is difficult to achieve and not something everyone wants.

 

[Alec]

Indeed, if there is no accuracy (I'm not sure I buy that yet), there is no "hifi", and so we are all just folk who like music through 2 channel stereo systems, with some liking the systems a bit more than the music.

 

[Overdose]

On a simple level there's always appeared to be two camps: those that aim for accuracy and those that like colourations. The latter is where the greatest amount of subjectivity comes into it because different people like different things.

Accuracy is impossible. And before you ask, this is not a dig at any manufacturer... Whilst in theory active speakers are more technically accurate, if you play something through them that was mastered at Abbey Road, you won't hear what they heard, since their setup is passive and is therefore distorted. So what you're hearing is an accurate representation of what was on tape, but not an accurate representation of what was heard in the control room. So you might as well listen to different hifis and see which one you *enjoy* the best. Which is what I'm doing I have just thought of this argument and like it a lot. Am I being too simplistic?

I don't think so, but accuracy is a bit meaningless in terms of equipment. A lack of distortion is what we should all be looking for, or clarity by another name. Anything else can be dealt with, if necessary, by the judicious use of an EQ! :shhh:

 

[John Duncan]

Indeed, if there is no accuracy (I'm not sure I buy that yet), there is no "hifi", and so we are all just folk who like music through 2 channel stereo systems

I think that's exactly what I'm saying, yes. I'm not sure I've thought of it in those terms before, but am liking it a lot.

To your previous point:

I was making generalisations about which kinds of systems are generally regarded as accurate and which are not. Wasn't point scoring, just a useful example of two different kinds of equipment which have - generalising - particular traits.

My point is that *nobody* can produce a system that will accurately represent every studio or set of recording equipment ever made, which is why 'accurate' equipment - whatever its design philosophy - is by definition, unless it's the same equipment used to master a particular recording, nothing of the sort.

Which is a bit of a bummer really, otherwise we could all go home

 

[John Duncan]

Actually, I can expand on one point. There is high fidelity, there just isn't absolute fidelity. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Anonymous]

I've owned three different pairs of active studio monitors and they all sounded very different. Adam A5X, KRK RP8G2s and Alesis M1 Active Mk 2s. So which ones were accurate? Were any? I don't know but the ones that are generally thought to be the most accurate of the three were by far the best.. The Adams...

 

[Anonymous]

On a simple level there's always appeared to be two camps: those that aim for accuracy and those that like colourations. The latter is where the greatest amount of subjectivity comes into it because different people like different things.

Accuracy is impossible. And before you ask, this is not a dig at any manufacturer... Whilst in theory active speakers are more technically accurate, if you play something through them that was mastered at Abbey Road, you won't hear what they heard, since their setup is passive and is therefore distorted. So what you're hearing is an accurate representation of what was on tape, but not an accurate representation of what was heard in the control room. So you might as well listen to different hifis and see which one you *enjoy* the best. Which is what I'm doing I have just thought of this argument and like it a lot. Am I being too simplistic?

Well, when it comes to the production of source material, there's a huge variation in sound. But you can't second guess how every producer is hearing it but rather aim to reproduce it as accurately as possible. Ultimately you have to go for the sound you prefer, but in my limited experience overt colourations will ruin as well as aid music. Therefore I have a neutral system and use an EQ for the material if I want to. This varies with mood as much as recording!

 

[Dave_]

I've owned three different pairs of active studio monitors and they all sounded very different. Adam A5X, KRK RP8G2s and Alesis M1 Active Mk 2s. So which ones were accurate? Were any? I don't know but the ones that are generally thought to be the most accurate of the three were by far the best.. The Adams...

None of them in your reflective room, i suspect

 

[Alec]

Actually, I can expand on one point. There is high fidelity, there just isn't absolute fidelity. Never has been, never will be.

Fair dos, and I know you were not point scoring, I saw your point; the slightly ranty part about reading between lines was not aimed at you and I shouldnt really have put it in that post.

And something else, which will have to wait as I've forgotten what I meant to say.

 

[BenLaw]

On a simple level there's always appeared to be two camps: those that aim for accuracy and those that like colourations. The latter is where the greatest amount of subjectivity comes into it because different people like different things.

Accuracy is impossible. And before you ask, this is not a dig at any manufacturer... Whilst in theory active speakers are more technically accurate, if you play something through them that was mastered at Abbey Road, you won't hear what they heard, since their setup is passive and is therefore distorted. So what you're hearing is an accurate representation of what was on tape, but not an accurate representation of what was heard in the control room. So you might as well listen to different hifis and see which one you *enjoy* the best. Which is what I'm doing I have just thought of this argument and like it a lot. Am I being too simplistic?

Well, when it comes to the production of source material, there's a huge variation in sound. But you can't second guess how every producer is hearing it but rather aim to reproduce it as accurately as possible. Ultimately you have to go for the sound you prefer, but in my limited experience overt colourations will ruin as well as aid music.

This is absolutely right. By having accurate, low distortion kit you are more likely to get a close representation of the intended original more often. Kit that leans in one particular direction can exacerbate problems in music that has been recorded such that it already leans in the same direction.

JD is also right to say there will never be a perfect reproduction of what the engineer heard, and never a perfectly neutral, entirely undistorted set of kit. But 'two wrongs don't make a right', and you will get consistently closer to the original with accurate, low distortion kit.

The flipside of this is the fact that engineers master music with their intended audience in mind, often to the detriment of the SQ. This is what leads to the 'loudness' war. It is well known anecdotally that lots of music is made to have a 'smile' frequency response, ie boosted bass and boosted treble, because this is what people like. I have read that one way engineers achieve this is by using monitors with the opposite frequency response (ie lowered bass and lowered treble), so that when they master a neutral sounding track, it will have the boosted bass and treble through, say, a car stereo.

 

[Anonymous]

My God, what a fight for a simple wire!

I do believe then cables could change the sound and... I also believe then we are completely rip off by some manufacturers.

True then we overpaid for some products and maybe if we take a look inside our expensive hifi components as speakers and amplifiers...and more... not sure of the quality's of the wires used.

Take a look and you will see, nothing close to a simple monster cable! That must be the same logic! How my super hifi amplifier get cheap interconnection wires and it sound sooooo great!

Before investing in expensive cables, maybe just thinking how could be effiency to invest on others component before. If it appear then the cables give you the best for your money, then go!