Question What makes speakers "Hi-Fi"?

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

The B&W Zeppelin Pro have:

• two 1" titanium dome tweeters, two 3-1/2" FST midrange drivers, one 6" powered subwoofer

Is this then considered stereo? Even though it's being sold as "Each" (as if one is expected to buy a pair to make them "stereo").

It will deliver stereo sound, in that both channels will be produced. But they won't be separated enough to give a stereo 'image.'

 

[Jasonovich]

The B&W Zeppelin Pro have:

• two 1" titanium dome tweeters, two 3-1/2" FST midrange drivers, one 6" powered subwoofer

Is this then considered stereo? Even though it's being sold as "Each" (as if one is expected to buy a pair to make them "stereo").

I think there's a misconception about stereo and HiFi being the same. I think you're alluding to audio format, one channel as oppose to hearing it in two channels left and right.

Listening to just one speaker, you've effectively made the choice that you want to hear the sound in mono, add another speaker and presto; you have stereo
My active Adam AV7 studio monitors are sold each and I decided to buy a pair, so I can hear my music in stereo.

The term HiFi is a bit woolly, people may perceive it to mean different things, some may have an exact definition but it's really generic for audio equipment derived from quality components that produce high quality of sound and how do you measure this? One man's meat is another man's poison.
It is subjective that is why we're here on this forum winding people up the wrong way

No seriously, is something so cheap like the Fosi HiFi? Of course it is; are lifestyle audio appliances from Bose and B&O HiFi? Possibly but why waste money on something where musicality takes back seat to functionality, something that's designed to be sheik and enthral your quest when they come over.

To break it down further, if your equipment regardless of the format and costs, is able to deliver an exceptional degree of innate musicality and gives you listening pleasure, yeah sure it's HiFi.

 

[clanking]

whilst they obviously work very well in a studio setting many are absolutely rubbish in a home environment.

I don't understand that. They produce extremely accurate sound, so are "HiFi".

The big thing that's never mentioned with traditional HiFi is that none of it is accurate, which is why things sound so different. Everything in your typical HiFi setup is imparting its own EQ on to the signal. People aren't trying to get the most faithful reproduction of the source, they're trying to apply, effectively, an EQ curve and hi/low pass filters to the source that they find pleasing to the ear.

The biggest upgrade most people could add to their system is a big old 30 band EQ.

 

[Jasonovich]

I don't understand that. They produce extremely accurate sound, so are "HiFi".

The big thing that's never mentioned with traditional HiFi is that none of it is accurate, which is why things sound so different. Everything in your typical HiFi setup is imparting its own EQ on to the signal. People aren't trying to get the most faithful reproduction of the source, they're trying to apply, effectively, an EQ curve and hi/low pass filters to the source that they find pleasing to the ear.

The biggest upgrade most people could add to their system is a big old 30 band EQ.

Most domestic HiFi have been tweaked to give unique sound which is typically associated with the brand.
My Adam active professional speakers are definitely not boring or flatline.
It reveals incredible amount of detail. Beautiful treble from AMT tweeters, bass is not fat, neither is it lean.
Hifi has many facets, one should not be afraid to explore.

 

[Gray]

People aren't trying to get the most faithful reproduction of the source

Some certainly aren't.
But I'm definitely not one of those people.
At least, I don't actively seek any tonal flavouring - and I don't think I suffer much from it.
It puzzles me how the term 'hi-fi' has come to be associated with added character - when high fidelity means true to the original.

I'd describe the monitor sound as hi-fi.

Of course no reproduced sound can match the original, but the more accurate the better....surely.

 

[Noddy]

Some certainly aren't.
But I'm definitely not one of those people.

Nor am I.

At least, I don't actively seek any tonal flavouring - and I don't think I suffer much from it.
It puzzles me how the term 'hi-fi' has come to be associated with added character - when high fidelity means true to the original.

I'd describe the monitor sound as hi-fi.

Of course no reproduced sound can match the original, but the more accurate the better....surely.

I prefer neutral. Unfortunately the path from the original musicians depends on the quality of the equipment used to record the sound, the environmental acoustics if not taken directly from an electrical feed, the mixing, the output devices, my room and my ears.

A lot of recordings are dreadful, usually due to the mixing, with clipping common.

I find jazz even from the fifties usually sounds good, most folk and clasical too, rock can be dreadful. I think some people like colouration because it hides the poor recording quality.