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.

 

[nuttyflave]

I'm curious if high quality audio formats like FLAC have added character to it vs. a physical audio CD format? Or that depends on what system it's being played on, whether Hi-Fi or not?

Also, can the "360 degree sound" speakers be considered "Hi-Fi"? Is this format of speakers more commonly found in Bluetooth speakers?

 

[Jasonovich]

I'm curious if high quality audio formats like FLAC have added character to it vs. a physical audio CD format? Or that depends on what system it's being played on, whether Hi-Fi or not?

Also, can the "360 degree sound" speakers be considered "Hi-Fi"? Is this format of speakers more commonly found in Bluetooth speakers?

The 360 degree sound is usually marketing word salad to bamboozle potential consumers but there are some actual genuine products out there like the Sony Reality 360 audio speaker - below.
Don't know how it sounds, seems to be layered with drivers pointing in different directions. I'd imagine room acoustics and positioning of these speakers will still need to be addressed like your typical conventional speakers, so what's the point



FLAC is lossless High res audio codec, PCM bandwidth can be as high as 756khz whereas CD is limited to 44khz. So technically it is superior, however, your ears are limited to what we can actually hear, maybe what we can't hear adds timber and the ambience to the sound? Don't know, don't want to go there as I don't wish to stir the hornets nest

 

[nuttyflave]

Does 360 degree speaker generally mean it's "beyond stereo" since there's more than 1 speakers?

I'm not sure if that Sony Reality 360 speaker has to be a pair to be "stereo"?

 

[Jasonovich]

Does 360 degree speaker generally mean it's "beyond stereo" since there's more than 1 speakers?

I'm not sure if that Sony Reality 360 speaker has to be a pair to be "stereo"?

No I think it's suppose to mean, you're immersed in the sound, no matter where you're sitting in the room.

I think with the Sony Reality 360 speakers you can have as many as you like, it's really down to your amplifier if it can handle more than one pair of speakers.

Not sure if the sound emitting from these 360 speakers are mono or each speaker is assigned to a separate channel multiple times of stereo.
Perhaps someone on this forum is better placed and has a better understanding how these actually work.
In the conventional sense most people stick to stereo (just audio) or in scenarios where you have a TV video audio setup, you'll likely to have a multi channel speaker arrangement or I suspect for most people, they'll just have a sound bar to enhance the audio from their TV.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Does 360 degree speaker generally mean it's "beyond stereo"

Absolutely not. Just means they don't point in any one direction (like a proper speaker!)

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I'm curious if high quality audio formats like FLAC have added character to it vs. a physical audio CD format? Or that depends on what system it's being played on, whether Hi-Fi or not?

Some people believe so - I do not. But if there is a difference, you are going to need very good kit to hear it.

 

[Al ears]

Some people believe so - I do not. But if there is a difference, you are going to need very good kit to hear it.

Most FLAC files are simply ripped from a CD into that format for storage purposes, it cannot add anything.
However this is moving somewhat away from the original question on this thread.

 

[twinkletoes]

Some people believe so - I do not. But if there is a difference, you are going to need very good kit to hear it.

Even then you will strangle to hear it in my very experienced opinion.


To the Op's question, the very title gives alot of food for thought and many here have tried and failed ultimately to describe what is deemed hifi. It's like trying to describe the taste of chicken.

Hifi "relating to the reproduction of music or other sound with high fidelity"

This definition especially today is arcane. Many small bluetooth speakers produce a sound thats pretty competent and decoding pretty hi bit rates and way beyound what could have been achieved as little as 80 years ago.

Sonos delivers a sound quality enjoyed by millions . What separates these devices (especially era 300s/ play5 in pairs) from a 1k separate systems?

Technically they're delivering the same freqancey range, sonos probably delivering more in some cases especially in the bass region. Both can decode CD quality streams from tidal arguably all the quality anybody needs bit rate wise. Digital is Digital right?

The only thing I can see that separates them is someone's opinion. Often not backed up by measurements
We are told this better often without a technical reason as to why. If you ask that in shop they'll list off a spec sheet but often spending more buys you less.

There is more to it than just sound.

It's a really good question and would make for an amazing product/industrial design thesis.