All that is wrong with "HiFi"

[Rensselaer]

I loved Jonathan's post. It's on a topic that we are rarely exposed to on WBF which is a gear oriented web site. Two comment that I would make are:

1) the Japanese culture is unique in so many ways, but the deep reverence that Kissa bar patrons have for listening to music is applied to many other aspects of Japanese culture, not just listening to music. For example, I wonder if Jonathan noticed the pervasive reverence the Japanese have for rain water. In the US, rain water is allowed to just run off of roof tops and buildings onto the street. In Japan, it is collected from every building and home in a specific manner such that it channeled from roof top to drain pipe to ducts to viaducts to reach its ultimate goal which is often streams, rivers, or sewage portals. They do not treat rain water indiscriminately, It is a carefully thought out in civic plans of every village in which simple rain water is accorded much reverence and respect, very much like the reverence shown for listening to music in Kissa bars. This is a beautiful aspect of Japanese culture that we could learn much from.

2) I think Jonathan is wrong when he laments that here in the US and Europe, we do not have the same great reverence for listening as he has observed in Kissa bars. I would remind Jonathan there's a place not too far for his shop in Brooklyn where you can find 2800 people listen in utter reverence and quiet reflection to music almost any night of the week. It's called Carnegie Hall. At Carnegie, or in nearby Geffen Hall (home of the NY Philharmonic), you can hear a pin drop as thousands of people listen in utter reverence to music for several hours. The same thing occurs not only in the great large concert halls of the world, but in smaller recital halls everywhere and across all musical genres. Need we remind Jonathan that we can find the same reverence for serious listening in countless jazz venues in NYC and other clubs across the globe? So as much as I appreciate Jonathans deep respect for Kissa bars, its hardly unique as a place where people observe deep reverence for listening to music. I would also add that for many of us, we experience a deep reverence for listening to music in our own homes in spaces that are probably similar and even smaller in size than many Kissa bars. This doesn't take away from the beautiful description of the Kissa bar experience Jonathan described. But reverence for listening to music is hardly unique to the Kissa bars that are indeed a beautiful aspect of the Japanese culture.

I think you missed the point. Are you seriously suggesting that there is nothing like Carnegie hall in Japan, no live music available in Japan? That in order to listen to music they must huddle ‘round the JBLs in the neighbourhood kissa?

My main take on his youtube video was that he initially approached the kissa concept from a typical Western audiophile perspective, after eyeing each piece of equipment and judging what each would sound like, he could determine which would sound best, draw the most paying customers and generate the most income.

What he discovered was that the Japanese Kissa isn’t about competition with the best-sounding system. What drew customers was a general fondness for the owner, his place and his music. It is like a friend inviting you by for a cup of coffee and to listen to a favourite record or two. Most people in Japans’ cities can’t afford the space to entertain, likewise the system and records. They come to sit with others and listen, buying drinks and listening quietly out of respect for the owner who provides the place to gather and music to enjoy. The system only needs to sound good enough for people to enjoy the venue and the music, that’s what it is all about.

I realise that it isn’t HiFi, as the industry would have us think, but it’s alright by me.

 

[SoundMann]

I realise that it isn’t HiFi, as the industry would have us think, but it’s alright by me.

It's about being immersed in the music. Hifi detracts from this goal. I have created the terms music-fi and musical correctness to differentiate the two.

 

[SoundMann]

The original poster complaint about modern hifi components being bright, hard and fatiguing ... , over the last 40 years, which begin in 1984 at CD launch. I assumed he is refereeing to digital, as always sound bright and not musical.

Digital is definitely the single biggest driving factor here.

 

[Rensselaer]

It's about being immersed in the music. Hifi detracts from this goal. I have created the terms music-fi and musical correctness to differentiate the two.

Ok, I am having trouble seeing what is wrong these days with HiFi with your terms.
“music-fi” (fi = fidelity, music being faithful to the original without variation?) and “musical-correctness”(music being free from error, accuracy?).

 

[AudioLibertarian]

You can’t take this post back I’ve copied it into Word. Tidal has had no revenue growth since 2020. They have lost money since Jay Z bought it. In December 2023 they laid off 10% of the workforce, they just announced another round of cuts amounting to 25% of the workforce. Block Inc is scaling back investment in Tidal. Employees are told not to mention Jay Z. Jack Dorsey announced a restructuring of the company.

Finally, A Delaware judge said the acquisition of Tidal was by all accounts a terrible business decision.

You can’t take this post back I’ve copied it into Word. Tidal has had no revenue growth since 2020. They have lost money since Jay Z bought it. In December 2023 they laid off 10% of the workforce, they just announced another round of cuts amounting to 25% of the workforce. Block Inc is scaling back investment in Tidal. Employees are told not to mention Jay Z. Jack Dorsey announced a restructuring of the company.

Finally, A Delaware judge said the acquisition of Tidal was by all accounts a terrible business decision.

Similar Arguments" have been said about pretty much ALL hi res streaming services ever since they first appeared, if you bother to search the web: Qobuz, Spotify, Qobuz, Deezer, etc. And yet as they all continue to live, as estemed Jerry Seinfeld once put it. And some of us even continue to enjoy them, as strange as it may sound to you, even despite Delaware judge's "opinion". (sarcasm inserted). Also , why would would I want to take anything back?!!!

 

[SoundMann]

Ok, I am having trouble seeing what is wrong these days with HiFi with your terms.
“music-fi” (fi = fidelity, music being faithful to the original without variation?) and “musical-correctness”(music being free from error, accuracy?).

No. Accuracy only sounds correct with a handful of recordings. Nearly all recordings are flawed, which is why J Gordon Holt said down with flat.

Musical fidelity has no relationship with accurate reproduction. It is a quest to get to the heart of the music by creating a musically immersive and involving sound.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Hi fidelity

No. Accuracy only sounds correct with a handful of recordings. Nearly all recordings are flawed, which is why J Gordon Holt said down with flat.

Musical fidelity has no relationship with accurate reproduction. It is a quest to get to the heart of the music by creating a musically immersive and involving sound.

Maybe not but Hi Fidelity does , accuracy to the source is paramount ...

 

[wgerman]

I think you listening tastes change as you age. When I first got into this happy I loved the sounds of the Adcom amps and ML Aerius speakers. Super clean, no bloat and fast. As I have aged, I find myself favoring a warmer side of sound, and willing to give up the last nth of detail. Strange.

 

[SoundMann]

Hi fidelity

Maybe not but Hi Fidelity does , accuracy to the source is paramount ...

This can only be true when the recording is accurate to the sound of the original performance.

 

[Rensselaer]

I doubt that the owner of the Kissa (or his customers happily listening to his records) really worried if the record heard was as recorded, absolutely faithful and accurate to what the musicians recorded in the sound studio. I could be wrong, but…

 

[Audiohertz2]

I think you listening tastes change as you age. When I first got into this happy I loved the sounds of the Adcom amps and ML Aerius speakers. Super clean, no bloat and fast. As I have aged, I find myself favoring a warmer side of sound, and willing to give up the last nth of detail. Strange.

Adcom ..! Yes you are aging like fine wine

 

[PeterA]

No. Accuracy only sounds correct with a handful of recordings. Nearly all recordings are flawed, which is why J Gordon Holt said down with flat.

Musical fidelity has no relationship with accurate reproduction. It is a quest to get to the heart of the music by creating a musically immersive and involving sound.

Very interesting post because it refutes the conventional premise and point of what we are doing.

As I become more settled with my system, it’s less about the hobby and the gear, and more and more about the music.

The only thing I would consider substituting in your post is the words “listening experience” for your last word “sound”.

 

[Audiohertz2]

This can only be true when the recording is accurate to the sound of the original performance.

No Boss , accuracy to the playback material is the best one can do for accuracy , if the system sounds different from the source then its not hi fidelity ..!

Has nothing to do with what one likes or think they like , the system becomes good or bad based on the recording , crap in crap out ..!

Tone filters and distortion coloration aside ...!

 

[Al M.]

I think you listening tastes change as you age. When I first got into this happy I loved the sounds of the Adcom amps and ML Aerius speakers. Super clean, no bloat and fast. As I have aged, I find myself favoring a warmer side of sound, and willing to give up the last nth of detail. Strange.

I always liked a warmer sound *and* I like detail. Yet the detail, while it should all be there, does not need to forcefully jump out at me. It sounds more natural that way, more like real (unamplified) live music.

And while the sound should be "fast" it should have weight as well.

 

[M2M]

Digital is definitely the single biggest driving factor here.

OK! Now we can talk:

First, its important have fundamental understanding before settle on right component.

There is several essential problem with digital playback: 1– Compressed original data into smaller size , 2– Conversion (analog to digital and back again), 3– Noise generated from digital playback, which has negative affect on power line (possibly same issue with interconnects).

The results can create significant errors.

For people who does no know what digital compression, its like this :

WOLRD IS GREAT
This represent the actual data from life, which copied efficiently in analog mediums with minimum loss of original data, such: analog reel tape, vinyl, 8 tape tracks, VHS … . As you see it, its large enough, and perfectly clear.

In order to fit this large data into smaller size like CD, must do manipulation, like this:

WORLD IS GREAT
As you see from this example, the compression preserve its essential data, but did shrink size, still fine!

Another example of more compression:
World is great

Which is just ok at best.

Or worse like this:
Wrld s gret

As you see from last example, there is significant error toke place exactly at first conversion. The results: altering the nature sound to something else (artificial), strip signal strength (thin, weak), wrong sound production (errors). The end result in term of listing: perfectly unsatisfying!

What people really need understand is: when manipulating original data after copied to CD, its 100% impossible $10.000 CD player or any higher priced gears able to retrieve original data or correct errors.

The problem with digital playback was clear to all in mid 80’s, at mid 90’s the industry make incredible effort to fix the problem, buy introducing incredible advanced technology to digital components (but not to analog components leaving it behind, which is important note) and with incredible high price tag that never took place before.

The hidden truth about these improvements is nothing real! But to boost the incredible weak digital signal to level of analog signal, to shrink big gab between digital and analog, which did succeed but to short extent. In correct words: to draw people a way from analog, and immerse them to digital, the end result people abandoned analog (which wasn't their willingly, if not deceived) .

People need to understand very well: digital playback has “undeniable” some significant virtue, but useful or meant for other applications (science, medical, communications, army, space…). Scientifically, digital compression cannot considered reference for data. The only way to obtain true data from uncompressed sources and without conversions, like analog.

 

[Rensselaer]

OK! Now we can talk:

First, its important have fundamental understanding before settle on right component.

There is several essential problem with digital playback: 1– Compressed original data into smaller size , 2– Conversion (analog to digital and back again), 3– Noise generated from digital playback, which has negative affect on power line (possibly same issue with interconnects).

The results can create significant errors.

For people who does no know what digital compression, its like this :

WOLRD IS GREAT
This represent the actual data from life, which copied efficiently in analog mediums with minimum loss of original data, such: analog reel tape, vinyl, 8 tape tracks, VHS … . As you see it, its large enough, and perfectly clear.

In order to fit this large data into smaller size like CD, must do manipulation, like this:

WORLD IS GREAT
As you see from this example, the compression preserve its essential data, but did shrink size, still fine!

Another example of more compression:
World is great

Which is just ok at best.

Or worse like this:
Wrld s gret

As you see from last example, there is significant error toke place exactly at first conversion. The results: altering the nature sound to something else (artificial), strip signal strength (thin, weak), wrong sound production (errors). The end result in term of listing: perfectly unsatisfying!

What people really need understand is: when manipulating original data after copied to CD, its 100% impossible $10.000 CD player or any higher priced gears able to retrieve original data or correct errors.

The problem with digital playback was clear to all in mid 80’s, at mid 90’s the industry make incredible effort to fix the problem, buy introducing incredible advanced technology to digital components (but not to analog components leaving it behind, which is important note) and with incredible high price tag that never took place before.

The hidden truth about these improvements is nothing real! But to boost the incredible weak digital signal to level of analog signal, to shrink big gab between digital and analog, which did succeed but to short extent. In correct words: to draw people a way from analog, and immerse them to digital, the end result people abandoned analog (which wasn't their willingly, if not deceived) .

People need to understand very well: digital playback has “undeniable” some significant virtue, but useful or meant for other applications (science, medical, communications, army, space…). Scientifically, digital compression cannot considered reference for data. The only way to obtain true data from uncompressed sources and without conversions, like analog.

I am reminded of digital photography (as an analogy to what is being done with digital recordings).

I was an amateur photographer. I used to enjoy working in my darkroom, improving my skills in hopes of one day making a portfolio of “fine prints”. And I made a few, just not enough or consistently. When I switched to digital photography my skills were no longer pertinent. No more dodging and burning, perspective control no longer done with camera movements, but instead being done on Photoshop. From then on it is not the fine art photographer who excels but the fellow good with computers.

Although there are some beautiful digital prints out there the majority of people who process digital photos (digital recordings) are not artists, just regular people with varying skill levels processing holiday snaps (digital recordings) and the rest. While some make nice prints (some high def recordings) most of the prints I have seen are overdone, too much “sharpness”, too much “saturation” and the rest resulting in photos (digital recordings) that are detailed (deep bass, extended highs, expansive sound stage) but totally unreal.

Digital photos (recordings), to me, are less natural and cause me to be uncomfortable.

 

[PeterA]

I am reminded of digital photography (as an analogy to what is being done with digital recordings).

I was an amateur photographer. I used to enjoy working in my darkroom, improving my skills in hopes of one day making a portfolio of “fine prints”. And I made a few, just not enough or consistently. When I switched to digital photography my skills were no longer pertinent. No more dodging and burning, perspective control no longer done with camera movements, but instead being done on Photoshop. From then on it is not the fine art photographer who excels but the fellow good with computers.

Although there are some beautiful digital prints out there the majority of people who process digital photos (digital recordings) are not artists, just regular people with varying skill levels processing holiday snaps (digital recordings) and the rest. While some make nice prints (some high def recordings) most of the prints I have seen are overdone, too much “sharpness”, too much “saturation” and the rest resulting in photos (digital recordings) that are detailed (deep bass, extended highs, expansive sound stage) but totally unreal.

Digital photos (recordings), to me, are less natural and cause me to be uncomfortable.

For me, one has more quality, the other more convenience. They are different. I can not deny the ease with which I can pick up my phone and take some nice, even somewhat artistic, snap shots of my audio gear. I rather enjoy going through the thread about system photos.

The photographs in silver frames on my mantle at home, are old black and white film photos that my father took and processed in his dark room. They have a certain quality about them that I cannot replicate with my digital cameras.

 

[TonyW]

WOLRD IS GREAT
This represent the actual data from life, which copied efficiently in analog mediums with minimum loss of original data, such: analog reel tape, vinyl, 8 tape tracks, VHS … . As you see it, its large enough, and perfectly clear.

In order to fit this large data into smaller size like CD, must do manipulation, like this:

This is largely incorrect. All of these mediums have compression- some more than others and vinyl having the most compression. Do not forget that for vinyl the signal is compressed to go onto the disc and then must be uncompressed during playback, ie. the RIAA curve. Recording tape also has compression. So the original music is compressed going onto a master tape and then is compressed further to go onto a vinyl disc. Digital recordings, on the other hand have much less compression from live source to storage medium.

Thomas Edisons early flat disc records had 110 dB of dynamic range. That was at the beginning of the 20th century. Seems we took a step backwards in the middle of the 20th century with the much loved LP. After 100 years, we were back to the dynamic range of Edison's records.

 

[Al M.]

OK! Now we can talk:

First, its important have fundamental understanding before settle on right component.

There is several essential problem with digital playback: 1– Compressed original data into smaller size , 2– Conversion (analog to digital and back again), 3– Noise generated from digital playback, which has negative affect on power line (possibly same issue with interconnects).

The results can create significant errors.

For people who does no know what digital compression, its like this :

WOLRD IS GREAT
This represent the actual data from life, which copied efficiently in analog mediums with minimum loss of original data, such: analog reel tape, vinyl, 8 tape tracks, VHS … . As you see it, its large enough, and perfectly clear.

In order to fit this large data into smaller size like CD, must do manipulation, like this:

WORLD IS GREAT
As you see from this example, the compression preserve its essential data, but did shrink size, still fine!

Another example of more compression:
World is great

Which is just ok at best.

Or worse like this:
Wrld s gret

As you see from last example, there is significant error toke place exactly at first conversion. The results: altering the nature sound to something else (artificial), strip signal strength (thin, weak), wrong sound production (errors). The end result in term of listing: perfectly unsatisfying!

What people really need understand is: when manipulating original data after copied to CD, its 100% impossible $10.000 CD player or any higher priced gears able to retrieve original data or correct errors.

The problem with digital playback was clear to all in mid 80’s, at mid 90’s the industry make incredible effort to fix the problem, buy introducing incredible advanced technology to digital components (but not to analog components leaving it behind, which is important note) and with incredible high price tag that never took place before.

The hidden truth about these improvements is nothing real! But to boost the incredible weak digital signal to level of analog signal, to shrink big gab between digital and analog, which did succeed but to short extent. In correct words: to draw people a way from analog, and immerse them to digital, the end result people abandoned analog (which wasn't their willingly, if not deceived) .

People need to understand very well: digital playback has “undeniable” some significant virtue, but useful or meant for other applications (science, medical, communications, army, space…). Scientifically, digital compression cannot considered reference for data. The only way to obtain true data from uncompressed sources and without conversions, like analog.

It would help if you had better technical understanding before you posted such nonsense. CD quality digital is *not* compressed, only MP3 digital or AAC digital are (the latter being the YouTube format on which for some reason some audiophiles like to post system videos). Study the Shannon-Nyquist theorem for bandwidth limited signals. All the information is preserved up to the upper bandwidth limit, there is no compression. In the case of CD, bandwidth is up to 20 kHz, the upper limit of human hearing.

Of course, all this is different from dynamic and other compression that is applied to the recording. But the digital medium itself has no compression.

 

[MarcelNL]

talking about compression is one thing, and as mentioned before, all recordings need some form of adaptation to the music, the instruments, the recording setup and the final format of the release.

What seems to be missing in the discussion is the noise, the Edison wax roll did not excel in low noise or life expectancy, nor do 78 rpm Shellacks.
Vinyl is not noise free either, and has less dynamic range but it has less noise inherent to a lower speed and different material, it's all about choices and trade offs.

Having heard a few Studio R2R recorders (Telefunken M15a and a Studer A80) with 'mastertapes' makes me think THAT ought to have been the way to go...

Digital has its place too, how else would it be feasible to connect to a world of unknown music? It can sound really good too, it just takes an awful lot more than an old laptop and USB DAC to sound great, but that is no different with Analog (I heard R2R before but it never jumped to me as something to go after, and many vinyl setups honestly sound boring to me).

To compare mediocre digital with stellar Analog is a biased comparison IMHO, compare the digital setup of Joe Average with the analog setup of Cindy Normal and compare user friendliness and overall sound.

To me it's horses for courses, I'll use digital mainly, and Vinyl for those recordings that were mangled by digitizing them poorly or far too late (the 50-ies mono recordings are usually past their prime to do well in digitization, even when they are not mangled by someone 'remastering' them).