Damn, now i have to remove the wall to wall telephone book library i am using for diffusers, it took me many year to curate this wonderful collection !
Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.
- Thread starter Rexp
- Start date
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, what’s he afraid of? Oh, I get it. VIP/ Donor.
Does milk squirt out of your nose?Stomach cramps from giggling !
Where I live the streets don’t stop at the edge of town. They keep going, they go to other towns and to cities.
Last edited:
So, as I was saying, there are many things that reduce, distort or constrain the soundstage. More things that are in the listening space you might not have considered include, but are not limited to, iPads, laptops, TVs, the acoustic vibrations coming off windows and walls.
Last edited:
I am reminded of the Audio Note DAC"s I demoed for folks back in the day. They were very midrange centric which made them sound more analog but they didn't reproduce spatial details that should be there. So yes someone can choose not to hear what's on the recording, it's not HiFi though.
You were saying people will disagree on what things should sound like, but if we are pursuing high fidelity sound then we should agree on details like where singers are positioned in a particular recording for example.
That's not what I meant by should sound like. I meant from the real world, not produced recordings.
Chesky, Telarc, Sheffield, and a handful of others have released recordings with maps of performer placement. A system that images acceptably well will put them in their general places correctly.
To an audiophile, this may seem like proof of goodness. To a performer on the recording it is more likely to sound unfamiliar. It may not even sound right to a person who was in the audience.
Focusing on spatial cues is popular among audiophiles because when a system images well, most listeners near the sweet spot can tell. If that’s what high fidelity is about for some, enjoy.
I would point out that after WWII when the term high fidelity came into common use, stereo was not available yet. Mono recordings played back on a monaural system can present depth to a discerning ear, but no legitimate left to right placement of performers. We still called it high fidelity.
To my ears, a recording that makes the orchestra sound like they’re playing kazoos, but places the kazoos perfectly, is not high fidelity. My best test for high fidelity, and I only rarely use it to sate my curiosity about new speakers, amps or phono cartridges, is to trot out an old vinyl recording of my Mother singing Summertime (accompanied by piano). If that sounds right, I’m certainly happy to label the system “faithful” to the performance.
Like it or not, this is a VERY subjective hobby, and folks who argue that it is not are just thought police attempting to impose group think.
To an audiophile, this may seem like proof of goodness. To a performer on the recording it is more likely to sound unfamiliar. It may not even sound right to a person who was in the audience.
Focusing on spatial cues is popular among audiophiles because when a system images well, most listeners near the sweet spot can tell. If that’s what high fidelity is about for some, enjoy.
I would point out that after WWII when the term high fidelity came into common use, stereo was not available yet. Mono recordings played back on a monaural system can present depth to a discerning ear, but no legitimate left to right placement of performers. We still called it high fidelity.
To my ears, a recording that makes the orchestra sound like they’re playing kazoos, but places the kazoos perfectly, is not high fidelity. My best test for high fidelity, and I only rarely use it to sate my curiosity about new speakers, amps or phono cartridges, is to trot out an old vinyl recording of my Mother singing Summertime (accompanied by piano). If that sounds right, I’m certainly happy to label the system “faithful” to the performance.
Like it or not, this is a VERY subjective hobby, and folks who argue that it is not are just thought police attempting to impose group think.
Opus 3, Test for Soundstage, even P. McCartney had a map on one of his albums showing placement of instruments/singers. The problem is there are DEGREES of soundstage characteristics. Systems often sound congealed, two-dimensional, threadbare, no air, no bass, compressed, synthetic, bland, digital, unresolved, opaque, like papier-mâché. Even the dimensions x, y, z are very variable system to system. Everything is relative, it’s oft difficult to know where your current system sound is in the overall scheme of things. Are you stopping when you think your SQ is 5% from the best it could be? So what else is new?
Last edited:
This is also why immersive sound is so appealing to some. As you pointed out, we all focus on different aspects.
Hifi is not a subjective hobby that’s for sure but Audio hobby is. Hifi is about lifelike reproduction of instruments and vocals in your home without fatigue but unfortunately main debate here is focused on stage depth, soundstage as it has always been. On the other hand Audio hobby is about pleasing sound. Whichever you’re after is up to you.
Still subjective. You fool yourself if you insist that your “objective “ evaluation is universally applicable.
...and you can only fool yourself thinking that you have a hobby called HiFi.
Alternative views are a blasphemy .
Havent we heard that before ....
If only i could afford a pair of horns , my life would be so beautifull
