I have seen in some threads members mentioning a Hi Fi sound and I am trying to understand what that means.
What is Hi Fi sound?
- Thread starter assessor43
- Start date
Sound meant to impress vs sound, that to the individual, is natural, "organic" and emotionally engaging.
'hifi sound' is a relative issue, not an absolute. it refers to a presentation that is essentially more perceived as reproduced. the sound more about the attributes of the pieces/parts of the sound, as opposed to the coherence and flow of a whole musical experience. with 'hifi' sound you are more aware of speakers and drivers and the room. distortion somewhere in the signal path will pretty much be heard as 'hifi' to some degree.
'hifi' sound can even be recording dependent; some recordings just don't come alive easily in every system. maybe later as you and your system evolve all of a sudden that recording works for you.
btw......nothing wrong with being in love with sonic attributes that others might hear as hifi. no rules about this stuff. whatever floats your boat.
the 'relative' aspect means that likely as your system improves what once was coherent and flowing to your ears might become 'hifi' to you as your listening skills and experience evolve. so it's very much about you as it is about the system you are listening to.
what are your expectations?
'hifi' sound can even be recording dependent; some recordings just don't come alive easily in every system. maybe later as you and your system evolve all of a sudden that recording works for you.
btw......nothing wrong with being in love with sonic attributes that others might hear as hifi. no rules about this stuff. whatever floats your boat.
the 'relative' aspect means that likely as your system improves what once was coherent and flowing to your ears might become 'hifi' to you as your listening skills and experience evolve. so it's very much about you as it is about the system you are listening to.
what are your expectations?
Last edited:
I guess I am trying to understand if some components are susceptible to sounding HI FI.
I have heard different types of systems, from very high end to vintage setups and what I can say is that all systems have some virtues regardless of price. I have been shocked at what I have heard from very old speakers say from the fifties mainly using paper and horn drivers vs newer designs. I guess they all sound different.
The best systems I have heard sound great at normal listening levels and do not need to be played loud for musical satisfaction. However, I would say they do sound very good pretty loud, almost in a way that there is no volume control, just music. Maybe these systems would be less "Hi Fi" sounding so to speak.
I have heard different types of systems, from very high end to vintage setups and what I can say is that all systems have some virtues regardless of price. I have been shocked at what I have heard from very old speakers say from the fifties mainly using paper and horn drivers vs newer designs. I guess they all sound different.
The best systems I have heard sound great at normal listening levels and do not need to be played loud for musical satisfaction. However, I would say they do sound very good pretty loud, almost in a way that there is no volume control, just music. Maybe these systems would be less "Hi Fi" sounding so to speak.
to view any piece of gear out of context of a system as objectively 'hifi' to me is wrong thinking. how could we all agree on that? yet we all have our views on what we might consider more........'hifi'.......based on our biases.
lots of vintage pieces do find their way into musical systems. maybe the simplicity of those past gems has it's value. so if that is your point then yes, i agree. yet those vintage pieces typically give up some wider frequency capabilities and do require more care than more modern designs.
HiFi sound to me is one that has a notch in the upper midrange that gives emphasis on details and dynamic passages - that ‘leading edge’ so many talk about. I’ve never heard this edge in performances but it is prevalent in the hobby.
I’ve come to respect Rosso Fiorentino more and more as they do not have that hifi sound. What I hear in concerts comes through in these speakers. You don’t get a leading edge - you get a rush of energy, as it should be, whenever transients hit.
There is nothing wrong with the hifi sound as it is exciting and I carry brands that do this well. For my personal reference, it is not something I seek out.
I’ve come to respect Rosso Fiorentino more and more as they do not have that hifi sound. What I hear in concerts comes through in these speakers. You don’t get a leading edge - you get a rush of energy, as it should be, whenever transients hit.
There is nothing wrong with the hifi sound as it is exciting and I carry brands that do this well. For my personal reference, it is not something I seek out.
Haute Fidélité (Hi-Fi), faithfull to the recording and its reproduction. ...Analog tape for example. 
The better the recording mixer/engineer with the mics positioning and all (console sliders, VU meters, ...) the higher the chances for fidelity. That's my short take of Hi-Fi. The long one would take an encyclopedia to write.
The better the recording mixer/engineer with the mics positioning and all (console sliders, VU meters, ...) the higher the chances for fidelity. That's my short take of Hi-Fi. The long one would take an encyclopedia to write.
Wasn’t “Hi-Fi” sound mostly used as a descriptor in the first five or so years of stereo? Just because it was so different than mono.
Does anybody describe their sound system that way anymore?
Does anybody describe their sound system that way anymore?
Unfortunately, due to some of the "issues" with artifacts produced by modern gear, HiFi has come to mean the opposite of what was originally intended. Some of these issues include cone breakup produced by hard membrane drivers, accentuated leading edges often caused by electronics and/or cables, a hard and glassy sound that can be caused by SS amplification devices, silver or silver plated wiring. Also, unnatural forwardness of presentation and emphasis on uppder midrange and lower high frequency ranges. And pretty much any artifact that produces listening fatigue.
However, it's also not clearly defined and some will call a good system with full frequency extension at the high end "HiFi" when it's simply not rolled off enough for the individual's personal tastes. Some have damaged hearing that includes a general reduction in high frequency hearing with the exception of sensitivity at certain frequencies, so they call anything that irritates their particular hearing issues as "HiFi". Folks with hearing damaged by headphone use or going to high-SPL concerts often enough perceive a more forward and aggressive presentation as more natural when others will call it "HiFi".
Personally, I don't think "HiFi" is a good term for any of this as it's being misused, but "the industry" is also partially to blame for selling a lot of gear that is, for better or worse... "HiFi".
However, it's also not clearly defined and some will call a good system with full frequency extension at the high end "HiFi" when it's simply not rolled off enough for the individual's personal tastes. Some have damaged hearing that includes a general reduction in high frequency hearing with the exception of sensitivity at certain frequencies, so they call anything that irritates their particular hearing issues as "HiFi". Folks with hearing damaged by headphone use or going to high-SPL concerts often enough perceive a more forward and aggressive presentation as more natural when others will call it "HiFi".
Personally, I don't think "HiFi" is a good term for any of this as it's being misused, but "the industry" is also partially to blame for selling a lot of gear that is, for better or worse... "HiFi".
It was a term originally coined in the late 1940s: to distinguish what dedicated separate audio components (then-in-their-infancy) promised in sound performance vs. what big-box AM console radios and 78rpm discs -up to that point in time- were only capable of (a frequency response limited to the region of 200-7000Hz or so, with one-note-bass and no treble brilliance).
The three things which made such a tech revolution advance relatively quick, were: the development of the 12AX7 high gain tube (circa? 1944); the non-breakable vinyl LP record (1948); and the practice of studio recording sessions done on TAPE (for good by 1951...after a brief series of Musicians' Union contract skirmishes had finally been sorted).
However, "Hi-Fi" in those days was NOT NATURAL-sounding at all. It was all the "ping pong" and steam locomotive gimmickry. Later, it would've been stuff like: Enoch Light or London "Phase 4 Stereo" (where the perspective of instrument placement would be EQ'd so artificially bright and with the engineer at the control board constantly manipulating the soundstage).
The three things which made such a tech revolution advance relatively quick, were: the development of the 12AX7 high gain tube (circa? 1944); the non-breakable vinyl LP record (1948); and the practice of studio recording sessions done on TAPE (for good by 1951...after a brief series of Musicians' Union contract skirmishes had finally been sorted).
However, "Hi-Fi" in those days was NOT NATURAL-sounding at all. It was all the "ping pong" and steam locomotive gimmickry. Later, it would've been stuff like: Enoch Light or London "Phase 4 Stereo" (where the perspective of instrument placement would be EQ'd so artificially bright and with the engineer at the control board constantly manipulating the soundstage).
Hi-fi sound is essentially a universal out-of-the-box range of sound. Since our sensitive instruments are well quite sensitive to all various forms of noises and distortions, the hi-fi sound is what we all experience out-of-the-box. It's an extremely common range of sound. Go to most any audio show and perhaps 75 - 85% of all exhibiting rooms will be generating this range of sound.
When some go beyond the out-of-the-box approach and begin to address the various distortions inducing their sonic harm on our sensitive instruments, we're chipping away at the hi-fi sound. And the more we fine-tune our playback systems the more we chip away at the seemingly universal performance-limiting governor aka the hi-fi sound.
What I suspect we're really talking about by hi-fi sound or out-of-the-box sound are playback systems with much raised noise floors. And hopefully, with every tweak or fine-tuning effort we're lowering that much raised noise floor just a little bit and every time the noise floor is lowered, our playback systems become that much more musical and that much less hi-fi sounding.
I recently used the word "Hi-Fi" to differentiate a good dedicated stereo store from an appliance store that sold stereo equipment.
High Fidelity = Hi-Fi
I guess you could use it as a negative, as in; that system sounds too hi-fi, as in artificial.
It's all in the context.
High Fidelity = Hi-Fi
I guess you could use it as a negative, as in; that system sounds too hi-fi, as in artificial.
It's all in the context.
From WikipediA ... High fidelity (hi-fi or hifi) ...
History
Bell Laboratories began experimenting with a range of recording techniques in the early 1930s. Performances by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra were recorded in 1931 and 1932 using telephone lines between the Academy of Music in Philadelphia and the Bell labs in New Jersey. Some multitrack recordings were made on optical sound film, which led to new advances used primarily by MGM (as early as 1937) and 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation (as early as 1941). RCA Victor began recording performances by several orchestras using optical sound around 1941, resulting in higher-fidelity masters for 78-rpm discs. During the 1930s, Avery Fisher, an amateur violinist, began experimenting with audio design and acoustics. He wanted to make a radio that would sound like he was listening to a live orchestra—that would achieve high fidelity to the original sound. After World War II, Harry F. Olson conducted an experiment whereby test subjects listened to a live orchestra through a hidden variable acoustic filter. The results proved that listeners preferred high fidelity reproduction, once the noise and distortion introduced by early sound equipment was removed.
Beginning in 1948, several innovations created the conditions that made for major improvements of home-audio quality possible:
History
Bell Laboratories began experimenting with a range of recording techniques in the early 1930s. Performances by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra were recorded in 1931 and 1932 using telephone lines between the Academy of Music in Philadelphia and the Bell labs in New Jersey. Some multitrack recordings were made on optical sound film, which led to new advances used primarily by MGM (as early as 1937) and 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation (as early as 1941). RCA Victor began recording performances by several orchestras using optical sound around 1941, resulting in higher-fidelity masters for 78-rpm discs. During the 1930s, Avery Fisher, an amateur violinist, began experimenting with audio design and acoustics. He wanted to make a radio that would sound like he was listening to a live orchestra—that would achieve high fidelity to the original sound. After World War II, Harry F. Olson conducted an experiment whereby test subjects listened to a live orchestra through a hidden variable acoustic filter. The results proved that listeners preferred high fidelity reproduction, once the noise and distortion introduced by early sound equipment was removed.
Beginning in 1948, several innovations created the conditions that made for major improvements of home-audio quality possible:
- Reel-to-reel audio tape recording, based on technology taken from Germany after WWII, helped musical artists such as Bing Crosby make and distribute recordings with better fidelity.
- The advent of the 33? rpm Long Play (LP) microgroove vinyl record, with lower surface noise and quantitatively specified equalization curves as well as noise-reduction and dynamic range systems. Classical music fans, who were opinion leaders in the audio market, quickly adopted LPs because, unlike with older records, most classical works would fit on a single LP.
- FM radio, with wider audio bandwidth and less susceptibility to signal interference and fading than AM radio.
- Better amplifier designs, with more attention to frequency response and much higher power output capability, reproducing audio without perceptible distortion.[3]
- New loudspeaker designs, including acoustic suspension, developed by Edgar Villchur and Henry Kloss improved bass frequency response.
Sorry, I should have clarified that when somebody alleges a playback system to have a "hi-fi" sounds, it's always considered a negative atrribute. Just like my use of "out-of-the-box" type of sound.
Perhaps a less confusing label would have been something like a "Why Bother?" sound. IOW, why bother spending thousands or hundreds of thousands on this equipment when for several hundred at BestBuy I can get pretty much the same sound?
Unfortunately, due to some of the "issues" with artifacts produced by modern gear, HiFi has come to mean the opposite of what was originally intended. Some of these issues include cone breakup produced by hard membrane drivers, accentuated leading edges often caused by electronics and/or cables, a hard and glassy sound that can be caused by SS amplification devices, silver or silver plated wiring. Also, unnatural forwardness of presentation and emphasis on uppder midrange and lower high frequency ranges. And pretty much any artifact that produces listening fatigue.
However, it's also not clearly defined and some will call a good system with full frequency extension at the high end "HiFi" when it's simply not rolled off enough for the individual's personal tastes. Some have damaged hearing that includes a general reduction in high frequency hearing with the exception of sensitivity at certain frequencies, so they call anything that irritates their particular hearing issues as "HiFi". Folks with hearing damaged by headphone use or going to high-SPL concerts often enough perceive a more forward and aggressive presentation as more natural when others will call it "HiFi".
Personally, I don't think "HiFi" is a good term for any of this as it's being misused, but "the industry" is also partially to blame for selling a lot of gear that is, for better or worse... "HiFi".
Those aren't artifacts, they're characteristics, or aberrations, depending on how the sentence is written. The gear isn't introducing new sounds, it's modifying the existing source information.
My personal definition of “HIFI” sound is when I’m more aware of that I’m listening to “electricity” rather than acoustics. If that makes any sense... it’s an intuitive thing.
Sometimes it seems to me that in many cases a more natural sound is less detailed. In fact, when I go to live performances of an orchestra for example, the sound seems to be much duller I guess. Of course, I never stand on the podium so I do not have that experience of how the orchestra sounds from the podium.
Good observation, I know what you are talking about.
And violins don't sound screechy either.
Similar threads
