Jump to content

High sensitive speaker = more dynamic sound ?


gasolin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Adding distortion is adding an effect, nothing else, if you enjoy the effect that is fine, it just isn’t high fidelity.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Camverton said:

The hifi police seem to be having fun this morning!

High fidelity is a rather loose term in that it doesn’t define what the fidelity is to. Personally I like this definition: High Fidelity implies the creation, in the listener's normal surroundings, of the ILLUSION of the actual performance as it would have been heard under the most favourable conditions.

Some people like to ignore the actual, or original, performance in their weaponising of the term hifi possibly because what they prefer or sell doesn’t create an illusion of the original performance. Their definition, whilst rather missing the point of hifi equipment, is fine for them but doesn’t give them the right to arrogantly state that anything that doesn’t conform to their narrow strictures isn’t hifi. 

Perfect 👌 

I wish I said all of this, by my yokel background limits me to a few basic words and grunts 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But many perhaps most recordings don't document a single group performance.

The illusion that one can hope to get closest to is the the stereo master tape or file that was put forward for replication and distribution, be it as a file , on CD or Vinyl etc. Now this master may, probably did, have all kinds of eq and effects etc applied to it in the recording , mixing and mastering process but it's that finished master tape/file that the producer/artist wants you to hear.  I think a redbook CD (or  equivalent) , correctly reproduced,and manufactured is probably the closest one gets to that master recording.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PeteVid said:

But many perhaps most recordings don't document a single group performance.

The illusion that one can hope to get closest to is the the stereo master tape or file that was put forward for replication and distribution, be it as a file , on CD or Vinyl etc. Now this master may, probably did, have all kinds of eq and effects etc applied to it in the recording , mixing and mastering process but it's that finished master tape/file that the producer/artist wants you to hear.  I think a redbook CD (or  equivalent) , correctly reproduced,and manufactured is probably the closest one gets to that master recording.

I would have thought uncompressed HiRes recordings would be be closer than most cds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

Adding distortion is adding an effect, nothing else, if you enjoy the effect that is fine, it just isn’t high fidelity.

Keith

I use my ears. If something is wrong, I invariably realise pretty quickly. 

What if you rely purely on measurements, but the measurements are not telling you the whole story? 

I find it lazy to suggest to someone that they don't know what they are hearing, or that they somehow prefer a less faithful version of the music. 

I've no problem with you believing that measurements tell you all you need to know. Live and let live, and all that. But it is only your belief, so don't preach it as an absolute, because it isn't. 

All the best...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

Adding distortion is adding an effect, nothing else, if you enjoy the effect that is fine, it just isn’t high fidelity.

Keith

You would say that. You are trying to promote and sell equipment that conforms to your, perfectly reasonable for you, definition of high fidelity. Stating that equipment that conforms to another perfectly valid definition of high fidelity isn’t high fidelity is incredibly arrogant and condescending. Who made you the arbiter of what is high fidelity? Your status as a salesman doesn’t make you the oracle of all thing hifi - quite the contrary!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StingRay said:

What speakers are they?

They are pretty insensitive for floorstanders. Some amps may have problems with 4 Ohm speakers. Yes you should get more bass but thats about all I can tell from those stats. As said before manufacturers figures are not very reliable, you need independents tests to compare. Wide frequency is just that, does not mean better, just means more volume at that frequency, this can cause problems in some rooms, ie boomy bass.

hi Stingray,

they are these - https://www.eliteaudiouk.com/product-page/auris-poison-3-3-way-loudspeakers

I can find very little info on them, and I doubt very much they are worth the RRP, but are they likely to be better than my current £800 B&Ws, that is the question!

I don't need thumping bass, as I'm in a London flat with paper-thin walls, but just looking for a step-up and these will cost me the same as the B&Ws. On that basis I'm tempted to give it a go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

Adding distortion is adding an effect, nothing else, if you enjoy the effect that is fine, it just isn’t high fidelity.

Keith

If distortion masks some of the harshness that is on digital recordings then that is fine by me. It maybe not HiFi to you but if it improves your enjoyment of the music then that is a good thing. 

As for measurements, you said most listeners don't like flat measuring sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

high fidelity
 
noun
 
The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original.
 
This is the definition of High Fidelity, this is how Keith and many others, see the reproduction of music media, and  this is what they aspire to. As in all walks of life people prefer different things, there will never be a one sound suits all scenario. 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Luceo Non Uro said:

hi Stingray,

they are these - https://www.eliteaudiouk.com/product-page/auris-poison-3-3-way-loudspeakers

I can find very little info on them, and I doubt very much they are worth the RRP, but are they likely to be better than my current £800 B&Ws, that is the question!

I don't need thumping bass, as I'm in a London flat with paper-thin walls, but just looking for a step-up and these will cost me the same as the B&Ws. On that basis I'm tempted to give it a go. 

I did find this: http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews2/auris2/1.html

I would not buy any speakers I have not heard unless they are used at a good price. In that link it says they are £4,285? So you can buy them for £800? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StingRay said:

If distortion masks some of the harshness that is on digital recordings then that is fine by me. It maybe not HiFi to you but if it improves your enjoyment of the music then that is a good thing. 

As for measurements, you said most listeners don't like flat measuring sound.

Harshness is distortion, ime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, greybeard said:
high fidelity
 
noun
 
The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original.
 
This is the definition of High Fidelity, this is how Keith and many others, see the reproduction of music media, and  this is what they aspire to. As in all walks of life people prefer different things, there will never be a one sound suits all scenario. 
 

"little distortion" that really is open to interpretation isn't it? And if so is surely subjective. 

As I would say NO electronics will have zero distortion. 

My point to @PuritéAudio is what amount distortion disqualifies the equipment from being "high fidelity"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StingRay said:

If it's on the recording then what do you do?

Then, I agree, I want to reduce it...if I can do so without killing the rest of the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Just now, StingRay said:

If it's on the recording then what do you do?

Choose a different hobby?

We've argued this endlessly over the years. My opinion has always been the same. 'Accuracy' is meaningless, because what you are accurately reproducing is an innacurate imitation of something in the first place. If you want, you can say that you're trying not to make something even more imperfect, but it's as much your choice as it was the choice of the recording engineer(s), producer, etc. further up the chain.

I would much rather have something that gives me masses of enjoyment and portrays music in a (doubtless artifical) way that has the illusion of being more 'lifelike'. Whether that means distortion (which it does not necessarily), 'softening' or emphasising parts of the frequency spectrum, adding an 'image' of width and depth is totally beside the point.

For the life of me I cannot understand the obsession with having something that 'measures perfectly' (which is in itself a joke, as nothing does or can) and makes most recordings sound like farm animals being tortured.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...