Am I (sonically) blind

[bigshot]

Well, based on the artists I know, if it isn't they will have something to say about it!

I guess it's a sign of our times that people want to argue against fidelity.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Just a relevant direction for discussion not a judgment

Does absolute fidelity exist ?

What level of fidelity does the artist require of the listener ?

 

[bigshot]

Why does it have to be an absolute thing? It’s “high fidelity”, meaning the goal is a high degree of accuracy. Turning that into an absolute thing is just an excuse to abandon fidelity altogether, and I don’t think anyone wants that.

The better the fidelity, the closer you get to what the artist heard in the studio. When you achieve accuracy to the level that human ears can perceive it, you’re done. That doesn’t cost a fortune. It’s achievable. All you need is a good room, decent equipment, and careful calibration. Once you have that, you’ve reached the goal and you can color to your own taste to your heart’s content, using the accurate calibration as a baseline.

 

[Dogmatrix]

I agree I am nit picking , just exploring the question of relative value

If I accept the widely held generic interpretation of artistic intent as communication

In an attempt to define the scale of fidelity (necessary in order to attribute value) it is apparent the top of the scale exists only in the artists mind

In the moment of communication fidelity begins sliding down

So the question , is what value we place on reaching higher ?

 

[bigshot]

Higher fidelity is better sounding until you reach the threshold of human hearing, and there it stops. A lot of home audio electronics exceeds our ability to hear, so it isn’t difficult to achieve. The trick is in the mechanical production of sound. Headphones, IEMs, speakers, the room… that is what separate the men from the boys.

 

[earmonger]

This is getting downright theological.

Timechaser has $50 to spend to improve the listening experience. A quality dongle (Apple) rather than some mystery brand would probably help.

So would one of the better under-$50 IEMs -- here's a good thread (look at the chart in the first post, but then don't go all the way back, just check some recent pages, and ignore whatever the latest thing is that only one person is hyping).

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/bes...haring-personal-ranking-list.805930/page-1968

DAPS, cables, magic fairy dust...they can wait.

 

[Dogmatrix]

This is fine as an ideal but in practice the consumer does not know when they reach the threshold or if they have exceeded it

The core of marketing is you need a little more to get there and we have it

If we could come up with a green light that came on when the consumer reached ideal value for their needs the snake oil would dry up

 

[Dogmatrix]

This is getting downright theological.

Timechaser has $50 to spend to improve the listening experience. A quality dongle (Apple) rather than some mystery brand would probably help.

So would one of the better under-$50 IEMs -- here's a good thread (look at the chart in the first post, but then don't go all the way back, just check some recent pages, and ignore whatever the latest thing is that only one person is hyping).

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/bes...haring-personal-ranking-list.805930/page-1968

DAPS, cables, magic fairy dust...they can wait.

Stop spoiling the fun with practical advice

 

[bigshot]

Being an informed consumer helps to get the most for your money. Depending on a high price to automatically mean better quality doesn’t work well.

 

[BobG55]

Being an informed consumer helps to get the most for your money. Depending on a high price to automatically mean better quality doesn’t work well.

The following video is a perfect example. It’s a 1:48, 10 year old video of the then priced, $2,749.00 Ultrasone Edition 10 headphone review by the renowned former Innerfidelity editor in chief and reviewer, Tyll Hertsens.

​

 

[Redcarmoose]

No reason to argue. The actual musical event doesn’t exist any longer. After the musicians played all was lost in time! Floyd Toole explains that the recording may actually be better (or worse than) than the musical event documented.......but none the less different. It’s an artistic statement and not the original whatever it is. Maybe multitrack or changed, but none the less it’s different.

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092

The problem is studio monitors are not standardized. Studios as a whole are not standardized. End of story.

 

[gregorio]

We are talking about IEMs here? They all are different. This would also relate to the independent individual frequency response generated, but I’m speaking of IEMs. So they would actually each sound slightly different depending on how they are tuned.

They are all different but being different doesn’t necessarily mean they sound different. This is most clearly demonstrated with most different DACs and cables for example. The differences between the frequency response of different IEMs are far greater than those between the vast majority of say DACs but they can in some cases still be similar enough to be difficult to differentiate. Additionally, just because a difference is within the range of audibility doesn’t mean that it will actually be audible. It will depend on various factors, the material being played and the listening skills of the listener being just two examples. Plus, in some specific cases, even very large differences are inaudible.

They have departures in an area showing graphically what their response is. Thus one with more bass would show different (response curve) than one with less bass. Rudimentary.

Yes but of course if it does show a different response curve from flat/linear then it is not flat/linear!

Depending on the person, some may like more bass or less. That is the subjective part.

Agreed but this is NOT what you claimed! You claimed sound quality (fidelity) was subjective.

Of course there are many FRs, but with-in a range they can still show balance. Thus the evenness is still with-in limits. Thus a response can still be thought of as accurate, and be a slight difference in response, from varying degrees, one IEM, compared to another.

No, it’s either an accurate/flat/linear response or it isn’t. There is no range, how many times does this need to be explained to you? Although, there is also the concept of “audibly accurate/flat/linear” and that IS a range. It’s the range between an accurate/flat/linear response and a response that’s close enough to accurate/flat/linear that it can’t be differentiated by human ears. For consumer purposes, there’s no practical difference in audio fidelity between accurate/flat/linear and Audibly accurate/flat/linear. However, this doesn’t apply to your assertion because the response of most IEMs is neither accurate/flat/linear nor audibly accurate/flat/linear.

High fidelity is for the folks who truly believe getting closer to the sound as an artist intended. What sounds nice to human ear is completely different.

This is the sound science forum, if you make a claim, reliable evidence to back it up can be demanded. You’re going to struggle with that though, because your nonsense claim is the opposite of the reliable evidence. Numerous reliable tests and studies demonstrate that most humans prefer higher fidelity.

Good sounding system can be very far off from high fidelity

Sure, there are exceptions, some people seem to believe that a poorer/lower fidelity system is better than a good/higher fidelity system and because they feel it’s better, they call that system “good” or “better” even though it’s actually worse.

As an artist intended is only possible if you are in recording studio with musicians.

That too is obviously nonsense. If an artist intends a song to be a love song, is it only possible to recognise it as a love song if you are in the recording studio with the musicians? If that were the case, there wouldn’t be any love songs!

Does absolute fidelity exist ?

Yes, although it’s only achievable in the digital domain, under certain specific circumstances. High enough fidelity can be achieved in certain circumstances for the difference to be inaudible but in the vast majority of circumstances there will be at least some audible loss of fidelity.

If I accept the widely held generic interpretation of artistic intent as communication

Yes, although that’s not always the case. With some genres of music “communication” isn’t particularly important and with a few genres, it’s specifically avoided.

In an attempt to define the scale of fidelity (necessary in order to attribute value) it is apparent the top of the scale exists only in the artists mind

In the moment of communication fidelity begins sliding down

So the question , is what value we place on reaching higher ?

That all depends on the intent of the artist/s and typically there are a considerable number and range of “intents”.

At one end of the scale is the previous example of an artist whose intent is a love song, presumably we all require a system with high enough fidelity to be able to differentiate a love song from other types of song?

At the other end of the scale is an intent for a particular phrase, note or even part of a note that maybe barely audible and intended not to be consciously noticed but to subconsciously affect our perception. Do we want a high enough fidelity system to reproduce that?

There’s no doubt that some of the artists’ most subtle “intents” will not translate, be reproduced accurately or be perceived by many. But then of course any experienced, professional artist knows that, with both recordings and live performances.

G

 

[hakunamakaka]

The final master is usually approved by the band, so that would be artist's intent. If you play it on a properly built speaker system with a calibrated response, you will be hearing what the artists approved.

You just trick yourself thinking that you hear exactly what band recorded in studio.

 

[PhonoPhi]

You just trick yourself thinking that you hear exactly what band recorded in studio.

My sentiments exactly - people calibrating speakers and changing their audiophiles cables are equally enjoying this hobby, some more quietly, some more eloquently

 

[gregorio]

You just trick yourself thinking that you hear exactly what band recorded in studio.

No he doesn’t, he didn’t say he believes he’s hearing exactly what the band recorded in the studio. He said he’s hearing the master approved by the artists!

And who would even want to hear exactly what the band recorded in the studio? Consumers do not want to hear a week’s worth of unedited, unmixed and unmastered individual takes and over-dubs.

My sentiments exactly

Oh dear.

G