Source for this fact please…..
Not an easy task these days when few seem aware of,and even fewer, here on this site in particular, apply the orginal definition of the term HIFI in SQ discussions.
But here you go ,from at least one more source more than me personally. Trust me, it is NOT a definition of SQ I made up myself. According to Gear Patrol:
"The term "hi-fi" — or
"high fidelity" — dates back to the 1950s when it was used to describe audio equipment that was able to faithfully reproduce music. It meant that the music sounded like you were listening to the band or artist in person."
And Rob Watts the digital designer behind this very "Mscaler" thread has very openly and repeatedly stated that it is his aim and goal to try to close the gap between digitally recorded "unamplifed acoustic instruments" and how they sound live. He is not alone in striving for HIFI in his designs.
IMO, and this is only my personal opinion this time, not anything I can state as a fact, but to me he has already succeeded in considerably narrrowing that gap by quite a margin compared to how digital sounded to me before his mscaling tech with his current Mscaler.
Exciting times ahead for those who both know how unamplified instruments actually sound live and prefer to hear a closer version of that via their HIFI system.
Personally I can compare and hear the difference between a real piano and my own HIFI systems every day. And good as mscaled sounds, my live piano in the same room easily sounds more REAL more HIFI if you will, than even Mscaled.
The problem for me, is my piano-playing does NOT compare very favourably to about 99% of the pianists I can listen to recorded via Mscaler.
At the end of the day it is all about enjoying MUSIC.
But in any discussion of SQ I think it is essential to agree on a reference point to refer to.
And i can not think of a better reference point than the orginal definition of HIFI or as the English company Quad use to call it. For the closest approach to .......
Cheers CC