[KG Jag]

Quote:

The one significant point you missd in your examples though was that most of those great improvements since the 50's involved major changes in recording and distribution of music content, not speaker design.  Fed high quality recordings those old 50's speakers still hold their own and in many cases are exceptional.  The improvements in vinyl etc were largely a product of improved recording technologies and techniques, improved microphones, improved mastering, and storage/distribuion formats that contain much more data/signal.Most of the recordings from that era chopped half the audible spectrum worse than a low bit-rate MP3.  The speaker designs of that era, especially the 60's were very much hi-fi even by today's standards.  Again since the end result is real life sound, a known quantity, and since the modern headphones are simply reproducing current recording/distribution abilities, there's only a certain peak that can be reached before it's life-like,.  And since colorless sound is only theoretical possibility, and in practicality not even desirable in a headphone, the question remains, how "non-life-like" is HD600, 650.  How much more life-like is HD800, how much does 800 and even 650 veer away from reality and twoard "better than reality" in terms of detail accentuation.  And beyond HD800, other than taming the highs, where does it go from there?  
 
No, the only way we will see improvement to the point that the former hi-fi is no longer hi-fi is if it is in response to drastic changes in recording methods.  Changes that go beyond just sample size and rate which can already be pushed beyond human hearing, and fundamentally affect soundstage/positioning/separation at the recording level.  Until then we're at and have long been at the trailing edge of the reproduction of what can be recorded.  HD598 did that long before HD650 existed, and I'm certain it wasn't the first to do so.
 
My latest sonic enhancement was througuh switching my 80's tubes to some 70's tubes.  That old gear can sound darn good...  As TM Raven said, tubes....ortho and stat tech predates HD600 by far.  We're in a period of refinement, not revolution as far as playback and recording tech goes.  Nothing close to what it would take to transition the very meaning of high fidelity.  That can't happen until something fundamental changes in recording tech. And there seems to be no indicator that anything like that is even being experimented with.  

 
The speakers in the 50's were very bad.  They didn't have to be very good.  It wasn't until about 1970 when Bose and AR and a few others began to make good quality speakers that real people could afford.  The good (for their time) headphones were even worse and slower to arrive to the general public.  The Koss Pro 4A was the first I remember.
 
In any case you don't ever want to talk about the beginning of "hi-fi" in the 50's and early 60's.  I can only guess that what happened then, when "hi-fi" was coined and came into common use, does not fit your view.

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

One other point of interest is that the vintage stuff (speakers, receivers, etc) is never considered "mid-fi", it is considered "vintage hi-fi".  Only in Head-Fi does yesterday's hi-fi seem to get labled "mid-fi".

 "Vintage", as you define it, starts in about 1970.  Much before that the good stuff was extremely expensive, almost exclusively tube driven and generally enjoyed by a small group of middle age and older men, sitting in overstuffed leather chairs, dressed in a smoking jacked, holding a lit pipe (with tobacco only) and having a fine cognac sitting on a nearby table.  It was the new solid state electronics that open things up to regular folks--especially those of us who were hitting college at about that time.

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

 "Vintage", as you define it, starts in about 1970.  Much before that the good stuff was extremely expensive, almost exclusively tube driven and generally enjoyed by a small group of middle age and older men, sitting in overstuffed leather chairs, dressed in a smoking jacked, holding a lit pipe (with tobacco only) and having a fine cognac sitting on a nearby table.  It was the new solid state electronics that open things up to regular folks--especially those of us who were hitting college at about that time.

Your discription of th prior hi-fi world sounds much like the curren't summit-fi (sory, hi-fi) crowd here..

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

Your discription of th prior hi-fi world sounds much like the curren't summit-fi (sory, hi-fi) crowd here..

 I certainly don't want to paint everyone there with the same brush, but on that point I won't give you an argument.
 
I will add that I had several discussions with my dad, who is an electrical engineer, about equipment reaching the point of quality equaling the ability of humans to hear--in about 1971.  Of course about five years earlier, he defended mono as equal or better than stereo.  In the 1980's he poo-pooed CD's vs. not always well cared for vinyl.  (I still love my vinyl too--but discs do not scratch as easily and offer so many conveniences while retaining "hi-fi" sound).

 

[holden4th]

I'm driving across the Nullarbor Plain with about 1400 kms of virtually straight road in front of me (Aussies will know what I mean). There is no radio available but fortunately I have a USB thumb drive which fits into my newly purchased $129 Pioneer car stereo. I flick through the folders and find an old ADD recording "An Evening With Pavarotti" which was recorded when he was in his prime. As his voice swells from the two solitary speaker in the doors of my NIssan Patrol I am listening to Hi Fidelity as the music transports me into a world outside of the gruelling drive I am facing. HiFi is in the ears of the beholder. It goes beyond pure sound quality. The passion of the performance, the way it hits the listeners ear, its relevance at that particular point in time........ do I need to say any more?
 

 

[ProjectDenz]

Quote:

I'm driving across the Nullarbor Plain with about 1400 kms of virtually straight road in front of me (Aussies will know what I mean). There is no radio available but fortunately I have a USB thumb drive which fits into my newly purchased $129 Pioneer car stereo. I flick through the folders and find an old ADD recording "An Evening With Pavarotti" which was recorded when he was in his prime. As his voice swells from the two solitary speaker in the doors of my NIssan Patrol I am listening to Hi Fidelity as the music transports me into a world outside of the gruelling drive I am facing. HiFi is in the ears of the beholder. It goes beyond pure sound quality. The passion of the performance, the way it hits the listeners ear, its relevance at that particular point in time........ do I need to say any more?
 

 
You are typing this while driving?

 

[Kowalski74]

What I think is that you have to give up some sound capabilities if you change from a headphone to any other one above the price tag of $300, that it is where I think the "hi-fi" level starts. Every headphone has pros and cons in respect to any other one. Then, why a headphone is "better" than another one?

Before, much people prefer the more musical, intimate and full-bodied sound of the HD650 instead of the detail, analytical sound and soundstage width of the K701.

Now, much people prefer the more musical, intimate and full-bodied sound of the HD650 instead of the detail, analytical sound and soundstage witdh of the HD800.

Uuuuh, what happened?

Now, much people misses the old sound signature of sennheiser in the HD800. Then, why the HD800 is "better"? It is more detailed, more opened, brighter, thinner, quicker, wider but... ¿better? Then, the HD800 would be indiscutible better than the LCD-2, isn't it? (more detailed, more opened, brighter, thinner, quicker, wider...)

If I move from headphone A to headphone B in the "mid-fi" tier then I have to give up some sound capabilities. But the same happens if I move from "mid-fi" to "hi-fi" tier, or from "hi-fi" to "hi-fi".

Then, why one headphone is "mid-fi" and the other is "hi-fi"? Ahhh, the price tag.

If, for example, the LCD-2 were priced at $300 then the majority of the people would think: "Ummm, good headphones, excelent or the best bass reproduction but lacks the clarity, detail retrieval, soundstage width, imaging, air, openess, dynamism etc. etc.of the HD800. A good contender and alternative to the a bit less dark and more dynamic HD650 (but with poorer bass reproduction than LCD-2). But it isn't a contender to the HD800, that is is in another league"

But, because the LCD-2 and HD800 have similar prices, then both of them are considered "hi-fi" when their sound signature has nothing to do with the other one. Then the people don't say that the LCD-2 is "worse" than HD800 or that it is in a lower level. Then the people say that the LCD-2 sounds "like the reality, more natural" or that the HD800 sounds "in the way the author wanted the music to be played" or any other cliche.

You can take any post from five years ago discussing between HD650 and K701 and if you change "HD650" and "K701" with "LCD-2" and "HD800" respectively then you have the same discussions of today.

It is the same history, the same differences but with another price tag. So both of them have to be "hi-fi" (ironically) although they sound completely different.
 
Regards.
 
Edited: typos correction.