What is HiFi ?

Grow up

 

IMO yes we can if it sounds like an expensive kit. I think we have proven here that inexpensive gear can exhalt a fine representation of the sound. At least very close.
As an example "Brookstone" offers a inexpensive system that will start to make you think about how the expensive gear is just not that much better. Very musical actually with zero fatiuge.
With respect to the 25k speaker, my answer is no. As our endeavor is so subjective the price IMO is meaningless. What is enjoyable to one may not be enjoyable to another. That my dear Sirs is the issue of our efforts. That is to get the sound that makes us just sit there. It could cost thousands or hundreds, who's to say whats right.

rollo

 

Well if anyone did turn around and say no speakers under £25k are worth listening to they would have to be a pillock of the highest order surely, whatever label we wish to use to signify differing levels of quality or realism. Its just plain daft.

 

What would you consider high fidelity Zanash? We are talking measurable fidelity to the source here, not foo foo and fairy dust. What about distortion. Would you consider 10% THD as representing high fidelity? 20%? What?

 

I have ample measures of penis inferiority, I don't need a surrogate.

 

Is that why your here? HeHeHe. Was it May West who said " Is that a Bannana in your pocket or did someone buy a Rockport TT"


rollo

 

Do you think if we grind up Michael Jackson we'd get fairy dust? I could use some to sprinkle my cables.


rollo

 

Hifi in its purest sense should mean faithful to the source ie neutral and honest, the reality is something different for different people-'Mifi' if you like, where inevitable system compromises are accepted below a certain level to a point where you are happy and content with the experience your system gives you.
I'm-after a long time listening-satisfied that I've reached a point where I really don't need/want to spend more money on kit and instead spend most available cash on more music.
I really couldn't give a toss whether anyone else thinks my hifi isn't hi enough-I'm happy to live with it-I paid for it-all I have for those people is "go and annoy someone else little dick"

 

Wow! You mean fidelity can be measured? Now that's a real breakthrough. I want to hear more

 

Fidelity to the source yes. To the performance? Questionable.

If you feed a signal through a component and it comes out the other side with 20% THD, would you consider that high fidelity to the source.

 

When I was growing up during the late 70s/early 80s this was the meaning I understood for "hifi".

ie anything that sounded better than your average transister radio.

stuff has moved on since then though and modern kit is capable of producing a raesonable soundstage.......which it wasn't (IME) during the 70s.

So, for my money Hifi ( a bit like, dare I say it , religion) its what ever it means to YOU.

IMO.

Yes I didn't think Mike would be far away with some figures!





only kidding!

 

Of course not, it would be highly distorted. On the other hand though, total harmonic distortion is not of itself a measure of fidelity so far as I am aware, hence the question. You could have small levels of THD in an amp for example which sounded fairly mundane and relatively high levels (no not 20% granted) in another amp, only for it sound very good indeed.

Besides I thought the OP was more to do with how the phrase is defined generally. Me, I'd say its meaningless. If Tescos can sell "HiFi" systems for £20 and the vast majority of people don't think that's laughable (and they don't) then the term has lost its meaning in the literal sense. The OP also highlights the ridiculous pomposity of some of the people at the "high end" of this game.

 

If only he could be so level headed - he just can't help himself. A shame.

And yet people routinely accept levels of distortion approaching 20% and often more from all but the very best ( an neccessarily expensive) loudspeakers. That kind of supports the associate's point don't you think?

 

Wasn't it?

 

I think a welcome contrast would be how we appear to the non-hifi enthusiast.

I'm brought to mind of a camera forum....''Leica's are rubbish, antiquated and no good'' ''no no, only digital Nikon's are worth looking at'' ''you're both wrong'' etc...

The reality of the matter is that should any one of us walk into a neighbours house, and discover a hifi equal to any on the forum we would be full of praise for someone genuinely interested in music enough to care about what it sounds like.


The method has been lost in the madness.

 

which people routinely accept high levels of distortion from which expensive speakers? How does this in any way support the ludicrous point of view that the only speakers worth listening to are those costing more than a reasonably high spec Mercedes?

 

Out of interest, what does a Mercedes CLK cost these days? Not the super-dooper racing version of course. I don't usually like Mercedes but saw a CLK in the flesh recently and thought it was rather tasty!

 

£30k, or just a smidge more than decent set of speakers. Bargain

 

There's way too many examples of high distortion components. Who ever suggested only expensive loudspeakers were worth listening to? The suggestion is that only very expensive loudspeakers are anything approaching high fidelity in the purest form. That's different.

 

Oh I dunno... I'd rather have a decent set of speakers.

Had a look now on the Mercedes site and what I saw as a CLK 63 AMG, they say @ £66k.

So an honest question... who here (that doesn't already own both) would rather have a superb hi-fi than a top end car? Personally I would be happy driving a Mondeo if I can have a superb hi-fi. As it is I have a superb hi-fi and no car at all, lol!