Musings from old school on High Fidelity

Words have definitions, if we can’t agree on what words mean then communication breaks down.

HIGH FIDELITY
noun Electronics.

sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies with very little distortion of the original signal.

Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.

In radio, sound recording, etc., an approximately exact reproduction of sound achieved by low distortion and a wide range of reproduced frequencies, from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz

High fidelity is not "my fidelity " it is not whatever I want it to be. I might not like sound reproduced as accurate and distortion free as possible but that’s what it means. The equipment that can reproduce the sound it is given with as little distorion or inaudible distortion comes the closest to being High Fidelity equipment no matter the price. High Fidelity Audio is dying even though we have equipment that can reproduce music more accurate than ever before we choose to be subjectivist and declare whatever we prefer HiFi.

'High-end audio is not dead, it just smells funny'.

HIGH FIDELITY
noun Electronics.

sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies with very little distortion of the original signal.

Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.

In radio, sound recording, etc., an approximately exact reproduction of sound achieved by low distortion and a wide range of reproduced frequencies, from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz

Very interesting....

This official definition makes me understand many thing, that was not obvious for me...I am not an engineer so far, nor a working specialist in the audio field....

Only an "amateur" looking for a good sound....

This definition makes me conscious that " high fidelity" is restricted in the very narrow sense of electronical engineering....

This is normal because in the last hundred years it was engineers that gives to us the gear that makes possible the reproduction of recorded sound...

But i am an audiophile who dream to gives to himself the maximum S. Q experience possible at the least cost...

Is electronics components the only variable able to do so?

The answer in my case is a resolute no....

Embeddings mechanically an audio system, controlling resonance and isolating it from external vibrations is not necessarily the results of electronical new application or the results of buying new electronic component...Different passive materials or device can make it happen....

Embedding electrically an audio system to controls the noise floor of the house and room is not necessarily also the results of placing a new active electronic device all along the road of the electrical grid, i succeed with passive materials of my owns all along the road...

Embedding acoustically an audio system can be partially the results of using electronical device, i use for example many Schumann generators modified, but generally most use passive materials of requisite properties, and i use also active resonators of different size and kind, and many other passive device of my own....

Then high-fidelity concept is not synonym with audiophile concept....

Distinguishing the 2 concepts is important.... Separating them and opposing them is useless and only the proof of a misunderstanding...There is NO objectivist versus subjectivist war.... Only ignorance on the 2 side....

« Distinguishing without separating»- old Groucho Marx

I will add that what we listen to at the end comes more from the interaction of the speakers with the room, and comes better if the noise floor of the house and room are low, better if resonant gear are also controlled and tuned and isolated for sure, what we listen to comes more at the end from these controlled conditions than from the choice of any electronic component, be it a dac or a an amplifier in particular most of the times....

That is my experience....

In audio history some evolution of engineering design for recorded sound transmission seems to come first, but the acoustical conditions for the experience were always there, for example in the acoustical design of concert hall or church acoustical function or Greek and Roman theater...

High-fidelity and audiophile experience are 2 hands from the same body.....Anyone who want to say otherwise is confused....

:)

Not bragging, and honestly, no i have not heard many top class systems lately,,but recall some from years ago,,and IMHO , my system now with new IC's, is  close to Real High Fidelity. 
My friend has a Golden Tube amp modded (he is a tech) + AR's + CJ pre modded, sounds really great,, IF you like that warm  sound,,, sort likea  olive band at a  club. Thats not what i am looking  for, I avoid *warm*, Mine is quiet, dynamic, fq separation/sound stage, voice pure natural, 
When I hear a  system which has these descripts
 Midrange fqs::Muddy/murky/smokey/greyish, musht, bland, flat
/highs rolloff, voice not natural, like has a   covering over the vocals, other things that get on my nerves are ::: ,boomy bass,, highs too extended = plastic and tinny. 
I  usually just stand there and pretend I am interested,, makinga  few foot tappings to let the owner know , yeah its a nice sound...when actually i want to turn the vol knob alot lower, real fast,,,or finda  excuse to get away from the torture. 
Here is my latest YT upload, and my system is really comming together now with the 2nd pair of IC's. 
Humbly, my system to me sounds ~~High Fidelity~~More changes/mods to come,,,,
This is the best sound I've ever heard in my life comming froma  system. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1gtIouVb6E&t=6s