Pretty good read on what High Fidelity really means in our hobby.

[Grayson Dere]

I'm a regular subscriber to PS Audio's 'Copper' newsletter. The most current article discusses what the term High Fidelity really means in relation to the listening system. I know I'm guilty of it, too...wanting the latest high performing audio components to get blacker backgrounds, deeper digging low-end, crystal clear highs, etc.. Sometimes I even forget what the goal in HiFi is and just enjoy what I'm listening to. That doesn't mean enjoyment is a bad thing at all! For those interested in attaining the absolute High Fidelity then you cannot miss this interesting article. Enjoy!

https://www.psaudio.com/article/how-hi-would-you-like-your-fi/

From the article:
"A true high-fidelity system must demonstrate fidelity towards the original recording, so it must have a flat frequency/phase response as well as a flat dynamic response, so as not to impose its own character upon each recording. Any deviation from flatness, either due to the audio components and loudspeakers themselves, or due to their interaction with the domestic listening environment (the influence of the room acoustics), therefore reduces the fidelity of the system."

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I've been suggesting the same for years now... this is nothing new, although I can't say I'm not somewhat surprised to see it come from PS Audio, despite their lack of mentioning the only solution available to us end-users. I suppose they are still living in the ignorant "elitist" world of "never gonna use EQ in my system". I've read countless speaker reviews by guys that readers put up on a pedestal, and when they show pics of the speaker setup, there is absolutely zero chance of them being frequency matched, much MUCH less of them being flat, based on the equipment used for the review. How can they possibly know that what they are listening to sounds like it is intended to sound?

In most cases the audio equipment in it's raw state is not going to influence the sound to any significant degree, or at least it shouldn't if it's a quality component. We are left with the room itself that makes the most influence on the sound, and I've not seen any proof from anywhere that can change that influence outside of equalization, such as Dirac Live. While it may not be perfect, it gets us as close to the original as we are going to get for the time being.

 

[Randy L]

I've been suggesting the same for years now... this is nothing new, although I can't say I'm not somewhat surprised to see it come from PS Audio, despite their lack of mentioning the only solution available to us end-users. I suppose they are still living in the ignorant "elitist" world of "never gonna use EQ in my system". I've read countless speaker reviews by guys that readers put up on a pedestal, and when they show pics of the speaker setup, there is absolutely zero chance of them being frequency matched, much MUCH less of them being flat, based on the equipment used for the review. How can they possibly know that what they are listening to sounds like it is intended to sound?

In most cases the audio equipment in it's raw state is not going to influence the sound to any significant degree, or at least it shouldn't if it's a quality component. We are left with the room itself that makes the most influence on the sound, and I've not seen any proof from anywhere that can change that influence outside of equalization, such as Dirac Live. While it may not be perfect, it gets us as close to the original as we are going to get for the time being.

Indeed good comment Sonnie! ... I would also add that human hearing isn't flat and that means that the sound engineer used his own 'curve of hearing' while mixing the original track to appear flat to him. But we don't all have the same curve of hearing. So equalization becomes necessary to match his sonic intention in our rooms. Then of course we might dial in our preference away from that flat.

And as a Dirac user I have come to appreciate what flat really means in my room. We must take the room out of the equation. And boasted bass almost always sounds better. (Since human hearing lacks in bass frequencies we need to boost it in order to create the perception of flat - in our rooms.)

Ironically 'purists' don't really have a good grasp on what flat actually sounds like, and how there individually exists the need for personal and room adjustment to acheive the perception of flatness.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Very good points Randy

 

[texbychoice]

Interesting article. Going back to the 1980's, a period some called the golden years of Hi Fi, choices for quality equipment were many. All out negative reviews of equipment were few as were glowing reviews declaring perfection. Most I remember had a positive tone with a minor shortcoming pointed out. After years of chasing the best reviewed loudspeaker, pre amp, amp, turntable, etc. settled on what sounded good to me. Too many highly rated components that failed to deliver. Parametric EQs were considered noise pollution unless big bucks were shelled out. .With some trial and error found an EQ that could tie everything together to deliver what I liked in my room.

Measurements are just the starting point. Dr. Floyd Toole said "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer." When the fanatic objectivists point to Dr. Toole as the science and measurement authority, think they conveniently forget that statement.

 

[Grayson Dere]

Indeed good comment Sonnie! ... I would also add that human hearing isn't flat and that means that the sound engineer used his own 'curve of hearing' while mixing the original track to appear flat to him. But we don't all have the same curve of hearing. So equalization becomes necessary to match his sonic intention in our rooms. Then of course we might dial in our preference away from that flat.

And as a Dirac user I have come to appreciate what flat really means in my room. We must take the room out of the equation. And boasted bass almost always sounds better. (Since human hearing lacks in bass frequencies we need to boost it in order to create the perception of flat - in our rooms.)

Ironically 'purists' don't really have a good grasp on what flat actually sounds like, and how there individually exists the need for personal and room adjustment to acheive the perception of flatness.

"Ironically 'purists' don't really have a good grasp on what flat actually sounds like, and how there individually exists the need for personal and room adjustment to acheive the perception of flatness."

Do you think listening to various types of music on flat or close-to-flat measuring headphones would give a good sense of how a your speakers should sound in a room environment? ie: the headphones would provide the sound qualities that are desirable as a starting point for designing a room system? Or are the two mediums just too different to compare? Thanks!

 

[DanDan]

Flat is a distracting notion. Nobody listens on AudioMetric 'flat' headphones. Real world listeners hear music with a 6-9 dB tilt away from flat. Real world headphones have this curve built in. Also Speakers sum the Mid LF content up to 6dB hotter than headphones. Some headphone amps have circuitry to simulate this.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I've never measured headphone response, so I really have no idea what I'm hearing. They sound good, but it's a completely different experience than listening in my room. The music is not out front on my headphones like it is in my room. The only time I experienced out front sound with headphones was at an audio show with a gimmick hanging on a wall in front of me... then another room where Smyth Research had their gizmo setup that sounded phenomenal with the headphones.

I would very much like to hear a set of headphones before and after Dirac, and see the before and after measurements.

But no... not me... I don't want my room to sound anything like any of the headphones I've heard. I like the headphone sound, but I wouldn't want that in my room... there's zero depth acuity in headphones (with the exception of Smyth Resarch at $4K).

 

[DanDan]

Hi Sonnie. Sonarworks do a lot of headphone tweaking. I don't get it. Surely Sennheiser etc. have already done their best, optimised their products? My HD650s sound very similar tonally to my B&K DL tuned Neumann KH310s. Clearly Senn have chosen to impose a popular target tonality into the product. I recommend you try Canopener Studio. That puts the sound in front and has depth as well as width.
It used to be available for iOS for a couple of bucks. Now it is a DAW plug in, and afaik Fidlia has it built in. Do try to get to hear it.

 

[Grayson Dere]

The Canopener Studio software looks really neat! I may just start a 30-day trial to check it out : )