Kegworth Show Information

The information for this year's show is now live at www.thehifishow.com or by clicking on the show banner below.

NON EXHIBITOR ROOMS NOW OPEN - Special Offer....Stay Saturday, join in all the build up excitement on Sat night and then gain FREE access to the show on Sunday

LAST MINUTE WAM HIFI SHOW AVAILABILITY - ONLY A FEW EXHIBITOR ROOMS LEFT - ONLY 5 SLEEP ONLY ROOMS LEFT - ONLY 3 BIG SYSTEM SPACES LEFT

Timbo21

DAC Off Part 2: Qutest vs RME ADI-2 DAC

Recommended Posts

Super Dealer
46 minutes ago, ChemMan said:

I certainly cannot argue with that.   The question remains, is it Hi Fidelity if the recording itself is not loyal and true to the original music performed in the studio?  If not "loyal and true" I doubt we are permitted to use the word fidelity. Epistemology, and for that matter, etymology, fail when a pedantic or dogmatic approach is all we have.  Where is your loyalty to Hegel?

But how can we tell they they have been ‘loyal and true,’ scouts honour?

Keith

Edited by PuritéAudio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
4 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

But how can we tell they they have been ‘loyal and true,’ scouts honour?

Keith

See my post just before yours. I've tried to head us off at the pass from an unhelpful diversion into how accurately the recording represents the studio or concert experience. Hopefully this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

But how can we tell they they have been ‘loyal and true,’ scouts honour?

Keith

3 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

See my post just before yours. I've tried to head us off at the pass from an unhelpful diversion into how accurately the recording represents the studio or concert experience. Hopefully this helps.

Nothing is going to help here.  Both of you most likely know what I am getting at.  I am not the person using the word, Hi-Fidelity ad nauseum, but I am drawing a distinction to how it's being used in two disparate contexts which are both involved in the reproduction of a live musical performance.  I don't think it is fair to use Hi-Fi solely in the realm of recorded playback.  If the live music was poorly recorded to begin with it is not going to be "loyal" to the artist's intention. Thus, to use Keith's line of reasoning, any measurements that might have been taken in the studio are now, nowhere to be found on the master recording.

I am now finished with this nonsense. I have forty posts to go before I quit, and I am saving them for a real discussion on the RME when i get around to ordering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Let me be Keef (aaarrgghh!!! No, run!):

The only thing we have as the "truth" is the recording. There are many many reasons why this recording might resemble almost entirely or hardly at all what the performers heard, what the producer intended etc etc. The recording is what it is. Unless we are to guess what was intended, the greatest honour we can bestow on this recording is to play it with clarity/accuracy. High fidelity can and should be to the recording.

[TheFlash accepts the above as a reasonable assertion and baseline for systems evaluation].

Keef continues: The abbreviation "hifi" has been (mis-)applied to mass market systems and all-in-one devices which are anything but highly faithful to the recording. All of us on this forum believe our own noise-making machines bear no relation this cheap and nasty end of things.

[TheFlash acknowledges this]

Keef goes on: But in reality, only those whose systems reproduce the recording with the very highest accuracy can claim their systems are genuinely hifi in its back-to-the-roots definitional terms. Moreover, this accuracy can be measured, so it is possible to eliminate human error and self-delusion from assessments of fidelity by using objective measurements to determine it. Systems or system components which fall short of the highst fidelity available today cannot therefore claim to be genuinely "hifi".

Personal preference has nothing to with hifi. If one wishes to spend money, sometimes lots of money, on components which sacrifice accuracy for "niceness" then clearly that is one's choice, but one must appreciate that one's system is not "hifi". Components which fall short of the highest levels of fidelity add some sort of distortion to the original recording; choosing to add such distortion, however enjoyable one finds it, means accepting that one is moving away from hifi and one should desist from referring to one's system as hifi. One should refer to one's Distortion Effects Box.

[TheFlash thinks the above is complete and utter bolleaux. It represents a regression to outdated definitions in order to reinforce one's personal preferences for the objective, scientific and measurable over the subjective, sensual and immeasurable].

All characters are fictitious and any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental. This has been a public service broadcast. Please give generously.

What an extraordinary imagination you have! Surely no one in the real world could be like your imaginary creation. No, not even on the internet!

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 hour ago, ChemMan said:

Nothing is going to help here.  Both of you most likely know what I am getting at.  I am not the person using the word, Hi-Fidelity ad nauseum, but I am drawing a distinction to how it's being used in two disparate contexts which are both involved in the reproduction of a live musical performance.  I don't think it is fair to use Hi-Fi solely in the realm of recorded playback.  If the live music was poorly recorded to begin with it is not going to be "loyal" to the artist's intention. Thus, to use Keith's line of reasoning, any measurements that might have been taken in the studio are now, nowhere to be found on the master recording.

I am now finished with this nonsense. I have forty posts to go before I quit, and I am saving them for a real discussion on the RME when i get around to ordering it.

We disagree. But we're both ok with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
5 hours ago, PuritéAudio said:

How do you know as you don’t use a microphone to coroberate your adjustments.

Keith

Because I judge based on musical enjoyment, you know, the emotional content, the connection with the artist, the intent of the song, the mood, the setting. In other words, all about the music that no mere microphone can tell anyone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
10 hours ago, sunbeamgls said:

Because I judge based on musical enjoyment, you know, the emotional content, the connection with the artist, the intent of the song, the mood, the setting. In other words, all about the music that no mere microphone can tell anyone.

I can send you one in a brown appear bag, the other Linnies need not know it can be our secret.

Keith

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 hour ago, PuritéAudio said:

I can send you one in a brown appear bag, the other Linnies need not know it can be our secret.

Keith

Clearly, you just don't get it.  Measuring one or two parameters with your microphone tells you nothing about the human side of music.  The system is about reproducing music, not technical compliance.

Just FYI, more of my system is non-Linn than is Linn. Not that it's relevant because I'm not dogmatic about it.

Edited by sunbeamgls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheFlash said:

We disagree. But we're both ok with that.

You and Keith, and/or you and ChemMan??

Sorry,  context was unclear in that post.

I can kind of see ChemMan and your view.

Keith is being Keith using the assumption that because we can technically (objectively) determine faithfulness to the recording, we can determine how to get the best from it. That always assumes the way the recording has been rendered is the ideal when it comes to playback. Something ChemMan contended with and I would agree. A live performance can be great, but poorly recorded such that a 'transparent' playback sounds thin and lifeless. To which, what Keith calls 'effects' could subjectively improve perceived playback quality - e.g. add more second harmonic to stop it sounding 'thin'.

This goes somewhere to where Sunbeamgls is in just trying to get the most pleasing subjective preference, rather than technical accuracy.

What Keith fails to understand is why many people don't want to listen to technically accurate because poor recordings are now common (with excessive compression for example) and sound awful if we are fully and accurately reproducing the recording.

With that, I feel hi-fi in the strictest sense of high-fidelity stopped being a possibility when recordings and mastering started using techniques to give us recordings that are not faithful to the live performance. It's a chain. When the industry broke the first link, the chain is still broken. The hi-fi (audiophile) industry now is more about polishing 'turd' recordings and making them subjectively nicer to listen to, than providing genuine high fidelity in the technical sense. However, bringing subjective improvements in perceived sound quality does not diminish the efforts of controlling sound dispersion from speakers, DSP and room correction, since all these can remove other sources of distortion at playback time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
37 minutes ago, sunbeamgls said:

Clearly, you just don't get it.  Measuring one or two parameters with your microphone tells you nothing about the human side of music.  The system is about reproducing music, not technical compliance.

Just FYI, more of my system is non-Linn than is Linn. Not that it's relevant because I'm not dogmatic about it.

Yet over on the Linn section I see ‘bass traps’ ( nothing of the sort ) littered around and yet no one is allowed to use a microphone to actually check whether they are doing anything.

Would you pay someone to come around to your house without any equipment and just emote?

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
8 minutes ago, Metatron said:

You and Keith, and/or you and ChemMan??

Sorry,  context was unclear in that post.

I can kind of see ChemMan and your view.

Keith is being Keith using the assumption that because we can technically (objectively) determine faithfulness to the recording, we can determine how to get the best from it. That always assumes the way the recording has been rendered is the ideal when it comes to playback. Something ChemMan contended with and I would agree. A live performance can be great, but poorly recorded such that a 'transparent' playback sounds thin and lifeless. To which, what Keith calls 'effects' could subjectively improve perceived playback quality - e.g. add more second harmonic to stop it sounding 'thin'.

This goes somewhere to where Sunbeamgls is in just trying to get the most pleasing subjective preference, rather than technical accuracy.

What Keith fails to understand is why many people don't want to listen to technically accurate because poor recordings are now common (with excessive compression for example) and sound awful if we are fully and accurately reproducing the recording.

With that, I feel hi-fi in the strictest sense of high-fidelity stopped being a possibility when recordings and mastering started using techniques to give us recordings that are not faithful to the live performance. It's a chain. When the industry broke the first link, the chain is still broken. The hi-fi (audiophile) industry now is more about polishing 'turd' recordings and making them subjectively nicer to listen to, than providing genuine high fidelity in the technical sense. However, bringing subjective improvements in perceived sound quality does not diminish the efforts of controlling sound dispersion from speakers, DSP and room correction, since all these can remove other sources of distortion at playback time.

Spot on, I don’t mind anyone adding effects to increase the enjoyment of their system, as long as you realise you are not making it more ‘lifelike’, just adding whatever distortion in whatever order and amounts you choose.

Just be aware that you are adding that effect to every recording, good, bad or indifferent.

Keith

Edited by PuritéAudio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest hang up here for many is the speaker/room interaction where many of us have to consider that there are other people in the home environment so room correction appliances are a no-no. So basically most of us do what we can with what we've got and just enjoy it for what it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/01/2019 at 19:59, Fourlegs said:

Sorry, been delayed due to a new year lurgy. 

More will follow but the RME has just sat on the floor for the moment. 

Just ordered A RME ADI-2 DAC. Really looking forward to setting up and have a listen and compare.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
43 minutes ago, mr.me said:

I think the biggest hang up here for many is the speaker/room interaction where many of us have to consider that there are other people in the home environment so room correction appliances are a no-no. So basically most of us do what we can with what we've got and just enjoy it for what it is

EQ is a setting in a dac/software, so no visible passive acoustic treatment.

Keith

Edited by PuritéAudio
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Metatron said:

With that, I feel hi-fi in the strictest sense of high-fidelity stopped being a possibility when recordings and mastering started using techniques to give us recordings that are not faithful to the live performance. It's a chain. When the industry broke the first link, the chain is still broken. The hi-fi (audiophile) industry now is more about polishing 'turd' recordings and making them subjectively nicer to listen to, than providing genuine high fidelity in the technical sense.

Absolutely.  This is exactly what I am getting at.  Unless we can find recordings that are uncompressed we can't have true high-fidelity.  I am not taking issue with people using the words, but rather when they use them to pursue an absolutist point of view.  I think the measurements are interesting, but they are not the end all be all.  I have some tubes because I like the sound and I could care less what Keith or anyone else thinks. If anyone has decent equipment and likes to use EQ or room compensation and they want to call it high-fidelity, they can and should.  I wrote previously that I believe the terms hi-fi and high-fidelity should be general terms to describe a system that someone finds very pleasing to the ear.  In fact, back home nobody really calls it Hi-Fi -- we all just have stereo systems.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.