marty_e wrote:While we're at it, what does "high fidelity" refer to? Fidelity to what, specifically? The recording, the artists, the recording space, the mastering, etc??? Discuss...
Hey, t-marts, to me it's the simulated event. I say simulated because the majority of music today is studio based multitrack. Locations and hall space are determined with artificial panning and artificial reverb and delay. Even live recordings, minimally miked employ manual manipulation via mic levels at the board or recorder, spacing and placement. Spector's famous "wall of sound" is an extreme and early example. Inference of musical intent with regards to recording method or space referenced with the actual is moot unless the interest is in the method only.
So while we hear a lot of talk about being true to the source, integrity of the signal and what have you, and granted that these are all means to objectively approach the construction of tools that are neutral in the sense of having accurate white balance in shutter speak while the overall noisefloor determines contrast. Following this line would lead to a really, really good camera with one setting. The disappearance of tone controls is the most glaring manifestation of this prevailing philosophy. This is philosophy of linearity best suits source components, cabling and acoustics but unfortunately spread to amplification and loudspeakers. The latter two must always be considered together for obvious reasons.
When most folks reference genres vis a vis music playback, the focus is on the number of instruments. What most fail to take into account is that the number of instruments is dictated by the size of the space as well as the architecture. In the days before amplified sound reproduction increase in loudness, now measured in Phons not Decibels, were done by adding instruments. This continued into the late 40s and early 50s. The birth of the Orchestra came about when composers realized that to double the perceived loudness of a violin playing a note, eight or nine violins had to be added. The same is true of horns in big bands. Fidelity in musical reproduction is then anchored in great part to being able to get as close to the original dynamic range and volume of the live event. The same factors that make it, as of today, an impossible feat since no microphone and no software carrier can even if loudspeakers could be made. Going back further, the larger the battlefield, the more war drums were added. A tradition still carried on today in NCAA American Football and immortalized in the parade sequence at the end of National Lampoon's Animal House
.
Going back to genres, orchestral works and ballets were meant to be played in concert halls, jazz trios in small smokey joints, chamber music in salons, REALLY old school dance music like Waltzes/Valses, Polkas and later big band stuff like Swing in ballrooms and large supper clubs etc. etc. After all, music was made to be a shared experience so venue was a major part of the composition process. This is why "Space" is such a big deal to me. Tonality and texture can be had for very little. No surprise that female vocals is the staple of audiophiles everywhere. First it is easy to tell if a human voice sounds real since we are genetically wired from birth to know the difference between our mother's voices from our grandma's and secondly because it is technically the least demanding to do, pianos and pipe organs the toughest. Case in point is the sheer number of audiophiles that got Jacintha singing but realized that the rest of their collection turned to crap. Why? The stuff was made for female vocals, because that's the audiophile standard ergo mucho sales, but not much else. Also the reason that the list of flexible 2-way monitors is a short one despite having the most number of choices in any loudspeaker segment. What do the members in this short list have in common? They play larger than the rest, image better than the rest and also seem to go deeper than the rest artificial midbass hump or not. I stray....again!
When I lay the needle down on a recording, the very first thing I'm clued into is where the artists are or where their supposed to be. It's part of the mental exercise that helps me visualize the experience. I am a visual person. The proof is if you click on my web browser history
Am I back at a new wave party with only Marty_E as the only other Preppie while Handyboy and MSM are wearing their trench coats and eyeliner?
Am I pretending I'm at Carnegie Hall wondering why in heck I bought tickets to dude in the tight clothes who sings about bananas or counting them at least? Am I in the VIP section of Ruby Skye or Blush, Grey Goose on the table? I am home safe and sound but ready to be warped elsewhere.
Fidelity is how real it can sound to me. There is a baseline for performance out there I suppose. That would be the ability to identify an instrument for what it is and identify a singer for who he or she is. It's still a long way from actually being there though and there is a whole lot of ground in between where anyone can find personal satisfaction. There's the rub. You'll always think you've hit your Nirvana until you hear something that you like much more! Luckily all it takes is a few days of silence to forget what you heard or at least to let the lust subside
The day I say my system is the best is the day I have officially become a self wagging dog.
So size clearly matters when it comes to genre. Does it matter with audio equipment? Not always but in the here and now, it sure helps. A Sunfire minisub will outperform a B&W ASW 600 at a quarter of the size. Top bookshelves go lower than many floor standers. Panel speakers more easily fill a room with sound than box speakers of much greater total mass and volume minus the dynamic capabilities. There are so many ways to skin a cat.