by vintage_dog » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:03 pm
a perspective (article from one newsgroup):
"To resolve this conundrum one is obliged to trace the evolution of the
terms across decades of usage. One cannot simply redefine them on a
whim. These terms have certain origins, and have been conditioned by
long usage.
The term "high fidelity", despite its long history, became hackneyed
not long after it was co-opted by its namesake magazine, High
Fidelity, some four decades ago. Harry Pearson subsequently coined the
term "high end" to rejuvenate a jaded concept. Since the very first
issue of the abso!ute sound in 1973, High Fidelity (the magazine) drew
Pearson's fire. High Fidelity was, for Pearson, a paradigm for what
was wrong in audioland: complacency. What Pearson sought was not
merely "high" fidelity, but TOTAL fidelity.
The idea of an absolute standard is not, however, new to HP. The idea
arises (insofar as I am able to trace it) in W.T. Cocking's May 4,
1934 article for Wireless World: "High Quality Amplification,
Designing Distortionless Apparatus". The opening line of Cocking's
article states: "Broadcasting and gramophone records are used chiefly
for entertainment purposes, the aim being to reproduce in the
listener's own home exactly what he would hear if he were in the
studio."
This is, of course, a purely subjective standard, as was HP's. In
both cases, HP and Cocking deployed their observational powers to defy
the objective standards of their day. Cocking, moreover, was a gifted
engineer. He accordingly desired to correlate what he heard with what
he could measure.
Cocking did this by first placing distortion within the context of the
human ear: "Unless the sound output from the loud speaker [sic] is
identical with that in the studio, the reproduction cannot be said to
be distortionless." High quality sound then, was for Cocking,
effectively "distortionless"; i.e., distortion that lies below the
threshold of audibility. Cocking then proceeded to objectively define
the measurable limits of "distortionless" sound.
Cocking's specifications for high quality reproduction are as follows:
"We may say, therefore, that practical perfection is reached with a
uniform response between 25 and 10,000 cycles [although a deviation is
allowed up to 1db throughout the midband]." Cocking justified his
claims by reference to correlated listening tests. It is interesting
to note that Cocking allowed up to 5% harmonic distortion in his
specifications for high quality.
Here in the US, the more fanciful term "high fidelity" was preferred
over that of "high quality". I can trace the use of the term "high
fidelity" to at least May 1934, when it turns up in Keith Henney's
editorial for *Electronics* magazine. Henney makes reference to the
tentative definition of high fidelity issued by the RMA's Engineering
Division:
"HIGH FIDELITY: A receiver rated as a high-fidelity receiver must have
an audio frequency range of at least 50 to 7500 cycles, with total
variations in acoustical output not exceeding 10 decibels and with at
least 10 watts of electrical power output, with total distortion not
exceeding 5 per cent."
Evidently we Americans were less fastidious in our demands than were
the English at that time (!). In England the term "high quality" was
to arise again in D.T.N. Williamson's landmark article "Design for a
High-Quality Amplifier" (WW, Apr/May 1947). Williamson, by that time,
felt that the standards for high quality as set by Cocking and his
successors were no longer "distortionless".
Evidently the reduced coloration of the existing componentry allowed
Williamson to hear flaws in the earlier equipment. One wonders,
however, why Cocking did not know better, considering that he was
using live studio sound as his reference. Perhaps he was just beset by
the practical limits of his day (as he seems to imply). In any case,
Williamson set about to redefine the term "high quality".
Williamson stated the requirement for high quality as follows:
"Negligible non-linear distortion [0.1% across the power band] up to
the maximum rated output." In addition, Williamson argued for a
"Linear frequency response within the audible frequency spectrum of
10-20,000 c/s [within 0.2db]." Williamson also provided figures for
damping factor ("20-30"), and for "power reserve" (peak power) "of the
order of 15-20 watts" (Williamson apparently was not a "power music"
aficionado).
Williamson's specifications were to become very nearly the standards
held today by organizations like the EIA and the IEC. One has to
wonder, however, in light of the above, whether there will not one day
come about another round of revisions; and yet another reassessment of
what constitutes "distortionless" sound.
As we have seen, the term "high end" is a subjective term coined by a
gifted observationalist who felt that the quality of componentry, as
he observed it, could and should be better; and that the term "high
fidelity" had outlived its usefulness. In the course of time, HP's
term "high end" superceded the term "high fidelity" in the minds of
audiophiles (witness, for example, the name of this newsgroup). In the
process, he and his writers evolved a powerful vocabulary for
describing subtle differences among the various playback components
(and the recordings used to judge them).
If one wants to know what the term "high end" means, therefore, one
must go back and read the early issues of TAS. Considering that many
rahe readers do not own, or cannot otherwise obtain, early issues of
TAS, I will, in future posts, attempt to essay some of the highlights
that led to the genesis of the high-end."
Last edited by
vintage_dog on Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.