In Reply to: The philosophy of "higher fidelity" in audiophilia is B.S. posted by Analog Scott on November 6, 2017 at 19:03:44:
Actually, if we include your view then it's 3 if not 4 or 5 warring cults.
But you do bring up a good point. I don't think high fidelity was originally intended to be a joke but it looks like some-to-many have turned it into exactly that - especially those who make a living at it.
But I see striving for fidelity to the music info embedded into a given recording medium as the best alternative and one that should be entirely within our scope - either actually or at least potentially and therefore entirely attainable.
In other words, from our own experiences with computer backups and restores, we can be pretty certain that reading digital information is pretty close to 100% accuracy unless a piece of hardware has failed.
If reading close to 100% of the music info is true, then it's really just a matter of minimizing distortions such that the vast majority of music info read and processed remains audible above a given playback system's noise floor, rather than below the noise floor where it is inaudible.
Hence, this option should at least theoretically be above reproach such that one like yourself would be hard-pressed to "deconstruct and destroy."
Anything beyond that target is simply outside of our scope and therefore seemingly pointless or nebulous for a target. In other words, at some point we have to trust others e.g. sound and mastering engineers, etc, to perform due diligence.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: The philosophy of "higher fidelity" in audiophilia is B.S. - stehno 11/7/1714:09:56 11/7/17 (25)
- Let the deconstruction begin! - Analog Scott 19:44:15 11/7/17 (23)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Tre' 20:34:52 11/7/17 (22)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Analog Scott 22:11:30 11/7/17 (5)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Tre' 06:46:53 11/8/17 (4)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Analog Scott 07:29:44 11/8/17 (3)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Tre' 07:37:59 11/8/17 (2)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Analog Scott 07:46:52 11/8/17 (1)
- RE: Let the deconstruction begin! - Tre' 08:01:51 11/8/17 (0)
- "Do I have that right?"...I don't believe so... - Steve O 21:02:25 11/7/17 (15)
- ah...someone is getting it - Analog Scott 22:14:51 11/7/17 (0)
- RE: "Do I have that right?"...I don't believe so... - Tre' 21:12:22 11/7/17 (13)
- RE: "Do I have that right?"...I don't believe so... - Analog Scott 22:15:47 11/7/17 (6)
- RE: "Do I have that right?"...I don't believe so... - Tre' 06:29:57 11/8/17 (5)
- So bad sound is a good thing if you believe it is accurate. - Analog Scott 07:37:15 11/8/17 (4)
- RE: So bad sound is a good thing if you believe it is accurate. - BubbaMike 10:30:51 11/8/17 (2)
- RE: So bad sound is a good thing if you believe it is accurate. - Analog Scott 16:05:30 11/8/17 (0)
- RE: So bad sound is a good thing if you believe it is accurate. - Tre' 13:11:25 11/8/17 (0)
- Name calling? Is that the best you can do? - Tre' 07:45:47 11/8/17 (0)
- I believe his point is that the recording is part of a chain of processes... - Steve O 21:32:42 11/7/17 (5)
- RE: I believe his point is that the recording is part of a chain of processes... - Tre' 06:41:05 11/8/17 (3)
- RE: I believe his point is that the recording is part of a chain of processes... - Steve O 08:43:55 11/8/17 (1)
- RE: I believe his point is that the recording is part of a chain of processes... - Tre' 08:50:58 11/8/17 (0)
- " You lost me there. What is a "reproducing piano"?" - Analog Scott 07:40:36 11/8/17 (0)
- And once again...you nail it! - Analog Scott 22:16:58 11/7/17 (0)
- RE: The philosophy of "higher fidelity" in audiophilia is B.S. - bjh 14:48:58 11/7/17 (0)