Does hi-fi matter.

[reith]

I wanted to raise this at the "philosophical" level rather than technical. One of those borderline subjects. If it becomes technical it may need moving.

I have a reasonable sound system much of which is home constructed to pretty high standards. I'd call it high-fidelity in the original sense of the term - as much an attitude of mind as components/boxes. I've avoided debates about how satisfactory lossy compression systems are like mp3. I can usually tell the difference between a CD track and a 128kb mp3 - am not claiming that either are better (though, as base data, a CD is obviously better whereas for listening on public transport or walking, an mp3 will do).

Point is, I tune in to Radio 3 (FM) to the "CD Review" to see why the fuss about Norrington's Mahler 2. But, hi-fi or not, I forgot something - it's the british summer today and tomorrow and there's a 'hell-for-leather' race for everyone to pull out their lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and anything else electric that makes a noise.

Double glazing helps only a little so I sit here sweltering (lucky I love the heat). I don't particularly want to use headphones so my listening is messed up by noise pollution. I've long given up the idea of making recordings at home unless during the latter part of the night.

Things have got worse in the past 5 years in England and it seems I'm wasting my time using high fidelity equipment. I might as well have a boom box with headphones.

Do others have views about the value of high fidelity in this age?

Noise pollution?

Should we expect to get decent acoustic sounds through loud-speakers when the musicians were intended to be heard acoustically? How much of a concert atmosphere be captured under these conditions?

Since few people can tell the difference between CD and, let's say 256kb, is high-fidelity obsolescent?

cheers,
reith.

[chckn8r]

Great thread starter Reith!

To me, fidelity matters ... depending upon the listening situation. When I'm writing, recording or listening critically, the maximum number of bits / sampling rate used coupled with good equipment (and I always find myself wanting better... ) matters for sure!

When I'm listening while doing something else - either around the house or out somewhere else (gym, errands, driving, etc.) fidelity is not so important as I'm now in a quasi-passive listening mode. I'm still listening and finding myself keying in on certain points of the music, but I'm not 100% devoted to actively listening. I encode my MP3's at least 192 kbps where I get a decent size while minimizing the annoying artifacts of the encoding process.

The dilemma you're addressing isn't just limited to music. For example, you have wine and food aficionados who can perceive and appreciate imperceptible (at least to me) nuances in the taste palette. I have a friend who spends enormous amounts of money on good wine and although I can probably tell that it's good, I have no idea why it's good nor would I spend that much money to appreciate it.

I think there's the parallel in music - the vast majority of people out there love to listen to music, but not in such an active manner we enjoy.

Cheers, D

[Thorolf]

For me, it’s really a matter of librarianism: I want my music library to be of as high quality as possible.

I listen to music on my computer, on my media center (Mac Mini), my iPod, my portable CD players, headphones, speakers… I even take my music with me for DJ’ing sometimes. This of course makes for very diverse equipment, noise environments etc.

I know that hi-fi listening makes a difference for me, so I always want to perserve the best possible quality. The maximum for mp3 is 320 kb/s (CBR), but that wastes some precious space, and I go for a slightly higher compression scheme, LAME 3.97 (-q 0 -V 0), which lands me with everything between 180 and 260 kb/s (VBR) depending on what is needed to keep the quality at a maximum. Ripping HQ Mp3s with proper tags

So for pure listening and professional DJ’ing, I’m content with HQ mp3’s, but for CD releases (mix CD’s etc.), I want to preserve every bit possible, and I mix the uncompressed tracks for best possible results.

So for the philosophy: I know that even if different setups have different limitations, hi-fi makes a difference. Therefore, I don’t want to take any quality out at the encoding stage: The audio losses are elsewhere, anyway, and I don’t want them to add up!



Regards