Faithfulness to - or accurate presentation of - "source" - is the very "meaning" of HI-FIDELITY ... but "what" exactly is the source, and what does it actually mean? :thinking:
Remaining completely "true" to the source is impossible when that original source has itself undergone many evolutionary changes, and this is all long before you or I have even had the chance to listen to it. As end-users or listeners, I think the ONLY source that "we" should concern ourselves with, and be making any reference to when discussing the "source" is in fact the already-mixed and mastered audio, or iow "THE RELEASED MATERIAL."
Whatever happens "IN" studio, CANNOT be the source because the sound will later be manipulated and steered the direction of the mixer or engineer's unique "vision." The performance recorded or captured here is the ORIGINAL SOURCE, but that recording is already "in bed" with the sexy engineer who promises to be gentle and "true" but then the clothes come off, and his whispered "sweet nothings" will shift drastically, and he "changes his tune" (pun intended) to "WHO'S YOUR DADDY!" forcefully imposing himself on the sweet innocence that once was. An experienced engineer will have a whole lot of "tricks" in his bag such as "ATTACK," "RELEASE," "THRESHOLD" and "DELAY" and will use these playfully and in different combinations to achieve the desired result, all to "satisfy" his customer (and also himself.) So.... our "engineer" is a bit of a "badboy" and NOT TRUE TO THE SOURCE. :whip:
Once a track or CD has been mastered and released to the public, being completely "faithful" to this NEW "IMPROVED" SOURCE can also be a near-impossible ask. Even equipment of the "highest" fidelity and "flattest" of measurements, will not achieve the exact same result. For most with "lesser" systems, the closest we can get to the engineer's "vision" of what "his" mix should sound like, would be to keep tone and EQ settings at "neutral," but for true "faithfulness" one would have to be listening to this recording off the same monitors, and in the same studio it was originally "mastered." Flat response and measurements are a lot more "faithful" yes, but NOT COMPLETELY FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCE. :sulky:
Anyway, the whole point of this post is "The very concept of HIGH-FIDELITY is flawed."
Remaining "true" to the source is a pipe dream, and ultimately unachievable. Why should you (the listener) be "true" to ANY source when NOBODY ELSE (in the production) was?
I say listen to your music bass-boosted and heavily EQ'ed if that "sounds" better to you.
I say "forget the source, and be true to yourself."
Remaining completely "true" to the source is impossible when that original source has itself undergone many evolutionary changes, and this is all long before you or I have even had the chance to listen to it. As end-users or listeners, I think the ONLY source that "we" should concern ourselves with, and be making any reference to when discussing the "source" is in fact the already-mixed and mastered audio, or iow "THE RELEASED MATERIAL."
Whatever happens "IN" studio, CANNOT be the source because the sound will later be manipulated and steered the direction of the mixer or engineer's unique "vision." The performance recorded or captured here is the ORIGINAL SOURCE, but that recording is already "in bed" with the sexy engineer who promises to be gentle and "true" but then the clothes come off, and his whispered "sweet nothings" will shift drastically, and he "changes his tune" (pun intended) to "WHO'S YOUR DADDY!" forcefully imposing himself on the sweet innocence that once was. An experienced engineer will have a whole lot of "tricks" in his bag such as "ATTACK," "RELEASE," "THRESHOLD" and "DELAY" and will use these playfully and in different combinations to achieve the desired result, all to "satisfy" his customer (and also himself.) So.... our "engineer" is a bit of a "badboy" and NOT TRUE TO THE SOURCE. :whip:
Once a track or CD has been mastered and released to the public, being completely "faithful" to this NEW "IMPROVED" SOURCE can also be a near-impossible ask. Even equipment of the "highest" fidelity and "flattest" of measurements, will not achieve the exact same result. For most with "lesser" systems, the closest we can get to the engineer's "vision" of what "his" mix should sound like, would be to keep tone and EQ settings at "neutral," but for true "faithfulness" one would have to be listening to this recording off the same monitors, and in the same studio it was originally "mastered." Flat response and measurements are a lot more "faithful" yes, but NOT COMPLETELY FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCE. :sulky:
Anyway, the whole point of this post is "The very concept of HIGH-FIDELITY is flawed."
Remaining "true" to the source is a pipe dream, and ultimately unachievable. Why should you (the listener) be "true" to ANY source when NOBODY ELSE (in the production) was?
I say listen to your music bass-boosted and heavily EQ'ed if that "sounds" better to you.
I say "forget the source, and be true to yourself."
