HIFI Diary: Debunking HIFI Myths, Returning to the Essence of Music

This is the BLOG Owner’s second industry diary. The first, “Reflections on Digital Streaming and CD Interfaces in the Music Industry,” explored the significance of physical and digital music for the copyright ecosystem, systematically reviewing the evolution of music carriers. Years later, after encountering the following comment, the BLOG Owner revisits their understanding of “HIFI.”

Introduction: Starting with a “Good Question”

Whether novice or veteran audiophiles, we have all pondered: “What exactly are we pursuing in HIFI?” This seemingly simple question cuts to the core of modern audio consumption culture. The BLOG Owner contends that today’s mainstream interpretation of “HIFI” (High Fidelity) has drastically deviated from its original intent. The term has been generalized, distorted, and hijacked, creating a top-down system of collective hypnosis—or even psychological manipulation—targeting music enthusiasts.

I. The Myth of “High Fidelity”: Who Distorts HIFI’s Definition?

1. From “Technical Label” to “Status Symbol”

HIFI’s essence is “high fidelity,” meaning “highly faithful to the original sound”—a purely technical concept. Yet commercialization has subtly redefined it.

HIFI evolved from describing equipment performance to symbolizing “taste,” “expertise,” or even “social class.” Decades of marketing by manufacturers and media equated “music lover” with “HIFI pursuer,” fostering a community ethos that “without HIFI, one cannot truly appreciate music.”

This myth is easily debunked: “Did people in the past not deserve good music?” or “Must one own HIFI gear to understand music?” The answers are obvious. This subconscious redefinition constructs identity under consumerism, not pure musical appreciation.

2. The Battle for “Definition Rights”

Why redefine “HIFI”? Why choose this term? HIFI is abstract, unifying diverse audio technologies and pursuits. Its simplicity makes it widely accessible—similar to buzzwords like “AI” or “META”

The problem lies in HIFI’s inherent ambiguity. While retaining “high fidelity” as its core, its scope and nuances have been repeatedly redefined. The struggle for this exclusive “definition right” has led to HIFI’s extreme generalization and misuse as a tool of manipulation.

For manufacturers, standards balancing marketing and technical grading are crucial. The HIFI field abounds with such standards: technical ones like the “Harman Curve” and subjective frameworks like “The Twenty Essentials of Audio.” Universal standards are beneficial; otherwise, marketing dominates.

Thus, R&D-capable manufacturers leverage resources to redefine HIFI as quantifiable metrics (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, distortion, frequency response). Higher specs mean more “HIFI” and higher prices. This transforms HIFI into a “scientific” justification for premium pricing. Aware of this, enthusiasts coined “Specs-Fi” (科学HIFI) to distinguish it from true HIFI—a satirical resistance against metrics monopolizing HIFI’s definition.

The BLOG Owner clarifies: They support using specs to evaluate hardware, but as a certified power bank can still malfunction, specs only measure minimum standards. The core experience—listening pleasure—should be judged by listeners. This leads to the next battleground: KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders).

For new brands challenging established players, what is the best strategy? Creating impressive products? Optimizing sound? Neither. Most emerging HIFI brands cultivate KOLs. They craft brand personas, highlight “master tuners” or founders’ “unique taste/experience,” and emphasize “signature sound signatures.” Superficially, this aligns with HIFI as artistic expression. Yet it strips listeners of agency. KOLs frame HIFI as an unquantifiable “artistic sensation,” using community marketing to position products as “the choice of true music connoisseurs.”

This practice, now an industry norm (or unwritten rule), entrenches collective conditioning deeper in HIFI than in most hobbies. Whether defining HIFI via metrics or KOLs, the goal remains: granting products authority for commercial gain. Consumers, trapped in information silos, gradually lose their voice. Ask yourself: Can you still discern a product’s true quality from marketing materials?

II. Music Is Art, Not a Scientific Experiment

As abstract art, music thrives on ambiguity and multiplicity. Composers, performers, and engineers complete the first half of creation; true re-creation begins when listeners engage. Personal experiences, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and environments interact with music, yielding unique interpretations.

Like painting or literature, we accept “a thousand Hamlets for a thousand readers,” but rarely insist “Hamlet must be understood as the author intended.” Similarly, we cannot “decode” the Mona Lisa’s smile—doing so betrays artistic expression.

Enforcing rigid standards for music (creation or listening) stifles creativity and risks its demise. The “Loudness War,” a product of collective conditioning, exemplifies this challenge.

From the BLOG Owner’s expertise: Psychoacoustics reveals our hearing isn’t a high-fidelity recorder but a creative neural decoder. A chasm exists between physical sound waves and perceived sound. Consider MP3’s auditory masking effect. Technically, MP3 is lossy compression—irreversibly deleting data to reduce file size. Instruments show stark waveform differences between MP3 and original CD tracks, making it objectively “non-HIFI.” Why do most fail to distinguish high-bitrate MP3 from lossless? MP3 exploits auditory masking: a loud sound “masks” nearby quiet ones, removing “inaudible” information.

This illustrates: Human brains don’t passively receive sound. MP3’s losses are perceived as “lossless”; vinyl’s “flaws” become aesthetic “warmth.” Thus, criticizing a sound as “not HIFI” overlooks that extreme fidelity pursuit contradicts music’s foundation. Music’s allure lies in leveraging physics to resonate with subjective perception. Humanity’s rich musical history is built on this subjective soil—not cold objectivity. Our brains’ reinterpretation is music’s greatest footnote.

III. The Long Journey from Studio to Ears

Trace music’s path from creation to perception. Where does HIFI fit? What insights does it offer listeners?

1. Source & Environment

Take a violin: Cheap or priceless, its sound varies by material, age, luthier, player, and bowing technique. Upon sound production, variability begins. Engineers place microphones in acoustically measured rooms (reverb, standing waves), set angles/distances, then record.

For HIFI, source control is minimal. This isn’t about poor quality, but opacity—listeners cannot access recording conditions. Few albums disclose recording setups. Without knowing the original state, how can we define “fidelity”?

2. Microphone & Placement

The engineer’s first choice: microphone type (dynamic, condenser, ribbon)? Distance/angle? These decisions shape timbre, dynamics, and spatiality—artistic choices, not mere signal capture. Industry conventions exist, but outcomes vary wildly. Like Step 1, this remains largely opaque.

3. Tracking & Mixing

Modern music uses multitrack recording. Mix engineers act as conductors, making critical decisions:

Levels & Panning	Volume and stereo positioning.
EQ	Boosting/cutting frequencies for clarity/character.
Dynamics	Compression/limiting for punch/smoothness.
Effects	Reverb/delay for space/atmosphere.

Here lies the “sound the engineer intended”—but the original signal is gone. We hear a reconstructed scene based on the mixer’s artistry. Outside classical genres, electronic processing is ubiquitous. At this stage, HIFI enthusiasts claim the “true” source is the mix. But is it?

4. Mastering

The final step, handled by mastering engineers—”quality controllers” who:

Standardize	Ensure consistent loudness/timbre across an album.
Optimize	Tailor output for media (streaming/CD/vinyl), e.g., limiting loudness to -14 LUFS for platforms.
Correct	Fix technical flaws.

Historically, “mastering” referred to lacquer disc cutting; today, it means finalizing mixed audio. However, delivery involves platform-specific processing (e.g., loudness normalization). The “Loudness War” peaks here.

The final product is a chain of reinterpretations by performers, engineers, and platforms. HIFI gear can only reproduce the “cooked” post-mix version—not the “raw” live source. Worshiping “original” audio or obsessing over master-level fidelity is thus misguided.

IV. The True Meaning of Technical Metrics

The BLOG Owner acknowledges HIFI gear’s value (owning six-figure equipment) and respects “subjectivist” perspectives. Metrics inform pricing and baseline performance; they underpin musical expression. A flawed system—with distortion, narrow frequency response, or weak dynamics—acts like frosted glass, obscuring musical details and emotion.

Resolution	Reveals subtle elements (e.g., breath sounds, string textures).
Dynamic Range	Conveys emotional contrast (whispers to crescendos).
Transient Response	Ensures rhythmic precision (music’s backbone).
Timbre Accuracy	Distinguishes instruments’ emotional hues.

Critically, these metrics serve the goal of “experiencing music.” They build a clear, stable platform for emotional flow. Beyond a “good enough” threshold, further gains yield diminishing returns, while personal taste dominates. Absurd standards (e.g., “How much sorrow does Tsai Chin’s voice hold?” or “Is this piano tone ‘wet’ or ‘dry’?”) reflect pathological obsessions in fringe HIFI circles.

V. Becoming an Empowered Music Listener

If you’ve read this far, you grasp the BLOG Owner’s message: HIFI has been hijacked by the industry to manipulate users, breeding toxic mindsets (“spending less on HIFI = foolish” or “non-HIFI = musically ignorant”). Prioritizing “pleasing sound” is often scorned. While reversing this culture is unlikely, music lovers must defy “industry standards” and voice their preferences. Suggestions:

1. Trust Your Ears, Set Personal Standards: Reviews and specs are references—you are the final judge. Listen widely to find immersive sound.
2. Define Needs, Don’t Follow Blindly: Consider genre, environment, and budget. A classical-optimized system may fail for rock. Seek suitability, not supremacy.
3. Resist “Collective Hypnosis”: Stay skeptical when brands/products are deified. Commercial motives lurk behind hype. Think independently; respect others’ choices but uphold yours.
4. Treat HIFI as a Journey, Not a Destination: Exploring gear and tuning styles can be enlightening. Avoid endless “gear anxiety.”
5. Return to Music: Invest time in discovering music and deepening connections. Equipment is the vessel; music is the ocean. Sail—don’t endlessly polish the boat.

VI. Conclusion

HIFI is a powerful tool that brings us closer to high-quality music. But we must remember: Tools are tools—never idols. True musical experience springs from unique, irreplicable emotional resonance with art. Let go of rigid “standards,” embrace diverse aesthetics, and find your personal path to “high fidelity.”