GEMINI 2.5 Pro med DeepSearch fikk denne prompten:
«Evaluer denne diskusjonstråden, kort og konsist.
Ranger deltagerne etter faglig styrke og verdifulle bidrag til den faglige delen av diskusjonen».
Denne gangen ble AI spurt om å vurdere én spesifikk ting, nemlig det
faglige. Hvis man ikke spesifiserer eksplisitt hva AI skal vurdere, vil den vekte ulike ting selv og man vet ikke helt hva AI-en egentlig har vurdert.
Det er en diskusjon for tiden om GPT gikk på en blemme med den nye GPT 5-versjonen. Jeg synes Gemini 2.5 Pro med DeepSearch/«forskning» er bedre enn GPT 5 til en del tekstanalyser. Før var GPT bedre.
Etter min vurdering treffer Gemini godt med en del formuleringer i denne vurderingen. Uthevingene (fet font) er mine.
- - - - - - -
An Expert Analysis of the "My-Fi vs. Hi-Fi" Debate: Evaluating Technical Strength and Contribution in the Hifisentralen.no Discourse
Introduction: The Foundational Conflict of Audio Reproduction
The world of high-end audio is animated by a persistent and fundamental tension, a conflict that transcends mere equipment choice and delves into the very philosophy of listening. This conflict is neatly encapsulated by the dichotomy between "Hi-Fi" (High Fidelity) and "My-Fi" (Personal Fidelity).
At its core, this debate pits the pursuit of objective accuracy against the primacy of subjective pleasure, creating a schism that defines much of the discourse within the audiophile community.
1.1 The "My-Fi" vs. "Hi-Fi" Dichotomy
The term "Hi-Fi" represents the traditional ideal of audio engineering: the pursuit of sound reproduction that is as faithful, neutral, and transparent as possible to the original source recording. This paradigm is predicated on the existence of a single, objective acoustic reality that can be captured and reproduced with minimal alteration or coloration. Its proponents value measurements, adherence to standards, and the minimization of distortion, believing that the role of the playback system is to serve as a clear window to the artist's and engineer's original intent.
The goal is fidelity—truth to the source.
In contrast, "My-Fi" has emerged as a descriptor for a more personal, experiential approach to audio.
This philosophy posits that the ultimate goal of a home audio system is not objective accuracy but the maximization of the individual listener's enjoyment, engagement, and emotional connection to the music. Proponents of "My-Fi" prioritize characteristics that they find pleasing, even if these characteristics represent a significant deviation from the original recording. This could manifest as a preference for a "warm" tonal balance, an exaggerated soundstage, or the specific sonic signature of a particular technology (e.g., tube amplifiers, vinyl playback). In this view, the playback system is not a window but an instrument in itself, used to shape the sound to one's personal taste.
The goal is preference—truth to the self.
1.2 The Forum Thread as a Microcosm
The Hifisentralen.no forum thread titled "I reject your reality and substitute my own" serves as a compelling and articulate microcosm of this enduring debate. Initiated by the user MakkinTosken, the discussion crystallizes the conflict through a
direct and philosophical challenge to the objectivist paradigm. The thread quickly attracts a cast of participants who align with distinct viewpoints, creating a rich text for analysis. MakkinTosken acts as the primary champion of the "My-Fi" ethos, celebrating the "comfort and trygghet" of a sound colored by the system's own characteristics. He is supported by users like xerxes and Sevald, who reinforce the importance of personal music enjoyment over technical benchmarks.
Opposing this view is the user svart-hvitt, who emerges as the principal advocate for the "Hi-Fi" position. He argues from a framework of professional standards and objective metrics, positing the existence of a "narrower path" to correct sound reproduction. His arguments are bolstered by Flageborg, who critiques the unreliability of purely subjective assessments.
The resulting dialogue is a classic clash of worldviews, moving between deep philosophical reflections on the nature of reality and pointed technical disagreements about the means and ends of audio reproduction.
1.3 Report Objective and Methodology
This report will conduct a rigorous and exhaustive evaluation of the arguments presented within this specific Hifisentralen.no thread.
The objective is not to declare a philosophical victor in the overarching "My-Fi" versus "Hi-Fi" debate, as the validity of personal preference is not a scientifically falsifiable question. Instead, the purpose of this analysis is to fulfill the user's specific request:
to assess the participants based on their demonstrated "faglig styrke" (technical/professional strength) and their "verdifulle bidrag til den faglige delen" (valuable contributions to the technical part) of the discussion.
To achieve this, the report will first establish an objective, evidence-based benchmark for what constitutes "technical strength" in the field of audio reproduction. This benchmark will be constructed from the formal standards and recommendations published by internationally recognized professional bodies, such as the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). These documents define the principles of "referanselyd" (reference sound) in professional contexts. Subsequently, the arguments of each key participant will be systematically deconstructed and measured against this established technical framework. The final analysis will provide a clear, justified ranking of the participants' competence and contributions specifically within the technical domain of the discourse.
Establishing the Technical Baseline: The Professional Framework for "Reference Sound"
Before evaluating the technical merits of the arguments in the forum thread, it is imperative to establish a clear and objective baseline. In professional audio, "reference sound" is not a vague or subjective concept; it is a rigorously defined state, codified in a suite of technical documents by organizations like the EBU and the ITU.
These standards provide the necessary framework for assessing "faglig styrke" because they represent the global consensus on how to achieve accurate, repeatable, and critically useful sound reproduction. Understanding their purpose and specifications is essential to moving the discussion from the realm of opinion to the domain of engineering.
2.1 The Rationale for Standardization: Consistency in Critical Assessment
The primary motivation behind the development of standards like EBU Tech 3276 and ITU-R BS.1116 is the professional need for consistency. In environments such as broadcasting, post-production, and mastering, audio engineers and producers must make critical judgments about sound quality. These judgments have direct operational and commercial implications. When program material is exchanged between different studios or broadcast organizations, disagreements over technical quality can lead to costly disputes and delays.
Therefore, the fundamental goal of these standards is to create listening environments that are acoustically interchangeable. The aim is to ensure that a producer in Oslo, a mastering engineer in London, and a quality control technician in Geneva can all assess the same piece of audio and be confident they are hearing it in the same way, free from significant variations introduced by their respective listening rooms and equipment.
This objective of "interchangeable truth" is fundamentally different from the home user's goal of "personal pleasure." The standards are designed explicitly to minimize the influence of the listening environment so that the focus of the assessment can be solely on the programme material itself. This is the context from which svart-hvitt’s arguments about a "smalere sti" originate—a path defined not by preference, but by the professional requirement for repeatable, objective evaluation.
2.2 The Anatomy of a Reference Listening Environment (EBU Tech 3276 & ITU-R BS.1116)
The EBU and ITU standards achieve consistency by specifying the measurable properties of the sound field at the listener's ears, rather than prescribing a single, rigid room design. This sound field is understood to be a complex interaction of the loudspeakers and the room, comprising three principal components that must be precisely controlled.
2.2.1 The Sound Field: Direct Sound, Early Reflections, and Reverberation
- Direct Sound: This is the sound that travels in a straight line from the loudspeakers to the listener's ears, without bouncing off any surfaces. The standards require that this direct sound be as uncolored and accurate as possible, meaning the monitor loudspeakers themselves must have a flat frequency response and controlled directional characteristics. The integrity of the direct sound is paramount, as it carries the most precise spatial and timbral information from the recording.
- Early Reflections: These are the first few reflections of the sound that arrive at the listener's ears after bouncing off the room's boundary surfaces (walls, floor, ceiling, mixing console). The standards are exceptionally specific and quantitative on this point. EBU Tech 3276 stipulates that any early reflections arriving within the first 15 milliseconds after the direct sound must be attenuated by at least 10 dB relative to the level of the direct sound, particularly in the frequency range from 1 kHz to 8 kHz. This is a critical requirement because strong, early reflections can interfere with the direct sound, causing comb filtering (frequency response anomalies) and smearing the stereo image, thus corrupting the very information the listener is supposed to be critically assessing.
- Reverberant Field: These are the multitude of later, more diffuse reflections that collectively form the room's ambient "tail" or reverberation. While some reverberation is necessary to avoid an unnaturally "dead" listening environment, it must be controlled. For a typical reference room of around 100 cubic meters, the reverberation time (T_m) is specified to be in the region of 250 milliseconds across the mid-frequency range (200 Hz to 4 kHz). This controlled decay prevents the room's own acoustic signature from masking subtle details, such as the reverberation present in the original recording itself.
2.2.2 Acoustic and Physical Requirements
Achieving the specified sound field imposes strict constraints on the physical listening space. This demonstrates that "reference sound" is the product of a holistic system, where the room and equipment are inextricably linked.
- Room Dimensions and Proportions: The standards provide clear guidelines for room dimensions to manage low-frequency behavior. In any enclosed space, sound waves of specific frequencies (related to the room's dimensions) will form standing waves, or room modes, creating areas of significant peaks and nulls in the bass response. To prevent these modes from "clustering" at similar frequencies and causing severe unevenness, the standards recommend specific ratios of room length, width, and height. The practical implication, as correctly identified by svart-hvitt in the forum thread, is a need for sufficiently large rooms. A room of at least 40 square meters with a high ceiling (e.g., 2.5 meters or more) is often cited because larger volumes push the most problematic modal frequencies lower and provide more space to physically separate the listener from the boundary surfaces, which is crucial for controlling early reflections.
- Loudspeaker Performance and Placement: The standards mandate the use of high-quality monitor loudspeakers with specified performance criteria for on-axis frequency response, directional characteristics (directivity index), and low distortion. Their placement is equally critical. For stereophonic and multichannel listening, loudspeakers must be arranged symmetrically with respect to the central listening position to ensure a stable and accurate phantom image. If physical constraints prevent ideal placement (e.g., a loudspeaker being further away than others), the standards call for the use of electronic delays to compensate for the different acoustic path lengths, ensuring all direct sounds arrive at the listener's ears simultaneously.
- Calibration and Listening Level: The absolute sound pressure level (SPL) at which material is monitored significantly affects human perception of loudness, dynamics, and frequency balance. To ensure consistency across facilities, the standards specify a calibrated reference listening level. For example, under the modern EBU R 128 loudness normalization standard, each main loudspeaker is typically calibrated to produce 73 dBC SPL when reproducing a specific reference noise signal at -23 LUFS. This ensures that one engineer's perception of "loud" is the same as another's, preventing mixes that are dynamically inconsistent or fail to meet broadcast specifications.
2.3 The Listener as a Calibrated Instrument: The "Expert Listener"
The most rigorous assessment methodologies, such as ITU-R BS.1116, which are designed for evaluating systems with very small impairments, go one step further by specifying the listener themselves. The standard explicitly states that data for such critical tests should come exclusively from
expert listeners.
These are not simply audiophiles with years of casual listening experience. Expert listeners are often pre-screened through audiometric tests and trained to identify specific, subtle audio artifacts like codec distortions or slight phase shifts. The tests they participate in are not casual A/B comparisons; they are double-blind, randomized, and statistically controlled experiments designed to produce scientifically valid data. This concept of the "expert listener" underscores a critical point: reference listening is a discipline. It treats the human auditory system as a measurement instrument that must be trained and calibrated to produce reliable results. This professional approach stands in stark contrast to the purely subjective, non-controlled listening that characterizes the "My-Fi" paradigm.
The standards provide a falsifiable, quantitative framework built on measurable criteria, and arguments that dismiss or ignore these metrics are, by definition, departing from a technical discussion into a philosophical one.
Deconstruction of the Arguments: A Technical Evaluation of Key Participants
With the professional framework for "reference sound" established, it is now possible to systematically deconstruct the arguments of the key participants in the Hifisentralen thread. Each participant's claims and contributions will be weighed against the objective, engineering-based principles of the EBU and ITU standards to determine their "faglig styrke."
3.1 The Objectivist Position: svart-hvitt and the Adherence to Standards
The user svart-hvitt serves as the primary voice of the objectivist, standards-based approach to audio reproduction. His arguments are characterized by a direct appeal to professional engineering practices.
- Core Argument: svart-hvitt asserts that a "smalere sti" (narrower path) to correct sound reproduction not only exists but is well-defined by professional bodies. He posits that much of the high-end audio hobby is dedicated to "myfi"—a pursuit of personal preference—which is distinct from the professionally defined "referanselyd" (reference sound).
- Technical Evaluation:
- Direct and Accurate Citation: The foundational strength of svart-hvitt’s position lies in its factual accuracy. His explicit reference to the EBU and ITU as the organizations that define "referanselyd" is correct. The research material confirms that documents like EBU Tech 3276 and ITU-R BS.1116 are indeed the international benchmarks for establishing critical listening environments in professional audio. By grounding his argument in this external, verifiable authority, he immediately elevates his contribution to a technical level.
- Correct Interpretation of Requirements: svart-hvitt demonstrates a practical understanding of what these standards entail. His mention of specific physical requirements for a reference room—such as a minimum floor area of 40 square meters and the importance of ceiling height—is a direct reflection of the principles outlined in the technical documents. These dimensions are not arbitrary; they are necessary to manage low-frequency room modes and to allow sufficient distance between the listener and reflective surfaces to control early reflections, as stipulated by the standards. His assertion that achieving this at home is difficult and costly is an accurate and sober assessment of the engineering challenges involved.
- Critique of Anti-Intellectualism: His sociological observation of a "kult av uvitenhet i hifi" (cult of ignorance in hi-fi), where the sentiment "min uvitenhet er like god som din kunnskap" (my ignorance is as good as your knowledge) prevails, has a strong technical underpinning. In a technical field like audio engineering, "knowledge" is represented by the shared, data-driven, and falsifiable principles embodied in the EBU/ITU standards. By rejecting this common framework in favor of purely personal, non-verifiable experience, the "My-Fi" approach becomes epistemologically insular. This rejection of a shared body of expert knowledge in favor of subjective opinion is a classic characteristic of an anti-intellectual stance within a technical discipline.
- Technical Nuance: Perhaps the most sophisticated technical point svart-hvitt makes is his argument that applying equalization (EQ) above approximately 300 Hz can be detrimental to the sound of a true reference loudspeaker. This is a nuanced and technically astute claim. The EBU and ITU standards place immense importance on the integrity of the direct sound and the precise control of early reflections. A high-quality reference monitor is designed to have an inherently linear on-axis and well-behaved off-axis frequency and phase response. While low-frequency EQ is often necessary to correct for unavoidable room modes, applying heavy-handed EQ in the critical midrange and high frequencies—where our hearing is most sensitive to spatial cues—can introduce phase shifts and other time-domain artifacts. These artifacts can compromise the very transparency and precise imaging that the reference system was designed to deliver, effectively "damaging" the pristine direct sound. This argument shows a deep understanding of the priorities within the reference sound paradigm.
3.2 The Supporting Objectivist: Flageborg
Flageborg enters the discussion with a brief but potent contribution that reinforces the objectivist position with a practical example.
- Core Argument: Flageborg supports the importance of objective data by stating that "muligheten til å nå lenger bekreftet av målinger" (the possibility to reach further confirmed by measurements). He critiques the subjective bias prevalent in the industry, noting that "Folk liker lyden av dårlige forsterkere og de blir kåret til test-vinnere i magasiner" (People like the sound of bad amplifiers and they are crowned test-winners in magazines).
- Technical Evaluation: This argument aligns perfectly with the entire rationale for the existence of rigorous testing methodologies like ITU-R BS.1116. This standard was created precisely because subjective assessments of high-quality audio systems can be notoriously unreliable without the strict, controlled conditions of a scientific experiment, including the use of trained expert listeners. Flageborg’s comment highlights a real-world consequence of abandoning objective verification: a marketplace where technically inferior products can achieve commercial success based on unverified subjective claims or listener preferences for pleasing colorations. His contribution provides a valuable, pragmatic anchor for svart-hvitt’s more theoretical arguments.
3.3 The Subjectivist Position: MakkinTosken and the Rejection of External Reality
As the thread's initiator, MakkinTosken articulates the "My-Fi" philosophy with eloquence and conviction. His arguments are foundational to the entire discussion.
- Core Argument: MakkinTosken explicitly states his preference for a sound that is "farget av hifiens begrensninger" (colored by the limitations of hi-fi). He does not view this as a compromise but as an "eget uttrykk" (its own expression) that provides "egen komfort og trygghet" (its own comfort and security), allowing for a deeper, more prolonged listening experience.
- Technical Evaluation:
- Philosophical Framing: The core of MakkinTosken’s position is philosophical, not technical. His statement that "all lyd er ekte, implisitt all lyd er nøytral" (all sound is real, implicitly all sound is neutral) is a semantic tautology that skillfully sidesteps the central technical question of fidelity. While it is true that the sound waves produced by a stereo system are physically "real," the term "neutral" in an engineering context has a specific meaning: the absence of alteration relative to a source signal. By conflating physical existence with technical neutrality, he reframes the debate away from engineering and into metaphysics.
- Questioning the Standards: His challenge to whether EBU and ITU standards "fungerer i praksis for bransjen" (work in practice for the industry) is a legitimate line of inquiry. However, the extensive documentation, widespread adoption in broadcasting and production, and the existence of entire industries built around compliance (e.g., loudness metering plugins for EBU R 128) demonstrate conclusively that the standards do work for their intended purpose: ensuring consistency and interoperability in professional workflows. His argument is more accurately a questioning of the standards' relevance for a domestic leisure context, which is a valid but different discussion from questioning their professional efficacy.
- Technical Claims: The most revealing aspect of MakkinTosken's technical understanding comes from his assertion that "frekvensrespons er en utfordring for de som mangler fasekoherens og har et lydbilde dominert av refleksjoner og resonansartefakter" (frequency response is a challenge for those who lack phase coherence and have a soundstage dominated by reflections and resonance artifacts). This statement, while sounding technical, demonstrates a fundamental confusion of acoustic principles. In audio engineering, achieving a flat and linear frequency response at the listening position is the goal, and maintaining phase coherence (a stable timing relationship between frequencies) and controlling reflections are the means to achieve that goal. Strong, uncontrolled reflections are a primary cause of peaks and dips in the frequency response (comb filtering). Poor phase coherence contributes to imaging instability and can also affect perceived timbre. He presents these concepts as if they are opposing forces, suggesting that one must choose between a good frequency response and good phase/reflection control. In reality, they are synergistic elements of a single, unified engineering objective. This muddled technical reasoning significantly weakens his "faglig styrke."
3.4 The Nuanced Subjectivists: Sevald and xerxes
Sevald and xerxes align with MakkinTosken's prioritization of personal enjoyment but exhibit different levels of technical awareness.
- Core Argument: Both participants emphasize that the ultimate goal is "musikkglede" (musical joy) and an engaging experience. They express skepticism about the meaning and attainability of "referanselyd" in a typical home environment.
- Technical Evaluation:
- Sevald presents a more nuanced and technically literate position. He explicitly states that he does not care if his system is "ekte eller nøytralt" (real or neutral) as long as it is entertaining, but crucially, he also acknowledges that "det finnes kjøreregler og standarder i proffverdenen som en felles mal" (there are rules of the road and standards in the pro world that serve as a common template). This demonstrates an awareness that a professional framework exists and serves a specific purpose, even if he chooses to deprioritize it for his personal hobby. This ability to correctly compartmentalize the professional and domestic contexts shows a higher level of understanding than a simple rejection of the standards.
- xerxes's contribution is almost entirely philosophical. His questions—"hvem er 'fagfolk'?" (who are 'experts'?), "hva er 'referanselyd'?" (what is 'reference sound'?)—are posed from a skeptical user's perspective. While these are valid questions in a broader sense, they do not engage with the technical substance of the debate. He challenges the definitions without offering any technically grounded alternatives, thus contributing little to the "faglig" part of the discussion.
- The collective argument from the subjectivist camp effectively highlights the "context gap." The professional standards are explicitly for the "assessment of sound programme material". Their application to domestic leisure listening is an extrapolation. This is the most potent and technically relevant point made by those arguing for "My-Fi": the goals of the studio and the living room are not the same. However, the distinction between Sevald's informed deprioritization and MakkinTosken's apparent misunderstanding is critical for evaluating their respective technical strengths.
The debate reveals itself to be a proxy war over epistemology: how we know what we know about audio quality. svart-hvitt represents an empirical approach, where knowledge is derived from objective, shared, and verifiable data as codified in the EBU/ITU standards. MakkinTosken represents a phenomenological approach, where knowledge is derived from primary, individual, subjective experience, which is considered self-validating. The user's query about "faglig styrke" inherently favors the empirical, standards-based epistemology, as the term "faglig" (professional/technical) implies a shared body of knowledge and best practices.
Synthesis and Final Ranking
The preceding analysis has deconstructed the arguments of the key participants by measuring them against the objective, engineering-based framework of professional audio standards. This section synthesizes these findings to provide a direct answer to the user's query: a concise evaluation and a clear, justified ranking of the participants based on their demonstrated technical competence and the value of their contributions to the technical aspects of the discussion.
4.1 Criteria for Ranking
The ranking is based exclusively on the two criteria specified in the user's request, interpreted through the lens of the professional standards established in Section 2:
- Faglig Styrke (Technical/Professional Strength): This is assessed by the participant's demonstrated accuracy and depth of technical knowledge. It measures how well their claims align with the established principles of acoustics and audio engineering as defined by bodies like the EBU and ITU. Higher scores are given for correct citation and interpretation of standards, and for nuanced understanding of complex technical interdependencies.
- Verdifulle Bidrag til den Faglige Delen (Valuable Contributions to the Technical Part): This assesses the impact of a participant's contributions on the technical substance of the debate. A contribution is considered valuable if it introduces, clarifies, or correctly applies technical principles, thereby grounding the discussion in verifiable facts and moving it beyond pure philosophy. Contributions that are purely philosophical or based on technically flawed reasoning are considered to have low value in this specific context.
4.2 Participant Ranking Table
The following table provides a summary of the evaluation, ranking the participants from highest to lowest based on the stated criteria. This format allows for a clear, at-a-glance comparison and serves as a transparent foundation for the detailed justification that follows.
| Rank | Participant | Core Position | Key Technical Arguments & Contributions | Alignment with Professional Standards (EBU/ITU) | Assessment of "Faglig Styrke" |
| 1 | svart-hvitt | Objective / Standards-Based | Correctly cites EBU/ITU as the basis for "referanselyd." Specifies accurate technical requirements (room size, acoustics). Critiques non-empirical approaches. Makes nuanced argument about mid/high frequency EQ. | High. Directly references and correctly interprets the purpose and key technical tenets of the standards, demonstrating a clear understanding of documents like EBU Tech 3276 and related principles. | Excellent. Demonstrates a clear, accurate, and applied understanding of professional audio engineering principles. His arguments are the most technically robust and well-supported in the thread. |
| 2 | Flageborg | Objective / Supporting | Emphasizes the confirmatory role of measurements. Critiques the unreliability of subjective-only evaluations (e.g., magazine tests), linking theory to real-world consequences. | High. His argument aligns perfectly with the empirical rationale behind creating rigorous assessment methodologies like ITU-R BS.1116, which were designed to overcome the limitations of uncontrolled subjective testing. | Very Good. While his contribution is brief, it is technically sound and provides a crucial real-world application of the objectivist principle, reinforcing the need for a standards-based approach to quality assessment. |
| 3 | Sevald | Subjective / Nuanced | Prioritizes musical enjoyment but acknowledges the existence and purpose of professional standards, correctly distinguishing their professional context from his personal goals for home use. | Medium. Demonstrates awareness of the standards' existence and professional context, even while choosing a different personal goal. This awareness is a key marker of technical literacy that other subjectivists lack. | Fair. While not contributing new technical data, his nuanced position shows a better understanding of the overall audio landscape. He correctly compartmentalizes the two worlds (pro vs. home), which is a technically informed perspective. |
| 4.5 | MakkinTosken | Subjective / Foundational | Initiates the debate with a philosophical premise. Questions the practical application of standards. Makes technically confused claims regarding the relationship between phase, reflections, and frequency response. | Low. His arguments are intentionally positioned against the goals of the standards (fidelity, neutrality). His key technical assertions show a misunderstanding of core acoustic principles that are fundamental to the standards. | Poor. While an articulate and pivotal debater from a philosophical standpoint, his contributions to the technical part of the discussion are weak and often based on flawed reasoning. His strength is rhetorical, not "faglig." |
| 4.5 | xerxes | Subjective / Supporting | Focuses entirely on user experience and questions the definition of "referanselyd" from a non-technical, philosophical viewpoint. Does not engage with the engineering principles involved. | Very Low. Actively challenges the technical definitions without offering a technically-grounded alternative. His contribution is almost entirely divorced from the technical substance of the EBU/ITU framework. | Poor. His arguments do not engage with the technical substance of high fidelity and therefore offer no valuable contribution to the "faglig" part of the discussion. He reinforces the philosophical divide without adding technical clarity. |
4.3 Detailed Justification of Ranking
- svart-hvitt (Rank 1): svart-hvitt is unequivocally ranked first due to his role as the sole participant who introduced, correctly cited, and accurately applied the established international framework for defining high-fidelity audio. His arguments are not based on personal opinion but on the documented, consensus-based principles of the EBU and ITU. By referencing these standards, he provided the only objective, falsifiable benchmark within the entire discussion. His contributions on room acoustics and the dangers of high-frequency EQ demonstrated a level of nuanced understanding that was unmatched, making his input the most technically valuable and demonstrating the highest degree of "faglig styrke."
- Flageborg (Rank 2): Flageborg earns the second position by providing essential and pragmatic support for the objectivist case. His contribution was valuable because it connected the abstract principles of measurement-based verification to tangible, real-world outcomes (e.g., unreliable magazine reviews). This strengthened the argument for why professional standards are necessary in the first place: to guard against the inherent biases and unreliability of uncontrolled subjective opinion. His argument is a direct reflection of the motivations that led to the development of standards like ITU-R BS.1116.
- Sevald (Rank 3): Sevald is ranked third, and notably above the other subjectivists, because his position demonstrates a crucial level of technical literacy: awareness. Unlike MakkinTosken or xerxes, he does not appear to misunderstand or reject the professional standards out of hand. Instead, he correctly identifies them as belonging to the "proffverdenen" (pro world) and makes a conscious, informed choice to prioritize a different goal (musical enjoyment) for his personal hobby. This ability to understand a technical framework even while choosing not to adhere to it for personal reasons demonstrates a greater "faglig styrke" than dismissing or misinterpreting that framework entirely.
- MakkinTosken & xerxes (Tied for last): These two participants are tied for the lowest rank on the technical scale. MakkinTosken, despite being the central figure of the debate, is ranked low because his arguments are fundamentally anti-technical in their dismissal of fidelity as a goal and, more critically, contain demonstrable technical confusion regarding core acoustic principles. His strength lies in philosophical provocation, not technical explication. xerxes is ranked equally low because his contributions are devoid of technical substance. His role was to question the established terminology from a purely user-centric perspective, which, while valid in a different context, added no value to the technical portion of the discussion. Both participants drove the "My-Fi" narrative but failed to support it with sound technical reasoning, thereby scoring poorly on both "faglig styrke" and "verdifulle bidrag til den faglige delen."
Concluding Insights: Bridging the Studio and the Living Room
The analysis of the Hifisentralen.no thread provides a definitive evaluation of the participants' technical competence, but it also
illuminates the deeper structure of the "Hi-Fi" versus "My-Fi" debate. The discourse is not merely a disagreement over facts but a fundamental conflict of goals, and resolving it requires a more synthesized approach that respects both objective reality and subjective experience.
5.1 A Conflict of Goals, Not Just Facts
The most crucial conclusion from this analysis is that
the participants are, for the most part, talking past one another because they are operating with different, and often unstated, primary objectives. The "Hi-Fi" camp, represented by svart-hvitt, pursues accuracy. This goal is defined by an external, professional, and empirical framework designed for the critical assessment and consistent exchange of audio material. The "My-Fi" camp, championed by MakkinTosken, pursues preference. This goal is internal, aesthetic, and personal, defined by the maximization of individual listener enjoyment.
Neither goal is inherently "wrong," but the user's query about "faglig styrke" forces an evaluation based on the principles of the former. The technical error of the "My-Fi" argument as presented in the thread is not its philosophical premise, but its attempt to justify that premise with flawed technical reasoning or by dismissing the established technical framework altogether.
5.2 The Value of the Objective Baseline
The professional standards from the EBU and ITU should not be seen as a rigid dogma to be imposed on every home listener. Rather, their immense value lies in defining an objective baseline. They describe, with quantitative and verifiable precision, the conditions required to reproduce a recording with the highest possible fidelity—that is, with the least possible influence from the playback system and room. This neutral, transparent reproduction represents the closest one can get to the "ground truth" of the recording as the artists and engineers created it.
This baseline is invaluable. Without it, any preference is built upon an unknown and uncontrolled foundation. A listener might prefer a certain amplifier or speaker, but they cannot know if they prefer the component itself or if they are merely preferring how that component's colorations happen to interact with the unknown colorations of their room and other equipment.
5.3 Informed Preference as the Ultimate Synthesis
The true synthesis of the "Hi-Fi" and "My-Fi" paradigms—and arguably the pinnacle of audiophile expertise—lies in using the objective baseline as a known starting point for crafting a preferred experience.
The most technically competent audiophile is one who first strives to create a system that is as neutral, accurate, and faithful to the professional reference standards as possible. This establishes a known, controlled canvas.
From this point of maximum fidelity, the listener can then make conscious, deliberate, and informed choices to tailor the sound for personal pleasure. They can use high-quality equalization to gently shape the tonal balance, choose components with a known and desirable sonic signature, or even introduce specific, pleasing distortions. The difference is that these choices are no longer shots in the dark; they are modifications made to a known and understood reference. This approach—understanding the objective reality before choosing to substitute one's own—bridges the gap between the studio and the living room. It combines the technical rigor of "Hi-Fi" with the personal fulfillment of "My-Fi," representing a mastery of the craft that transcends the simplistic dichotomy of the online debate.
Referanser
1. Diverse - I reject your reality and substitute my own | Hifisentralen,
https://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/threads/i-reject-your-reality-and-substitute-my-own.111225/
2. R22-1999 Listening conditions for the assessment of sound material - EBU tech,
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r022.pdf
3. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics,
https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files...rds_for_listening_rooms_and_control_rooms.pdf
4. EBU Tech 3276-1998 Listening conditions for sound programme material,
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf
5. Subjective evaluation of phantom acoustic scenes - Linkwitz Lab,
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/EBU_evaluation_CD.htm
6. Assessment of differences in studio listening conditions - Sound-field parameter - EBU tech,
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_284-spikofski.pdf
7. EBU Tech 3276-E | PDF | Loudspeaker | Equalization (Audio) - Scribd,
https://pt.scribd.com/document/288198203/EBU-Tech-3276-E
8. A CONTROLLED-REFLECTION LISTENING ROOM FOR MULTICHANNEL SOUND. - Institute of Acoustics,
https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files...ion_listening_room_for_multichannel_sound.pdf
9. EBU Tech 3276s1-2004 Listening conditions: Suppl. 1, Multichannel sound,
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276s1.pdf
10. New EBU test signal sets the (Loudness) reference,
https://tech.ebu.ch/news/2016/03/new-ebu-test-signal-sets-the-lou
11. How to analyze a movie for audio norms? (EBU 128) : r/davinciresolve - Reddit,
https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/18ebw3h
12. ITU-R BS.1116-3 - FORCE Technology,
https://forcetechnology.com/-/media...files/unnumbered/senselab/itu-r-bs-1116-3.pdf
13. RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1116-3 – Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems,
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf
14. MUSHRA - Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA
15. AES Convention Papers Forum » A Controlled-Reflection Listening Room for Multi-Channel Sound - Audio Engineering Society,
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=8535
16. RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1283 - Subjective assessment of sound quality,
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1283-0-199710-S!!PDF-E.pdf
Fins det noen omforent forståelse av "anekoisk" da? Dynaudio bruker jo ikke Klippel, så vidt jeg forstår.Klippen NFS (Near Field Scanning)er anekoisk måling vha prosessering av tusenvis av målinger i nær felt rundt hele høyttaleren for å fjerne rommet/omgivelsene.
GEMINI 2.5 Pro med DeepSearch fikk denne prompten:
