Transparency vs "Symphonic coloration" in modern DAC gear.

[Blizzard]

Ask a recording engineer whether his master tape is identical to his digital copy?

According to Jan-Eric Persson of Opus 3 records, known for his state of the art R2R recordings, he can't tell his master tapes from DSD 256 copies made with the Hapi.

 

[wisnon]

Bruce is talking about the plethora of digital emulation products that are already out there. He's not talking about products he's never heard of that haven't been released yet.

Before this software is released, it will undergo blind testing. If Bruce wants to volunteer to be one of the blind testers, he can be. He would love this software more than anyone. But still it's limited on the quality of the ADC and DAC. So this is assuming like many people say, the Hapi and Horus is indeed 100% transparent.

There is no such thing as 100% transparency. Best Dac does not reach 90%…Sheesh! Stop going down the wrong track.

I like you. I dont want you to waste your time.

 

[Blizzard]

The whole funny thing is Blizz used the phrase Euphonic coloration, I tried to type it in and my phone autocorrected it to symphonic coloration, and Blizz now used it for the title of this thread.

Keith, thanks for posting that Weiss link, of the dac you sell

Symphonic has a nicer ring to it anyways. Damn that auto correct knows what it's doing sometimes

 

[Blizzard]

There is no such thing as 100% transparency. Best Dac does not reach 90%…Sheesh! Stop going down the wrong track.

I like you. I dont want you to waste your time.

I guess David W Robinson and Jan-Eric Persson are either deaf or liars then.

View attachment 22965

 

[Ken Newton]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the emotions of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those emotions for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

 

[bonzo75]

Daniel I believe , doesn't think much of DSD as a format compared to PCM, but as you say marketing calls for it.
Keith.

So why doesn't he improve his PCM then? I thought the Lampi Level 4 was better

 

[Audiophile Bill]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the feelings of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those feelings for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

Very nice post, sir. Excellent points.

 

[bonzo75]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the emotions of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those emotions for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

+1 - what a refreshing post - an oasis

 

[Ken Newton]

Thank you, both.

 

[Blizzard]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the emotions of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those emotions for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

The kind of transparency I'm talking about is like David W Robinson and Jan-Eric Persson experienced when auditioning Jan's master tapes ripped to DSD 256, and not being able to tell the difference from the original masters. As far as I'm concerned, if there's no possible way you can tell them apart, it's transparent enough.

The best part about having gear transparent enough is whatever your view of what moves you emotionally can be emulated flawlessly. If it can't be emulated flawlessly, it's simply not transparent enough.

Now if you were in Jan-Eric-Persson's position, and you didn't like the sound of your own master tape, you could always rip it to DSD 256, play it back through your favorite sounding DAC that creates the colorations that move your soul, and record it back to DSD 256 via the Analog outputs.

 

[PeterA]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the emotions of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those emotions for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

Ken, I nominate your post to the short list of best posts of the year. Really good.

EDIT: as I was reading it, I guess others posted the same sentiment.

 

[DaveC]

A major problem in your question, I think, is that 'transparent' is a qualitative term. It is subjective. As such, it will be defined differently by different people. An audio equipment engineer needs a quantitative definition of transparent in order to engineer transparency in to a product. He/she needs a set of numerical specifications to meet. The assumption here, of course, is that meeting some set of numerical specifications will produce subjectively transparent sound. But, will it? Many components today deliver nearly perfect specifications, yet often fall well short of sounding like real instruments, or, more importantly, communicating emotion. If the subjective system result is clinical sounding, what has been achieved? If the original musical event was not clinical sounding, yet the electronic reproduction by equipment having nearly perfect specifications so often is, might it be valid to view this clinical sounding reproduction as being colored in some respect? After all, music is not appreciated by lab equipment, it is only appreciated by human beings. If an serious audio system does not musically communicate joy, or sadness, or some emotions which can't even be described with words, what exactly is it's purpose?

My experience is that the gift of music is it's ability to communicate emotions in a way that no other human medium can. Music doesn't simply tell the listener the emotions of the musician or of the composer, it can cause the listener to actually experience those emotions for themselves. This being the true gift of music leads me to conclude that emotional communication is the first requirement of any serious audio system. If some form of qualitative coloration is involved in conveying emotional communication, especially at affordable price points, then so be it. I feel that highest form of home audio reproduction occurs when a system seamlessly merges emotional communication with subjective transparency (the lack of percieved coloration or obstruction). In this too rare case, there is not the dichotomous choice of emotional communication or transparency of presentation that is dictated by the great majority of audio gear.

I feel that gear which only delivers objective transparency (excellent specifications) occupy the bottom most rung of the musical satisfaction ladder for a serious audio system. Next up that ladder is subjective transparency. Subjectively transparent systems are often interesting to listen to at first, even sounding like live instruments playing, but eventually, they become surprisingly uninteresting for their lack of emotional communication. One might think that a transparent sound would naturally also convey emotion effectively, but for some odd reason this often seems not to be the case. Next up the ladder is emotional communication, which I feel is the lowest acceptable level of performance for any serious audio system. Finally, at the top, is emotional communication combined with subjective transparency. These rare systems not only often sound like live instruments playing, they consistently move the soul as well. The technology simply fades away from concious awareness, and what's left is the music. No restless analyzing of th sound. No distractions. This is the audio system holy grail in my view.

I agree for the most part but the emotional aspect is very subjective and differs quite a bit from person to person. For me transparency and fine detail contribute to my emotional connection with the music, so I tend toward the pursuit of high fidelity in it's true sense. Others don't care so much about about having the utmost resolution and transparency, they connect better to music that sounds however they like it to sound, for most it's a warm, rich sound they are after and they will sacrifice resolution to get the sound they enjoy. Another example is soundstaging, some don't care if a system does this well, but for me it's a top priority. If a system doesn't image well and can't create a convincing soundstage it probably doesn't do other things well either, but some folks just don't care all that much.

This is why there is a wide variety of equipment so everyone can find what floats their boat. Most of the cables I offer are designed to be as neutral, transparent and revealing as possible, but I have a couple of cables that are geared towards people that want a warm or laid-back presentation. Rather than insist my way is right I'd rather make gear to satisfy these different preferences because there is no right or wrong. However, I have found that people can generally be grouped into 2 camps and there isn't too much middle ground. Most people either want the best fidelity possible, and this includes timbral fidelity... others want a presentation that is warmer. Not sure I've ever ran into anyone that wants a bright, harsh sound.

 

[DaveC]

Transparent in terms of audio , simply means a component once inserted into an audio chain cannot be detected, it adds or subtracts nothing.
I can't quite see how adding distortion adds to emotional communication?
Keith.

It does for many people though...

 

[Blizzard]

I agree for the most part but the emotional aspect is very subjective and differs quite a bit from person to person. For me transparency and fine detail contribute to my emotional connection with the music, so I tend toward the pursuit of high fidelity in it's true sense. Others don't care so much about about having the utmost resolution and transparency, they connect better to music that sounds however they like it to sound, for most it's a warm, rich sound they are after and they will sacrifice resolution to get the sound they enjoy. Another example is soundstaging, some don't care if a system does this well, but for me it's a top priority. If a system doesn't image well and can't create a convincing soundstage it probably doesn't do other things well either, but some folks just don't care all that much.

This is why there is a wide variety of equipment so everyone can find what floats their boat. Most of the cables I offer are designed to be as neutral, transparent and revealing as possible, but I have a couple of cables that are geared towards people that want a warm or laid-back presentation. Rather than insist my way is right I'd rather make gear to satisfy these different preferences because there is no right or wrong. However, I have found that people can generally be grouped into 2 camps and there isn't too much middle ground. Most people either want the best fidelity possible, and this includes timbral fidelity... others want a presentation that is warmer. Not sure I've ever ran into anyone that wants a bright, harsh sound.

I totally agree. This is why I'm interested in building a system so transparent, that it can be tweaked in the digital domain to replicate exactly the sound profile that the end user has the best connection with.

The old way of hardware based voicing is going to be a thing of the past.

 

[c1ferrari]

It's a tricky marketplace. Top MSB at $70k, Trinity at $45k, Merging Nadac $12.5k, Merging Horus at $5k. Maybe a true giant killer at $1k-$3k?

Merging Horus @ $5k?
Perhaps, Merging Hapi?

 

[Blizzard]

Merging Horus @ $5k?
Perhaps, Merging Hapi?

Hapi is only $4164 with the premium 8 channel DAC board. If it is truly capable of being indistinguishable from master tape playing DSD 256, it's one hell of a bargain. Not to mention you get 8 channels for that. Then you also have the option of adding the ADC board.

View attachment 22971

 

[c1ferrari]

Hapi is only $4164 with the premium 8 channel DAC board. If it is truly capable of being indistinguishable from master tape playing DSD 256, it's one hell of a bargain. Not to mention you get 8 channels for that. Then you also have the option of adding the ADC board.

View attachment 22971

Blizzard,

Thanks -- I think!
I've been excited about this for awhile

 

[c1ferrari]

That would be the AD8DP...correct? [h=3][/h]

 

[Blizzard]

That would be the AD8DP...correct? [h=3][/h]

Yes that's the premium one that's DSD 256 compatible.

 

[Blizzard]

Blizzard,

Thanks -- I think!
I've been excited about this for awhile

No problem!