Transparency vs. Synergy?

[caesar]

If a component is transparent, it should reveal everything else that precedes it, at least by one definition of transparency.

But what if you get a crappy combination, is the component you thought was transparent actually colored, is it revealing that the component downstream sucks, or is it bad synergy?

 

[JackD201]

Transparency is tricky in that it can only be judged by what comes upstream and can be homogenized again by what comes downstream. As such, I don't want to really deal with it in great detail or make it the prime goal. If I can hear bigger differences between recordings then I suppose I can say a source is more transparent if not perfectly transparent. I've resigned myself to the fact that I may never know what perfectly transparent is.

 

[alexandrov]

Please, someone to define transparency.
the neutral component makes differences between records/components downstream easy audible, but what does the transparent?
Can be a component neutral but not transparent?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Please, someone to define transparency.
the neutral component makes differences between records/components downstream easy audible, but what does the transparent?
Can be a component neutral but not transparent?

That's not my definition of transparency period. Transparency is a visual sense and I think that's exactly how HP defined it. Lot's of things affect it, AC, cable and component's noise floor, etc.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Please, someone to define transparency.

This is very simple. With a transparent audio device in the audio path, you won't hear a difference when switching between Engaged and Bypassed. Neutral is the same thing. In both cases any added noise and distortion, and changes to frequency response, are too slight for human ears to notice. Test equipment can measure the changes! But if ears can't hear it, then the device is neutral and transparent.

Can be a component neutral but not transparent?

So the answer to this is No. Note that many modern electronic devices are transparent, and not just the really expensive stuff.

--Ethan

 

[caesar]

Please, someone to define transparency.
the neutral component makes differences between records/components downstream easy audible, but what does the transparent?
Can be a component neutral but not transparent?

Alexandrov,

One definition of transparency is to hear the music without any of the equipment in the way.

I would be very, very careful if I were you. No disrespect meant to Ethan, but he believes that measurements are the end all be all. For many on this board, however, measurements are usefull, but not the final arbiter or sufficient condition for great sound. Personally, when I hear the words "neutral" and "accurate", I want to run as if there was a guy on the street holding a gun. Why? Well, as one example, one of my preamps has a setting where I can turn it into a passive unit. And what does it sound like? Like total crap. The complete opposite of my definition of transparency: Completely lifeless and emotionally dead due to the equipment getting in the way of the music. That's just one example. Every piece of gear I have heard that is designed only from an engineering perspective and measures flat lacks the "humanness" that I want from a listening experience. But I have always enjoyed tubes, analog, and vinyl (along with excellent digital and superb solid state).

People engage in many arguments about these perspectives. I usually skip those threads, as i find them to be pure intellectual masturbation. But if you are interested, you may search for them on this site and you will find many. So like I said above, you have to decide what you are looking for in this hobby, and then you will know whose opinions to trust.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Every piece of gear I have heard that is designed only from an engineering perspective and measures flat lacks the "humanness" that I want from a listening experience.

I think you are confusing transparency with having a pleasing character. You may like the colored sound imparted by tubes and vinyl, and many people do. But they are not transparent, which was the question posed. Now, some tube gear can approach transparency, but very high fidelity (transparency) is difficult and expensive. It requires enough power to not clip even a little on loud peaks, and the output transformers must be very large to pass the lowest frequencies and with low distortion.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

I think you are confusing transparency with having a pleasing character. You may like the colored sound imparted by tubes and vinyl, and many people do. But they are not transparent, which was the question posed. Now, some tube gear can approach transparency, but very high fidelity (transparency) is difficult and expensive. It requires enough power to not clip even a little on loud peaks, and the output transformers must be very large to pass the lowest frequencies and with low distortion.

--Ethan

And how is that different for SS??

 

[Ethan Winer]

And how is that different for SS??

The same goals apply for all audio gear, regardless of the technology. But it's easier and cheaper to design and build transparent devices using op-amps and power transistors etc than with tubes.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We have, of course, borrowed this word from visual terminology. A perfectly transparent piece of glass would be perfectly invisible; it would not alter the image passing through it in any way. So if we are, at least, going to be true to what we've borrowed, the output of the perfectly transparent audio component would be exactly the same as the input, with the exception of amplitude. Purely theoretical, of course, this perfection does not exist, but nonetheless, Ethan is right...

With a transparent audio device in the audio path, you won't hear a difference when switching between Engaged and Bypassed

...except, of course, if the component in question is the amplifier, in which case you won't hear anything at all when it is bypassed. Unless there was another amp in the signal chain...but of course distortions in the second amp (or the transducers) could mask the distortions of the first amp, making it sound transparent, even if it were not.

Audio is hard, huh?

Of course we could measure. Six ways to Sunday. Not allowing the component in question to be soiled by anything, just see if the signal coming out of it is the same as the one going in. But we don't have measurements for the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, and they could be anything we hear or don't hear. Anything. So we can borrow a term that has a clear (pun intended) meaning, and we can use it to mean almost anything at all.

Tim

 

[tony ky ma]

I don't know how to measure the transparency to show by equipments , if you have a chance to compare listening the real master tape and a copy of it's, then you will know what is the different of transparency
tony ma

 

[Ethan Winer]

if you have a chance to compare listening the real master tape and a copy of it's, then you will know what is the different of transparency

Yes, exactly, and I often suggest this to analog fans who question the capabilities of modern digital. Take an analog recording, whether vinyl or tape, and record it to your computer through a good quality sound card. Even 16 bits at 44.1 kHz is fine. Then play back the digital copy being careful to match levels to within 1/4 dB. If you can't hear a difference between the source and the digital copy, that proves modern digital can fully capture the "essence" of analog. You can also do the same with analog tape, to see how transparent it is.

More here, hot off the presses just today:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/04/24/defining-audio-fidelity/

--Ethan

 

[mep]

Yes, exactly, and I often suggest this to analog fans who question the capabilities of modern digital. Take an analog recording, whether vinyl or tape, and record it to your computer through a good quality sound card.

Would that be a $15 Sound Blaster card or the $30 Sound Blaster card?

Even 16 bits at 44.1 kHz is fine. Then play back the digital copy being careful to match levels to within 1/4 dB. If you can't hear a difference between the source and the digital copy, that proves modern digital can fully capture the "essence" of analog. You can also do the same with analog tape, to see how transparent it is.

--Ethan

I would say that if you made a digital copy of 15 ips master tape dub from a computer sound card and burned it to disc and played the disc over your stereo and you couldn't tell the difference from the actual tape, your hearing is probably suspect at best. Or, your stereo system has such low resolution that it homogenizes the sound of everything that goes through it and plays back every recording with the same level of mediocrity.

 

[Bodhi]

Well i've owned the most transparent of gear (Martin Coltranes and Boulder 1000 series amps) and am now running Magico S5's and Vitus Audio gear. VA sounds natural and neutral sounding like Boulder, but sounds more analogue (ie: warmer, more mellifluous). VA is transparent to source, but not brutally so. Their SCD-025 makes even old 80's cd's sound great. Similar Magico S5's are transparent and revealing, but have a slightly laid back presentation, are wonderfully well balanced and coherent & a bit warm. That is a wonderful combination.

Synergy can make or break a system, and poor synergy can lead to an endless cycle of gear changes. I'm glad i've found my destination gear and can foresee a day when I will get off the merry go round.

 

[Ethan Winer]

if you made a digital copy of 15 ips master tape dub from a computer sound card and burned it to disc and played the disc over your stereo and you couldn't tell the difference from the actual tape, your hearing is probably suspect at best. Or, your stereo system has such low resolution that it homogenizes the sound of everything that goes through it and plays back every recording with the same level of mediocrity.

LOL, all you have to do is visit me and let me test you blind, and then we'll both know how good your hearing is. This is a standard offer I've been making for many years now, yet not one (local to me) golden eared audiophile has ever agreed. Even when I offer to drive to them so they can listen on their own familiar system, they still refuse. I'm sure I know why.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

I'm not about to take a trek half way across the country in order to hear a SB card from your computer playing through a Pioneer receiver. That's just not on my bucket list for some reason.

 

[mep]

Ethan, its interesting to me that when we have done experiments on this forum, the more objective types among us have participated, but the ones who hear every flaw in everything never participated. That's the simple documented truth on this site.

Listening bind takes so much of the "drama" out of choosing audio gear, and one ends up then getting the "sound" that they prefer, at least for that listening session....ahah ahah

When you listen blind everything sounds the same right? So how do you end up getting the sound you prefer when you can't come to a conclusion on what you prefer because everything turns into vanilla ice cream during a DBT? It's time to buy the Bose Wave radio and be done with it.

 

[mep]

You clearly have never done blind listening tests!

Correct-a-mingo! No desire to either. I really think that people who have lost their sight or never had sight would possibly make much better DBT test subjects than the sighted. Assuming they have good hearing, asking them to sit down and have a listen to the DUT and record their feelings/preferences would be much more natural and possibly insightful than people who are mentally scrambling. I wonder if anyone has ever attempted an experiment using sighted and non-sighted people in DBTs to see if there was more correlation and validity to the results with one test group over the other?

 

[microstrip]

Ethan, its interesting to me that when we have done experiments on this forum, the more objective types among us have participated, but the ones who hear every flaw in everything never participated. That's the simple documented truth on this site.

Tom,

What tests are you referring to? I do not remember about any valid high-end DBT carried in this forum. And I would love to know who are the more objective members.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Ethan, its interesting to me that when we have done experiments on this forum, the more objective types among us have participated, but the ones who hear every flaw in everything never participated. That's the simple documented truth on this site.

Listening bind takes so much of the "drama" out of choosing audio gear, and one ends up then getting the "sound" that they prefer, at least for that listening session....ahah ahah

You mean the test where Amir and Bruce called into question the files that Ethan posted?