Transparency vs. Synergy?

[MylesBAstor]

No, see post above.

Why? End of story. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[morricab]

There seems to be confusion here regarding transparency and/or coloration of the sound.

Just like a liquid can be colored AND transparent (think filtered apple juice vs. unfiltered apple juice) so too can an audio system be transparent and yet still have it's own characteristic colorations (BTW. ALL systems have some kind of signature that is a form of coloration).

So what then is transparency? It is the SEE THROUGH sensation that one has when you have the feeling that you are hearing everything that is on the recording, the small details the ambient acoustic space, subtle dynamic shifts etc. It is the feeling that nothing is being obscurred and likewise nothing is being excessively emphasized or exaggerated. How can we judge this? Really only by having excellent experience with live, unamplified music where you know the transparency is absolute. It is at least a frame of reference for if you have a smiliar feeling with a particular system. If you don't have that feeling, it COULD be the recording but if it is consistent over many recordings then it is likely the system that is to a greater or lesser extent obscurring signal and thus reducing transparency.

WHat about coloration of the sound? This is normally caused by the distortion patterns that are generated by the electronics and/or the speakers. Coloration can also be a sense that the soundstage is foreshortened and/or images are flat. Coloration usually also results in a reduction of transparency but not always. With speakers it is often the case that the coloration reduces transparency in the frequency region where the coloration is occurring (often in the bass from cabinet resonances etc. or in the lower treble from cone breakup and flexing issues).

With electronics it is more complicated. I have heard many systems with electronics that gave a great sense of transparency EVEN THOUGH it was clear that timbres of instruments were being manipulated from reality. Often it is a change of "hue" (like a tint to a photograph), an overall top to bottom balance that is shifted to slightly emphasize a particular frequency region.

Where it gets fuzzy is when it appears to be transparent (details for example seem clear) but the soundstage is flattish and as are the images and the low level resolution and ambient information seem unnaturally truncated. I call this fake transparency because what is most likely happening is that distortion is emphasizing the leading edges of notes...particularly at higher frequencies, which exaggerates some details and gives what most people think of as an "analytical" or "accurate" sound; however, it also has the effect of throwing out of balance soundstage and image information. Similiarly, this distortion acts as a virtual noise floor that is truncating the subtle space information and decay in real space of sound. Many many many highly touted solid state amps and even a number of well regarded tube amps commit these types of errors.

When you listen to systems with such electronics your first impression is "wow" listen to all that detail/resolution it is so transparent! An hour later you are ready to switch it off because it is not true transparency but fatiguing because it is ultimately the unnatural emphasis of leading edges and not like listening to live, unamplified music, which rarely ever gets fatiguing.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion about transparency derives from because it is easy to be decieved by this kind of sound in believeing on a short listen that it is very transparent.

The best systems have a holographic but easy way that you KNOW you are hearing everything without really trying...even if it is not quite the same tonality that one would hear in real life...thus coloration and transparency can co-exist in the best systems (because againg compared to live they are ALL colored in some way).

 

[MylesBAstor]

There seems to be confusion here regarding transparency and/or coloration of the sound.

Just like a liquid can be colored AND transparent (think filtered apple juice vs. unfiltered apple juice) so too can an audio system be transparent and yet still have it's own characteristic colorations (BTW. ALL systems have some kind of signature that is a form of coloration).

So what then is transparency? It is the SEE THROUGH sensation that one has when you have the feeling that you are hearing everything that is on the recording, the small details the ambient acoustic space, subtle dynamic shifts etc. It is the feeling that nothing is being obscurred and likewise nothing is being excessively emphasized or exaggerated. How can we judge this? Really only by having excellent experience with live, unamplified music where you know the transparency is absolute. It is at least a frame of reference for if you have a smiliar feeling with a particular system. If you don't have that feeling, it COULD be the recording but if it is consistent over many recordings then it is likely the system that is to a greater or lesser extent obscurring signal and thus reducing transparency.

WHat about coloration of the sound? This is normally caused by the distortion patterns that are generated by the electronics and/or the speakers. Coloration can also be a sense that the soundstage is foreshortened and/or images are flat. Coloration usually also results in a reduction of transparency but not always. With speakers it is often the case that the coloration reduces transparency in the frequency region where the coloration is occurring (often in the bass from cabinet resonances etc. or in the lower treble from cone breakup and flexing issues).

With electronics it is more complicated. I have heard many systems with electronics that gave a great sense of transparency EVEN THOUGH it was clear that timbres of instruments were being manipulated from reality. Often it is a change of "hue" (like a tint to a photograph), an overall top to bottom balance that is shifted to slightly emphasize a particular frequency region.

Where it gets fuzzy is when it appears to be transparent (details for example seem clear) but the soundstage is flattish and as are the images and the low level resolution and ambient information seem unnaturally truncated. I call this fake transparency because what is most likely happening is that distortion is emphasizing the leading edges of notes...particularly at higher frequencies, which exaggerates some details and gives what most people think of as an "analytical" or "accurate" sound; however, it also has the effect of throwing out of balance soundstage and image information. Similiarly, this distortion acts as a virtual noise floor that is truncating the subtle space information and decay in real space of sound. Many many many highly touted solid state amps and even a number of well regarded tube amps commit these types of errors.

When you listen to systems with such electronics your first impression is "wow" listen to all that detail/resolution it is so transparent! An hour later you are ready to switch it off because it is not true transparency but fatiguing because it is ultimately the unnatural emphasis of leading edges and not like listening to live, unamplified music, which rarely ever gets fatiguing.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion about transparency derives from because it is easy to be decieved by this kind of sound in believeing on a short listen that it is very transparent.

The best systems have a holographic but easy way that you KNOW you are hearing everything without really trying...even if it is not quite the same tonality that one would hear in real life...thus coloration and transparency can co-exist in the best systems (because againg compared to live they are ALL colored in some way).

Yes, see #4! Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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.

Yes, they never ever are willing to have their beliefs (and their hearing acuity) put to the test. So all that's left is insults and denial. To be proud of never doing a blind test shows willful ignorance.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Just like a liquid can be colored AND transparent (think filtered apple juice vs. unfiltered apple juice) so too can an audio system be transparent and yet still have it's own characteristic colorations

This is a misappropriation of the word "transparent" because apple juice is not audio gear, and the two are not defined the same way. Transparent for audio means it's as clear as water or vodka, if you prefer to use the liquid analogy. To continue the analogy, a reddish hue implies a bass boost and blue is boosted highs. Yes, you can still "see through" the liquid just as you can still hear the music when the frequency response is changed. But apple juice is not purely transparent in the way water is.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

We have had a few listening evaluations, they were not dbt, but did require picking which one sounded most neutral and another one had a list of files and which one was the original and which were copies, and one with how low down in db you could still hear a distorted tone. They were all great tests and for example, I participated, Tim participated, Amir participated and a several others who were "newer" folks on the forum.

Can I presume from your ambiguous answer that you were only referring the files supplied by Ethan? And the famous more objective members are those you refer in your answer?

 

[microstrip]

This is a misappropriation of the word "transparent" because apple juice is not audio gear, and the two are not defined the same way. Transparent for audio means it's as clear as water or vodka, if you prefer to use the liquid analogy. To continue the analogy, a reddish hue implies a bass boost and blue is boosted highs. Yes, you can still "see through" the liquid just as you can still hear the music when the frequency response is changed. But apple juice is not purely transparent in the way water is.

--Ethan

Metaphors and analogies about audio are most of the time misleading and can suggest misappropriation of the words, as you say. They can provide a short and naive way of suggesting something in a brief sentence, but their use can confuse people. Several audio writers have written articles and long essays on transparency, as the use of an word that should be reserved to optics in audio needs a new meaning and IMHO transparency in high-end sound reproduction should be referred to to our imaginary perception of the original event, not to the recording. As our individual perceptions and memories are different, a lot of effort and competence is needed to analyze and systematize audio transparency in a meaningful way to a large community. YMMV.

 

[Ethan Winer]

IMHO transparency in high-end sound reproduction should be referred to to our imaginary perception of the original event, not to the recording.

That's an impossible request for audio "gear" to fulfill. It's a red herring in this context. All that our CD players and preamps and loudspeakers can do is to reproduce as accurately as possible what the microphones captured, and the recording and mastering engineers produced. To this end, most modern electronic gear is in fact transparent. Or should be IMO.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

That's an impossible request for audio "gear" to fulfill. It's a red herring in this context. All that our CD players and preamps and loudspeakers can do is to reproduce as accurately as possible what the microphones captured, and the recording and mastering engineers produced. To this end, most modern electronic gear is in fact transparent. Or should be IMO.

--Ethan

I think that this red herring is what separates our communities. IMHO what you consider impossible is systematically achieved by many people.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think that this red herring is what separates our communities. IMHO what you consider impossible is systematically achieved by many people.

Many people systematically bypass the studio space, the microphones, the recording and mastering equipment, the engineers, the creative decisions, the processes and technologies of recording and listen over them, past them to a performance event that never actually took place? Is this in a community in which "red herring" means "lost grip on reality?"

Tim

 

[morricab]

This is a misappropriation of the word "transparent" because apple juice is not audio gear, and the two are not defined the same way. Transparent for audio means it's as clear as water or vodka, if you prefer to use the liquid analogy. To continue the analogy, a reddish hue implies a bass boost and blue is boosted highs. Yes, you can still "see through" the liquid just as you can still hear the music when the frequency response is changed. But apple juice is not purely transparent in the way water is.

--Ethan

Actually Ethan it is you who has taken a far too narrow definition of the word transparent...I have used it correctly.

Full Definition of TRANSPARENT

1
a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light)
b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
2
a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
c : readily understood
d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
— trans·par·ent·ly adverb
— trans·par·ent·ness noun
See transparent defined for English-language learners »
See transparent defined for kids »
Examples of TRANSPARENT

<bottles of blue transparent glass>
<his meaning in leaving the conversation is transparent: he doesn't want to talk about his combat experiences>


Note one of the examples of transparent is "bottles of blue transparent glass".

Transparent does not denote a color only that something can be clearly seen through and I added the color to further my optical analogy of something that can be easily seen through and yet has a specific coloration or "tint".

I don't think you guard the orthodoxy of the word transparent that means specifically like clear water or vodka. My analogy between filtered (transparent) and unfiltered (opaque) is still apt IMO.

 

[microstrip]

Many people systematically bypass the studio space, the microphones, the recording and mastering equipment, the engineers, the creative decisions, the processes and technologies of recording and listen over them, past them to a performance event that never actually took place? Is this in a community in which "red herring" means "lost grip on reality?"

Tim

No Tim, they accept that the recording carries a lot of information, that properly processed by an adequate system, can systematically achieve great results, resulting in a better illusion of the real performance, and also that the listening pleasure helps you appreciate the artist intentions. I would love to know how you consider that a Shunyata power system, a Pass XS 300 or an Audio Research REF40 bypass the "the studio space, the microphones, the recording and mastering equipment, the engineers, the creative decisions, the processes and technologies of recording" .

BTW, I hope people will not mix listening pleasure with euphony or SETs when debating this issue.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Actually Ethan it is you who has taken a far too narrow definition of the word transparent...I have used it correctly.

It's probably not worth beating this to death but I'll point out that transparent as in politics and optics is not the same as for audio. I Googled "define audio transparency" (italics added here by me) and got this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent+audio+coding

"A lossy audio compression algorithm is transparent if the original and decoded signal are indistinguishable to the human ear."

And from Yahoo answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070710153611AA5O8pB

"Transparency just means that you can hear everything. The sound is 'transparent,' meaning your equipment blocks nothing and passes everything. Every detail of the sound can be heard by the listener. The equipment doesn't color or change the sound, just presents it as it is."

--Ethan

 

[MylesBAstor]

Actually Ethan it is you who has taken a far too narrow definition of the word transparent...I have used it correctly.

Full Definition of TRANSPARENT

1
a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light)
b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
2
a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
c : readily understood
d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
— trans·par·ent·ly adverb
— trans·par·ent·ness noun
See transparent defined for English-language learners »
See transparent defined for kids »
Examples of TRANSPARENT

<bottles of blue transparent glass>
<his meaning in leaving the conversation is transparent: he doesn't want to talk about his combat experiences>


Note one of the examples of transparent is "bottles of blue transparent glass".

Transparent does not denote a color only that something can be clearly seen through and I added the color to further my optical analogy of something that can be easily seen through and yet has a specific coloration or "tint".

I don't think you guard the orthodoxy of the word transparent that means specifically like clear water or vodka. My analogy between filtered (transparent) and unfiltered (opaque) is still apt IMO.

Who cares what the dictionary sez?

Just read Gordon Holt's DICTIONARY or Harry Pearson's definition! Thst's plenty for all of us.

And we're having someone who listens to a boom box tell us what transparency is? Who wouldn't know transparency if it ran over him. Puhleeze.... Don't feed the trolls.....

 

[still-one]

Who cares what the dictionary sez?

Just read Gordon Holt's DICTIONARY or Harry Pearson's definition! Thst's plenty for all of us.

And we're having someone who listens to a boom box tell us what transparency is? Who wouldn't know transparency if it ran over him. Puhleeze.... Don't feed the trolls.....

Myles I don't buy those "dictionary" definitions of transparency either, but I am not holding either Holt or Pearson as demigods to define it either. You do not have to go far in this world to know that giving a man a typewriter (computer) or a microphone does not make him an expert.

 

[morricab]

It's probably not worth beating this to death but I'll point out that transparent as in politics and optics is not the same as for audio. I Googled "define audio transparency" (italics added here by me) and got this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent+audio+coding

"A lossy audio compression algorithm is transparent if the original and decoded signal are indistinguishable to the human ear."

And from Yahoo answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070710153611AA5O8pB

"Transparency just means that you can hear everything. The sound is 'transparent,' meaning your equipment blocks nothing and passes everything. Every detail of the sound can be heard by the listener. The equipment doesn't color or change the sound, just presents it as it is."

--Ethan

There is a big difference between the meaning of transparency in optics and politics and clearly optics more closely resembles auditory transparency as they are both related to human senses (sight and hearing), whereas transparency in politics is somewhat more abstract.

I think the definitions I gave you were pretty clear and easy enough to understand (they are direct, copy/paste from the dictionary afterall). I find it telling that one of the main examples give makes it clear that transparency and color are not mutually exclusive and colored things can be either transparent or opaque. This fits audio perfectly, IMO, because ALL audio gear has distinctive colorations but can still much more or less transparent than another piece of gear. You want to cherry pick a definition that suits your bias that transparent also has to mean uncolored.

Speaking of lossy compression, have you heard one that is really transparent?? I sure haven't and I can't stand to listen to MP3 even on headphones.

There is nothing that says you can't hear everything AND it be tinted in some way that changes slightly the tonality.

 

[rockitman]

That's an impossible request for audio "gear" to fulfill. It's a red herring in this context. All that our CD players and preamps and loudspeakers can do is to reproduce as accurately as possible what the microphones captured, and the recording and mastering engineers produced. To this end, most modern electronic gear is in fact transparent. Or should be IMO.

--Ethan

are you are suggesting that any audio gear, regardless of price delivers the same transparency ? IME it does not. What you are suggesting is that a system (amps/pre) that costs $3,000 (just an example) is just as transparent as a system (amps/pre) costing $100K ? That is ludicrous. You get what you pay for in most circumstances. If you have never experienced a well sorted $100K system (amps/pre..just an example), how can you say a $3,000 mid fi system is just as transparent ? I think a lot of people who think this way are just trying to justify their nominal investment in audio reproduction and hoping/wishing it is the best possible reproduction. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, expensive systems would never be sold and we would be happy buying cheap crap.

 

[mep]

are you are suggesting that any audio gear, regardless of price delivers the same transparency ? IME it does not. What you are suggesting is that a system (amps/pre) that costs $3,000 (just an example) is just as transparent as a system (amps/pre) costing $100K ? That is ludicrous. You get what you pay for in most circumstances. If you have never experienced a well sorted $100K system (amps/pre..just an example), how can you say a $3,000 mid fi system is just as transparent ? I think a lot of people who think this way are just trying to justify their nominal investment in audio reproduction and hoping/wishing it is the best possible reproduction. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, expensive systems would never be sold and we would be happy buying cheap crap.

I believe your $3k figure as a low point compared to a $100k system as a high point was actually too high based on Ethan's preachings,debunkings, myth busting, etc. Ethan would probably come closer to picking a $300 receiver to compare against your $100k pre/power combo.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I believe your $3k figure as a low point compared to a $100k system as a high point was actually too high based on Ethan's preachings,debunkings, myth busting, etc. Ethan would probably come closer to picking a $300 receiver to compare against your $100k pre/power combo.

I for one would like to know what high-end audio components Ethan has ever had IN HIS SYSTEM?????? Names please!

 

[rockitman]

I for one would like to know why high-end audio components Ethan has ever had IN HIS SYSTEM?????? Names please!

My other thought..If you trap your room enough with absorption panels, any micro detail/nuance is absorbed leaving a bland, dull and treble rolled off sound. Perhaps a $3000 setup would sound as good as a $50k set up since all the music's character has been sucked out ?