What is Transparency?

[Phelonious Ponk]

I do an odd thing for a living. Strategically and creatively, it's my job to discover the things that differentiate businesses from their competitors while appealing to their customers, then find ways to communicate these benefits in interesting, compelling, memorable ways.

My job is to make you look, then make you remember.

A recent client's business model, differentiator and key benefit was transparency. How much the business makes, how much it saves, how much of that savings they pass on to their customers, and most importantly, the processes and data through which they accomplish all of the above, are shared openly with their customers. They are transparent. The face they present on the surface is utterly clear, offering an uncolored, unaltered view of the substance of their business model.

Personally, I think of transparency in audio much the same way. The recording is the substance of the matter; it's why everything else exists. Therefore, the goal of every every media/component/system is to be that transparent surface that offers a clear, uncolored, unaltered view of that substance.

In my perfect world, a world in which all audio designers have the same goal, they'd be terrible clients for me, because they would deliberately and strenuously avoid differentiating themselves from each other. All amplifiers would sound alike. So would all DACs and preamps and cables and servers and...well...speakers and rooms? Even I can't dream that big. But for electronic components, I don't think the dream is all that big. I think we're a lot closer than many of us want to believe. And I think as often as not, when we're not very close to transparency, it is because we have deliberately, strenuously differentiated from it.

What do you think?

Tim

 

[mep]

The problem is that your definition of transparency with regards to your banking client is an absolute. Everyone agrees on what it would mean to be transparent in the banking world. When it comes to audio, I don’t think there is a universally agreed upon definition of what transparency is-let alone what it should sound like. And if every amp really sounded like every other amp, soon there would only be a single amp maker as the rest of them would have either been bought up or shuttered their doors.

 

[treitz3]

Transparency [in audio] to me is simply defined. When you can not tell where the speakers are, no matter what it is you are listening too, what you see or at what volume you are listening at.

 

[amirm]

The problem is that your definition of transparency with regards to your banking client is an absolute. Everyone agrees on what it would mean to be transparent in the banking world. When it comes to audio, I don’t think there is a universally agreed upon definition of what transparency is-let alone what it should sound like. And if every amp really sounded like every other amp, soon there would only be a single amp maker as the rest of them would have either been bought up or shuttered their doors.

I was going to say the same thing. If I provided two presentations of sound while playing the identical content, you don't know which one is transparent. So it becomes about which one you prefer, which may turn out to be the one that is less transparent!

 

[Steve Williams]

I was going to say the same thing. If I provided two presentations of sound while playing the identical content, you don't know which one is transparent. So it becomes about which one you prefer, which may turn out to be the one that is less transparent!

How very true

 

[LL21]

Yes, agree with Amir. A parallel example is film, video, Super 8, digital vs medium format, etc. They all look 'real-ish'...but some images appear 'flat', 'white', while others appear 'oversaturated', 'warm', 'rich'...

 

[Steve Williams]

It's called "pick your flavor"

 

[LL21]

Pretty much. That said, the confusing element is that there ARE also clear differences in quality...its not ALL about personal preferences. Take an extreme example...a pair of speakers where both tweeters are broken...that cannot be 'better' than if the speakers were operating properly. The challenge is what happens when you fix the tweeters...and then start to improve them...upgrade the wiring...focus on speaker placement...at what point then do we cross over from the absolute to the subjective? That is where 'art and science' blend, where the objectivists and the subjectivists begin their sparring...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course it's somewhat subjective. The whole point is to explore the definitions. Not sure I agree, however, that it is totally subjective. If you start with good measurements -- FR flat enough, noise and distortion low enough, compatibility with the components before and after it in the signal chain, and more than sufficient headroom for the load, there really shouldn't be an audible difference between two bearing that description. Will there be? Maybe. Sometimes. Though I'd love to test that claim with blind listening.

In any case, that's what transparency means to me, and that's where I always try to start -- measurably neutral. Then I listen, because, of course, like the rest of you I have an idea of what "right" sounds like. And I have, on occasion, swapped out components that fit the criteria above. I don't have a lab here, so I found nothing definitive, but I can say this with confidence: Sometimes I thought I heard something, but I was never sure. Sometimes I was sure I couldn't hear a difference. Any of the times it could have been my imagination; it was that subtle. And if you can swap out two system-matched, measurement-neutral components and that's what you get, that's close enough to transparent for me. YMMV. Sorry Steve, but I disagree with the idea that it's "choose your flavor." Neutrality, transparency, is the absence of flavor. Is it easy? Nope. And you definitely have to believe in measurement.

This....

Transparency [in audio] to me is simply defined. When you can not tell where the speakers are, no matter what it is you are listening too, what you see or at what volume you are listening at.

...is something I'm quite familiar with, but it is unrelated to what I'm talking about when I say "transparency."

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

absolutely comes down to preference every time me thinks

It does. And I prefer my electronics to be neutral. Oddly, you can get really close to a truly neutral system with headphones, and I'm not a fan. It's pretty dry. But I still don't want designers adding color or flavor in electronic components. I'll use EQ to flavor to taste, thankyouverymuch.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

To me, a transparent component is one whose signature is difficult to pinpoint in that they change drastically depending on what comes before them in the chain. If for example a loudspeaker can sound lush and romantic or fast and tight depending on the recording, source components and amplification before it, I would call that loudspeaker transparent. Personally, I try to select amplification and loudspeakers that are as colorless, wide bandwidth, high resolution and wide dynamic ranged as I can afford. I then pick my preferences mainly by changing source material and source equipment.

This is in no way the only way to do things, it's just the way I've found that fits my wide range of musical preferences as well as my listening habits.

 

[mep]

Tim, I am pretty much with you about electronics, atleast up to the amp/speaker/room interface. There is no doubt that comprehensive measurments can discern if the output of a electronic device matches the input, and to what degree it does not. Thats a done deal for quite some time.

Only when the amp is being measured into a purely resistive load is your statement true. Once the amp is lashed up to a pair of speakers, all bets are off and that is why amps sound different from one to another and why a given amp can (and most probably will) sound different when lashed up to different speakers.

 

[mep]

It does. And I prefer my electronics to be neutral. Oddly, you can get really close to a truly neutral system with headphones, and I'm not a fan. It's pretty dry. But I still don't want designers adding color or flavor in electronic components. I'll use EQ to flavor to taste, thankyouverymuch.

Tim

How can it be neutral if you are adding the spices? You want the chef to cook with no spices, and then you are going to add your own flavorings via EQ and call it neutral? Ahem.

 

[DaveyF]

Transparency is akin to one man's meat is another man's poison.

Why, because it brings into question what one person hears is the sound that they believe to represent an absolute, when this may or may not coincide with another person's expectation or belief.

Personally, I look to a component (s) ( or chain of) to reproduce the sound the way I would expect the instruments and performers to sound like in a 'live' environment, thereby being transparent to the source ( which naturally is only going to be as good as the recording). BUT, my expectation and belief of what that is may not be the same as the next man's ( or woman's...we have to be politically correct here ) Or something like that:b

 

[microstrip]

(...) The recording is the substance of the matter; it's why everything else exists. Therefore, the goal of every every media/component/system is to be that transparent surface that offers a clear, uncolored, unaltered view of that substance. (...)

Tim ,

This is exactly why most of the time we happily disagree. For me the substance of the matter is the real performance - sound reproduction is a way of preserving and sharing the art..

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim ,

This is exactly why most of the time we happily disagree. For me the substance of the matter is the real performance - sound reproduction is a way of preserving and sharing the art..

What real performance does your system have access to that it can reproduce in your listening room?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How can it be neutral if you are adding the spices? You want the chef to cook with no spices, and then you are going to add your own flavorings via EQ and call it neutral? Ahem.

The recording is the meal. The system is the plate. I don't want the plate to add any flavor, because it's likely to be soap residue or the remains of someone else's meal. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I want to add a bit of salt. And once I do, of course it's no longer neutral. But it is exactly the flavor I want, or at least one I'm experimenting with. And I can turn it off any time I like. Completely different than cooking the flavor in.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Somewhat the thread has moved toward what preferences are and regardless of what we would like to say it is not entirely subjective. No one on this WBF has ever stated that the Bose Wave Radio was the best sounding piece of equipment they ever heard (I may have to take this statement back , Fas42 is on my ignore list and may have stated such or that his HTiB is better than anything out there )...
What I see as preferences is best explained to me in the sense that there are several paths toward a given destination. if the destination is to recreate the musical event. Different designers will take different paths. For example, bass response is very important to me. If it is not correct I usually feel dissatisfied, regardless of the merits upstream.. Once the bass is good then I start listening to the reproduction up there. The midrange comes next .. Voice have to be voices an especially woman voices, more difficult than many would think, Male voice must come as I hear them in real life. I , thus, prefer gear that caters to my preferences, designs or components that reproduces these ranges well. Those are my preferences ... Some people do look at things diffirently and have different set of priority. I don't have much problem with that. What to me becomes problematic is the lack of fidelity that people still call preference and that has permeated the High End scene to the extent that some very costly High End components are pure distortion producing boxes. Component which uniformly play things not as they are but as the "preferrer" would like it to be in the name of preferences and usualy with the appropriate high price tag. Such a component is NOT transparent. It colors what goes through it .. of course ALL components are colored to a degree or another , the same way no lens is ever perfect. A lense transmit a percentage of the light that goes through it and tries as much as possible not to put its own color to the images it is meant to reproduce.. We call these in optics/photography aberrations and chromatic aberrations are not desirable in Photography where interestingly enough we are producing images not reproducing them for the most parts.... The same way some components put themselves in between the software and its reproduction imparting their character rather strongly to the reproduction. These components are not transparent, they may be liked, preferred or souht after. They remain non-transparent. IN that sense transparency s the ability of a compoent to disappear, really to become transparent .. Not to exaggerate a particular band of frequency , rather to remove itself .. To become ...well. Transparent. See through

Of course tranaparent has become a lot more, a different thing. I will not go there. I don't want to add more to the confusion.

As an aside it would be interesting that we, audiophiles, refrain of badgering words meaning. "Transparent" has a simple, clear meaning, even to the least educated person. Using it in this sense would make our thoughts and opinions much clearer...

 

[microstrip]

What real performance does your system have access to that it can reproduce in your listening room?

Tim

I (and thousands millions, happily) have access to real performance - and we are the consumers that the industry has to please.

 

[NorthStar]

Transparency in our Audio hobby; isn't it without any blockage, including any type of distortion?