[bavinck]

   
Well, transparency is in the ear of the listener. It can't be defined by strict valuation of measuring data, since those have to be seen in the context of how they translate to the perception by human ears or a specific pair of human ears.

Exactly, this is my point. The question posed is not which combo sounds better (subjective) but which is more transparent (objective). Transparency requires a benchmark to compare with, sounding better is in the ear of the beholder (see what I did there?). I agree that the e12a sounds a smidge better than just the x5, but I have no idea which is more technically transparent in reproducing music.

 

[uzi2]

I don't see any problem with saying one amplifer is more transparent than another amplifier.

And this is where i stop.

I agree, but the original statement was "I do like to think that fiio e12a does not add distortion, but transparency." You have already stated that all amps add distortion and by this definition all amps must reduce transparency. One can be more transparent than another, but none can add transparency. Also I thionk the op's taste in music (metal) would mean that transparency would be impossible to judge as there is no original source to compare.

 

[bavinck]

Don't confuse producing the sound of a French Horn (i.e. playing a French Horn) with reproducing the sound of a French Horn (i.e. playing a recording of a French Horn).

All melodic instruments create a fundamental tone plus various odd and even order harminics based on that fundamental, as you have pointed out. That's not distortion, that's the character, the timbre, the sound of the instrument.

I get what you are saying here, and in the world of enjoying audio we would never call pleasant harmonics a distortion. I am trying to make the point that from a physics perspective those harmonics are technically distorting the pure signal the tuning fork is producing.Compare a frequency response graph of a french horn and tuning fork, the horn looks horrendously distorted compared to the tuning fork. In audio land we would say that is not a distorted graph, but the beautiful composition of harmonics producing a more pleasing sound. In principle I agree with you, I just find it funny when people on headfi make these statements about transparency and neutrality without realizing (maybe they do and just don't say they do) that these are objective statements based on subjective data. I love my w40 with x5. sound really wonderful to me. Is it neutral and transparent? Well, lots of more experienced headfiers than me say so, but I really would have no idea!

 

[JaZZ]

  Exactly, this is my point. The question posed is not which combo sounds better (subjective) but which is more transparent (objective). Transparency requires a benchmark to compare with, sounding better is in the ear of the beholder (see what I did there?). I agree that the e12a sounds a smidge better than just the x5, but I have no idea which is more technically transparent in reproducing music.

 
That's the probblem. Transparency is the theoretical audio ideal – in the world of amps the «wire with gain» –, but you can't measure it. You'll find all sorts of deviations from the ideal (zero distortion, zero drop-off within the audio band), but which real-world deviation spectrum is the closest to the ideal, the one with the least harm to the sound? So it's somewhat legitimate to describe a specific electronics component as «more transparent» than another just based on listening comparisons, idally in various combinations. But it can't be an objective truth.

 

[bavinck]

   
That's the probblem. Transparency is the theoretical audio ideal – in the world of amps the «wire with gain» –, but you can't measure it. You'll find all sorts of deviations from the ideal (zero distortion, zero drop-off within the audio band), but which real-world deviation spectrum is the closest to the ideal, the one with the least harm to the sound? So it's somewhat legitimate to describe a specific electronics component as «more transparent» than another just based on listening comparisons, idally in various combinations. But it can't be an objective truth.

Are we disagreeing? I completely agree with you here, not sure if you are trying to convince me of something or just expounding for the group....

 

[514077]

Quote:Quote:

  The inability to go through each album title in less than 10 minutes of wheel spinning. The ridiculous results returned from a Genre search (hundreds of track 1's followed by hundreds of track 2's, etc. It may work fine for people with 16 Gb cards but no way is it suitable when using 128's. Only the folder view is useful for large cards. It will be twice as bad when 256 gb chips are common. The inability to present files by name field rather than file name except in folder mode.

These problems have been disgussed before including myself complaining about navigation.  Make alphabetised folders, use folder mode and enjoy.

 

[TheoS53]

   
That's the probblem. Transparency is the theoretical audio ideal – in the world of amps the «wire with gain» –, but you can't measure it. You'll find all sorts of deviations from the ideal (zero distortion, zero drop-off within the audio band), but which real-world deviation spectrum is the closest to the ideal, the one with the least harm to the sound? So it's somewhat legitimate to describe a specific electronics component as «more transparent» than another just based on listening comparisons, idally in various combinations. But it can't be an objective truth.

I agree with this, to an extent. But transparency is a subjective truth. When someone listens to a piece of equipment (whether it's a DAP or set of cans), and they say "it sounds transparent", or "this one is more transparent" etc....how can they judge that? 

As you said, the ideal would be a transparent sound...but what do we measure that against? The only way we could legitimately say that something is transparent is to know exactly how it is *suppose* to sound. Unfortunately the only way you could do that is to be in the studio at the time of recording, and then verify that what you hear from the DAP/cans/amp or whatever is exactly the same, or at least close enough to the real thing

 

[headwhacker]

^
Everyone, may reach transparency at different levels. It's a point where one's perception has reach his/her limits to perceive difference between amps. The amps in comparison may be different in measurements but if both get past the transparency level of a person, the amp should sound the same.
 
Saying that one amp is more transparent than the other doesn't make sense. I think most people confused transparency from a neutral sound signature.

 

[KLJTech]

I wish that some recording engineers cared 1/10th as much about making great sounding recordings as some here worry about the exact words used to describe what someone is hearing. If setup A allows you to enjoy your music more than setup B then don't worry about the how's or why's of it...enjoy your music. 
 
I'm sorry, don't mean to get us off topic. Anyone else use the Dignis leather case for their X5?...feels very nice in hand and lowers distortion by .00005 % (kidding). I do love this case, it appears to be well-made and looks and feels great. 

 

[TheoS53]

  ^
Everyone, may reach transparency at different levels. It's a point where one's perception has reach his/her limits to perceive difference between amps. The amps in comparison may be different in measurements but if both get past the transparency level of a person, the amp should sound the same.
 
Saying that one amp is more transparent than the other doesn't make sense. I think most people confused transparency from a neutral sound signature.

To be fair, i think that transparency and a neutral sound sig are (or at least should be) exactly the same thing

 

[uzi2]

  To be fair, i think that transparency and a neutral sound sig are (or at least should be) exactly the same thing

It can't be transparent without a neutral sound sig, but it can have a neutral sound sig and not be transparent, by introducing other distortions.

 

[TheoS53]

 
It can't be transparent without a neutral sound sig, but it can have a neutral sound sig and not be transparent, by introducing other distortions.

Agreed

 

[JaZZ]

  Are we disagreeing? I completely agree with you here, not sure if you are trying to convince me of something or just expounding for the group....

 
I don't think we disagree, but I wanted to point out that there's nothing wrong with the description of «transparency» in a subjective review – from my point of view. It sounded to me like you were advocating an opposite approach, therefore my comment.
 

  I agree with this, to an extent. But transparency is a subjective truth. When someone listens to a piece of equipment (whether it's a DAP or set of cans), and they say "it sounds transparent", or "this one is more transparent" etc....how can they judge that? 

As you said, the ideal would be a transparent sound...but what do we measure that against? The only way we could legitimately say that something is transparent is to know exactly how it is *suppose* to sound. Unfortunately the only way you could do that is to be in the studio at the time of recording, and then verify that what you hear from the DAP/cans/amp or whatever is exactly the same, or at least close enough to the real thing

 
I agree with you – it's really a problem! 

 

 

[514077]

If the E12A is .003% THD, what is the THD of the X5's HO?

 

[TheoS53]

  If the E12A is .003% THD, what is the THD of the X5's HO?

I believe it's the same