Hi SoundFreaq,
Quote:
[snip]
Is the opposite of coloration, transparency?
[snip]
I hope I'm not answering a rhetorical question, nor answering your question out of context, but referring to this
Stereophile glossary of audio terms, every sonic trait would have to remain unaltered when passing through a component in order to describe that component as
"transparent."
Here are their definitions for
"coloration" and
"transparency:"
Quote:
coloration
An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.
Note that Stereophile's glossary offers no definition for
"signature," but here is their definition of
"transparency":
Quote:
transparency, transparent
1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers.
2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.
This is where we have to respect our colloquial use of these terms, independent of Stereophile's definitions...
Contrary to Stereophile's definition of "
coloration," it's my observation that when most reviewers use the words "
coloration, colored, or
uncolored" - they aren't talking about the entire
"signature" imposed by a given component. Most reviewers are only talking about
the frequency response of a component when using the words
"colored" or
"coloration" - to describe a frequency response that is not
"neutral" or "
flat" across the spectrum.
Indeed, have a look at this
Head-Fi glossary definition of "
coloured":
Quote:
Coloured - Having timbres that are not true to life. Non flat response; peaks or dips
Thus, I would argue that the Stereophile definition of
"coloration" is too broad, in that they are saying it is synonymous with the word
"signature," which they opted not to define! If we stick with the Stereophile definitions of
"coloration" and
"transparency," the answer to your question would be,
"Yes, 'coloration is the opposite of transparency.'"
If, however, anyone can agree with my observation that use of the word
"coloration" is commonly limited to discussions of a component's lack of a
"flat" frequency response, then the answer to your question would be,
"No, 'coloration is just one of many possible traits that could degrade "transparency," and thus, is only a subset of the opposite of "transparency," not itself the complete opposite of "transparency."
Ironically, it is also my observation that most reviewers use the word
"neutral" as the opposite of how they use the words
"colored or
coloration" - referencing only the frequency response of a component, not the entire signature. The aforementioned Head-Fi glossary doesn't even offer a definition of
"neutral," but look at Stereophile's definition of the word:
Quote:
neutral
Free from coloration.
Stereophile only defines the word
"neutral" as the opposite of
"coloration," and thus, they would have us conclude that the words
"neutral" and
"transparent" are synonymous, because by Stereophile's definition
, "coloration" is the opposite of
"transparency!"
In other words: If
"coloration" is the opposite of "transparency" and
"neutral" means "free from
'coloration'," then "neutral" and "transparent" are synonymous. (Logic 101)
Worse, if
"neutral" and
"transparent" are indeed synonymous, then the word
"neutral" refers to all sonic traits, not just frequency response, because by Stereophile's definition,
"coloration" (the opposite of
"neutral") refers to the entire
"signature," not just frequency response
.
Is it any wonder audiophiles have such a difficult time describing what they hear?
Where is a glossary we can trust?
Mike