[AdamZuf]

i think there might be a confusion about this definition.
please tell me what is yours!
here is what i know/heard:

1. lack of sonic signature that allows the true sound pass through the system (hearing just the recording, not the setup)

2. tranceparency/disapperance of the headphones, which relates no.1 to some degree (please comment on that, guys)

3. tranceparent sound (my definition) - the opposite to muddy (or at least one way of looking at it), which lets all frequencies cross each other unefforatly, allows easier and clearer multy-layering. sounds ride on a right presentage of air when they impact you (or i can say, air takes the right place in the sound impact structure), which does'nt hurt the musicality of the notes played (the pitch is very clear and singable), by still holding great resolution that allows that.

 

[Canman]

I'd say no. 2 would relate to my definition of transparency. This is a subjective word because all judgements must be based on what has been heard before, a reference if you will. And no system lacks sonic signature, so number 1 would represent absolute transparency.

If I am listening to a pair of headphones that allow me to "see into" the recording, particularly give me a sense of the recording venue and musician placement in a realistic manner, I would call the system transparent to a certain degree.

I consider transparency to be related to focus. Listening to a component that is not transparent is like watching a movie without your glasses on. Everything is out of focus. Then, say you put on your glasses (or for audio hook up your HP-1000's) and all shapes and nuances become distinct, allowing you to see what is going on in the recording.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Here is the Stereophile glossary definition:
"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."

 

[Lando]

The short definition: If you close your eyes, does it sound like you're listening live?

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Canman And no system lacks sonic signature, so number 1 would represent absolute transparency.

of coarse. but we can admit that a $1000 setup would be closer to that then a $100 setup.
Quote:

I consider transparency to be related to focus. Listening to a component that is not transparent is like watching a movie without your glasses on. Everything is out of focus. Then, say you put on your glasses (or for audio hook up your HP-1000's) and all shapes and nuances become distinct, allowing you to see what is going on in the recording.

i believe that you can call a sonic signature a defocusing element too, if we're talking about high end system. no.1 and 2 seems very related still, to me.
Quote:

Originally posted by Lando The short definition: If you close your eyes, does it sound like you're listening live?

of coarse not

i would be damn lucky if it was!

Sol_Zhen, thanks for a reference definition.
i guess i should vhange mine.. but yet, when i upgraded/modded my setup step by step, definition no.3 hit an important spot, as it came to mind instantly, and i had no better way of describing the new sound then tranceperant. so how should i call no.3???

 

[andrzejpw]

To me, transparency is the ability of a pair of headphones to pass on the information given to it without adding its own signature. If my source is bright, I want my headphones to show that!

 

[Rizumu]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw To me, transparency is the ability of a pair of headphones to pass on the information given to it without adding its own signature. If my source is bright, I want my headphones to show that!

No, you want a new source!

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw If my source is bright, I want my headphones to show that!

Quote:

Originally posted by Rizumu No, you want a new source!

or a new amp! cables! power cords!

andrzejpw,
Y(didn't)GPM - clear your PM box

 

[andrzejpw]

Oh, uh, yeah, erm, sorry. Go ahead.

 

[OriginalReaper]

To me, transparency is having many things go on in the background and being able to focus in on any of them without them being overshadowed by something else.

Example: This isn't as obvious in a 5 man band, but in a 20 person orchestra you might hear a triangle over a 3 trombones, two violins, a cello, a drum, 20 other instruments, etc. And the triangle doesn't sound like a bell, or a ding, it sounds like a metallic tin, as it's supposed to sound.

That's my definition of transparent.

 

[RobertR]

these are all good definitions of transparency but what it is not is when you can use terms like warm, bright, forward, etc. to describe the sound

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lando The short definition: If you close your eyes, does it sound like you're listening live?

GREAT!!!!
That is the best one I ever heard, and IMO the only valid for transparency....the rest, maybe are valid but thye are tied to another system, that IMO, it may, or may not, be accurate enough to serve as reference, some people use the HP-1, others the R-10, others the Electrostatics, Etys etc... IMO the best is the live listening period...

 

[cello]

from what i'm aware, transparency is the ability for cans to feel like you're simply not listening to cans, and for example, if listening to a live recording, you're actually there at the concert. Thus transparency - the cans become "transparent"

 

[wallijonn]

I like Sol's definition - crystal clear clarity. to me this encompasses transient response; neither fast nor slow, neither bloated nor recessed, neither dark nor bright, but possessing good transient response across the whole spectrum.