[Vertigo-1]

Is transparency when a system gets out of the way, and allows you to purely listen to the music? Or is it when a system gets out of the way and lets you hear every last 0 and 1 off a CD? As far as I can tell, one has not led to the other so far, and vice versa. So which is it?

I fully expect this thread to get philosophical, so stroke those long beards and let the audio scholar within you out.

 

[Audio-Me]

To me transparency is just that, seeing through the sound field being able to mentally note the melody being played and maintain the rhythm without loss of any of the PRaT aspects. What "audiophiles" want is not just transparency, they want a scope over plain clear glass. What I mean by that is they want to hear the little cracks and whistles that you normally wouldn't be able to naturally, more perceptable detail through science.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

I vote for the "Zeros, and Ones". Detail, and transparency go hand in hand with me. There are so many headphones, and amps that give a false sense of transparency because of their lack of detail. The AudioValve RKV is an absolute perfect example of this explanation. Kind of reminds me of that "FM" clarity people have talked about for so many years.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

transparency when a system gets out of the way, and allows you to purely listen to the music? Or is it when a system gets out of the way and lets you hear every last 0 and 1 off a CD?

Well when you put it like that, isn't the answer obvious? Who wants to hear 1s and 0s (other than Crescendopower

)?

But as Darth Nut said somewhere (I can't find the post for some reason) it, the real dichotomy is not between musicality and accuracy but between euphony and accuracy. BOTH euphony and accuracy aim to bring out the music, but it is debatable which one does so better.

The argument for accuracy says: yes, some ugliness will be revealed, but all the beauty will be revealed too. Great recordings will sound great even if poorer recordings have their flaws revealed (though whatever goodness they have in them may also be revealed in a really accurate system).

The argument for euphony says: concealing the ugliness, even at the expense of some detail, will bring out a better experience over a wider range of recordings, many of which are not so great.

This doesn't address a further issue, which is the question of whether some things which are often considered euphonious (i.e. tubes) may not really be more accurate in certain respects than their so-called more accurate counterparts (i.e. solid state).

 

[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum This doesn't address a further issue, which is the question of whether some things which are often considered euphonious (i.e. tubes) may not really be more accurate in certain respects than their so-called more accurate counterparts (i.e. solid state).

I would say that this is the central issue. Each piece of equipment interprets the information in its own way before passing it on to the listener with certain advantages and other disadvantages. When two native English speakers read aloud a passage from a novel without any technical errors is it possible to determine which one reads in a more accurate fashion? If the passage is a narrative describing fast-paced and exciting events, one reader might read quicker and not let some of the words sink in to a listener's head, yet the excitement and tension of the passage is conveyed well. The other reader might read more calmly yet be sure to sound out each word clearly so that in a sense it lets another aspect of detail through. And even more than we don't listen to every letter when listening to narrative (since on an elementary level we can), we cannot "hear" 1s and 0s. The 1s and 0s contain not instruments but the sound captured by the microphones. Even pulling out instruments to be better-heard is being less faithful to those very 1s and 0s.

What's the most important part of music? Is it more important to hear a musician's fingers moving across the strings of an acoustic guitar or to experience more of the warmth of the sound? Some examples are more clear-cut... a composer doesn't always intend for each instrument in an orchestra to be heard equally, yet some audio components seem to pursue this effect.

Despite these objections to any term which claims to suggest superior accuracy, when I read the word "transparency" I think first of treble detail and then of PRAT. I suppose this is because transparency to me evokes images of glass and water which let light pass through, and treble detail is also associated with brightness.

 

[wallijonn]

weightless sound rings clear
sunshine butterflies dance
ears smile, heart speaks. ah.

translation:
you're not aware of the headphones.

the music transports you to a live performance.

you're not aware of the music (no veil, no bass bloat, no midrange recess, no brightness, wide soundstage, sharp positioning, excellent transients, no distortion, no muddiness, no harshness, no shriekiness in the vocals or instruments). your mind does not wander. the music doesn't make you think of anything. you are one with your feelings. the music "makes" you sad, the music "makes" you happy. you do not ask why you are sad (you are not thinking sad thoughts), nor do you ask why you are happy (you are not thinking happy thoughts). you listen to the notes being strung, you see the notes, you connect the notes into chords, you connect the chords into waves of feelings; you ride the crest of the melody - a slow train up a mountainside, a roller coaster's every move, a race car's heartbeat around a sharp corner. you sweat. you laugh. you cry.

-hiaku wal

 

[tanfenton]

Transparency is a great recording. Everything else is secondary to it in reproducing what took place in front of those microphones.

NGF

 

[markl]

Quote:

Is transparency when a system gets out of the way, and allows you to purely listen to the music? Or is it when a system gets out of the way and lets you hear every last 0 and 1 off a CD?

To me, this is the same thing. The most "transparent" component is that which reveals the most. I don't believe in "fake detail". How can a component manufacture detail? Either the squeak in the guitar player's chair was recorded or it wasn't. If one system reveals it, where another does not, that system is "more transparent". If it happened and it was recorded, I should be able to "see" it when I close my eyes. If a particular system isn't giving it to you, it's less sensitive, less responsive, noisier, and *gasp* "veiled".

All that extra low-level ambient detail is what makes up "air" and provides the space in which the instrument can breathe. Better systems drop the noise floor and let this important info be heard. This provides a more 3D holographic soundstage. It's all about "resolution", a word without the negative connotations of "detail" which some people mistake for "bright" or treble heavy gear.

Another crucial element of what I call "transparency" is the ability to distinguish between very loud and very soft sounds. Less transparent systems aren't able to go from really really quiet to really really loud. Dynamic capabilities, speed and accuracy are compromised in a less "transparent" system, everything is squished into a narrow band. Low-level detail is dropped, and dynamic peaks aren't nearly so breathtaking. In other words, you can hear the equipment imposing limitations on the sound.

Mark

 

[zzz]

Quote:

Originally posted by wallijonn weightless sound rings clear sunshine butterflies dance ears smile, heart speaks. ah. translation: you're not aware of the headphones. the music transports you to a live performance.

it always cracks me up a little when somebody says that their reference is a live performance, because 90% of all the live performances I've been too sounded (from the fidelity standpoint) *awful*

. I'd go nuts if I had to endure that all the time.

anyhow.

with regards to the original question, I believe it's both. for all I know, `hearing only music` and `hearing all the details` are not at all mutually exclusive goals.

now that I look at my system, I see that it has been built with linearity in mind. one of the most linear transducers currently available fed by an amplifier, whose designer's main goal was to achieve the highest bandwidth and linearity possible in each of the amp's 4 stages. and all that running from a no voodoo bs cd player. it was all designed to be transparent in a purely physical/electrical sense; designed to hold the ratio of the air pressure at the transducer to the corresponding number recorded on the CD as constant as possible at all times (oversimplification that doesn't take aliasing into account but let's not go there yet). however, all this does not preclude me from getting lost in the music all the time, and degree of that only depends on the music being played.

with that in mind, I believe that all complaints about the too revealing (`too much detail`) or too analytical nature of some amplifiers, players, transducers, and what-not can in the end be traced to certain types of (probably hf) distortions that nobody in the engineering crowd cares to measure just yet. audio becomes much less philosophical when you start thinking of it in these terms

.

 

[bootman]

Quote:

Originally posted by zzz it always cracks me up a little when somebody says that their reference is a live performance, because 90% of all the live performances I've been too sounded (from the fidelity standpoint) *awful* . I'd go nuts if I had to endure that all the time.

Rock concerts will do that.

A Jazz trio in a small venue can sound pretty amazing.
Talk about detail.
I don't think that there is a phone that can realistically reproduce it.

An orchestra (or opera!)in a well designed auditorium can too.
You want raw power?
I don't think there is enough watts to properly convey the dynamics.
I don't think there is a headphone amp that can touch this either.

It's these things that are a real bitch to reproduce.
We can come close though and that just may be good enough for 99.99% of us.

 

[HighwayStar]

As far as using a live performance as a reference, I'll second bootman's comments, a good jazz band in a good club can sound fantastic. Classical ensembles in proper venues will as well. On the other hand a rock or heavy metal band in a sports arena can sound horrid.

I recently had an amp built by one of our resident DIY'ers and remember remarking to him that the amp very realistically brought what was on the CD to my headphones. Good or bad (depending on the recording) it served it up honestly to my ears. Accuracy & detail without any obvious overemphasis or omission. I guess that falls into the "1s & 0s" category. I think transparency = accuracy & detail. Amps/gear that are not as revealing may have a smoothing effect on poorer recordings (a godsend on some) and are very enjoyable to listen too. I think I'd rather have truth than comfort...

 

[dhwilkin]

Quote:

DanG said... When two native English speakers read aloud a passage from a novel without any technical errors is it possible to determine which one reads in a more accurate fashion? If the passage is a narrative describing fast-paced and exciting events, one reader might read quicker and not let some of the words sink in to a listener's head, yet the excitement and tension of the passage is conveyed well. The other reader might read more calmly yet be sure to sound out each word clearly so that in a sense it lets another aspect of detail through.

I like this analogy, but let's take it further. What if one reader has a sore throat, or a shrill voice? This is comparable to poor recordings, or hearing the limits of, say, the cd format. Yet, maybe the reader manages to not make this obvious, so your attention is not drawn to these anomalies. This is the transparency that I like. I like hearing details of the music, not the hardware.

 

[AC1]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Another crucial element of what I call "transparency" is the ability to distinguish between very loud and very soft sounds. Less transparent systems aren't able to go from really really quiet to really really loud. Dynamic capabilities, speed and accuracy are compromised in a less "transparent" system, everything is squished into a narrow band. Low-level detail is dropped, and dynamic peaks aren't nearly so breathtaking. In other words, you can hear the equipment imposing limitations on the sound. Mark

Would have to agree with this point... And is one of the things you rarely see mentioned in head-fi but with the headphones I have tried, it is the downfall of the much talked about headphones (even though they might be "detailed"). Just hearing more detail does not always make for a more satisfying experience, without the dynamics behind it, it is like listening only to a sound not "music".

 

[Old Pa]

Transparency is applying a visual metaphor to an audio experience. Another visual metaphor used commonly in audio reproduction is "removing the veil" between the original audio source and the listener. What makes an visual image clearer, or, if you will, the difference between normal TV and well-executed HDTV, is noticeable improvement in image clarity, resolution (including color), and small natural detail so that the reproduction more closely approaches the live experience. Transperency also has aspects of analog smoothness as contrasted with the bad choppy aspects of low-fi forms of digitization.

 

[pigmode]

Confusion, misinterpretation, the sound of one hand clapping...