Transparency and the sound of a system

[PeterA]

Transparency is an interesting concept. In audiophile terms, what does it mean? And what do we mean when we describe a system as "transparent"?

I have read two definitions for the term:

1. Lacking color and distortion. A transparent component or system, adds little or no identifiable signature to the sound.
2. Being able to clearly hear the front of the stage through to the back and sides with all areas distinct and audible.

I am trying to rid my own system of colorations and distortions. I also want to be able to hear individual instruments spread around a stage as separate and distinct with their own place in space and how their sounds define the space in which the recording was made. I also like the idea of hearing the information on the recording and hearing differences between various recordings. This latter idea has been discussed quite a bit recently.

I have heard systems recently which purport to be "transparent". However, each of these systems has a very distinct and characteristic sound. If a system "sounds" a particular way, can it really be described as "transparent"? Perhaps by "voicing" our systems to our own liking, we are moving away from "transparency".

 

[lordcloud]

I view transparency in the world of audio, as a component (system, room, etc...) adding as little of itself as is possible. Or adding nothing of itself, and merely being an incorruptible conduit.

I am also trying to rid my system of as much character as possible, while also trying to choose components that seem to be as transparent as possible (that are within my ability to pay for them).

Most systems I've heard have a sound, the soundstage is very similar from recording to recording, there is a pervasive warmth, etc. Most people choose components based on the sound they make, and not their ability to pass the sound of the recording through. Or at least that's the way it seems.

I'm not really sure how many truly transparent pieces of equipment there really are. If any.

 

[microstrip]

Our own definition of transparency adapts to our objective in sound reproduction - here Ron as a point in his interest in the definion of the objectives of high-end audio .://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/magico-m6-on-tas.24443/post-483977. The definition of transparency is logical once we establish them - the property of something that does not affect such defined objectives.

 

[lordcloud]

Our own definition of transparency adapts to our objective in sound reproduction - here Ron as a point in his interest in the definion of the objectives of high-end audio .://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/magico-m6-on-tas.24443/post-483977. The definition of transparency is logical once we establish them - the property of something that does not affect such defined objectives.

I don't view transparency as being present if it recreates the sound of an original musical event,
create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, or creates a sound that seems live.

None of these things may be present on the source material.

 

[opus112]

Transparency in a component or system is that property which allows recordings to sound more like themselves, individual and distinct. Perhaps (to appropriate Jungian language) transparency allows recordings to individuate. There's an irony here - in not drawing attention to themselves transparent systems are harder to market - how to sell an open window? The system that doesn't add any of its own character though is just an ideal to be aimed at.

 

[treitz3]

Ah, the age old transparency question.

The best way that I have heard this summed up was actually through a visual, not written words.

Take 40 panes of glass while trying to look at a fish swimming in crystal clear mountain water 3' down with a beautiful large rounded stone backdrop. Each window pane has a slight smoke haze or a slight.....ever so slight amount of debris or dust to it. When looking through one pane? No issues.

Look through all 40 panes with the same issues and now we have an issue. You can barely see the fish.

Now, put on polarized glasses. You can now see the fish better. Even at an angle, one can see that fish. Now, start removing a window pane one by one. With each pane gone, your image gets clearer and clearer. Until you are transparent.

Now apply that to audio and one has transparency. At least in my old mind...

Tom

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't view transparency as being present if it recreates the sound of an original musical event,
create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, or creates a sound that seems live.

None of these things may be present on the source material.

And that is why your objective for high-end audio must be to “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

 

[Folsom]

I don't view transparency as being present if it recreates the sound of an original musical event,
create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, or creates a sound that seems live.

None of these things may be present on the source material.

Very true. Could be present, but not necessarily.

A big 3D soundstage isn’t part of hardly any recordings. (esp studios that don’t record the band live)

 

[Tango]

And that is why your objective for high-end audio must be to “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

Do we have access to master tapes? I dont. For me a fake-you-real sensation with little pattern every now and then while listening would just do it.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[ddk]

Transparency is an interesting concept. In audiophile terms, what does it mean? And what do we mean when we describe a system as "transparent"?

I have read two definitions for the term:

1. Lacking color and distortion. A transparent component or system, adds little or no identifiable signature to the sound.
2. Being able to clearly hear the front of the stage through to the back and sides with all areas distinct and audible.

I am trying to rid my own system of colorations and distortions. I also want to be able to hear individual instruments spread around a stage as separate and distinct with their own place in space and how their sounds define the space in which the recording was made. I also like the idea of hearing the information on the recording and hearing differences between various recordings. This latter idea has been discussed quite a bit recently.

I have heard systems recently which purport to be "transparent". However, each of these systems has a very distinct and characteristic sound. If a system "sounds" a particular way, can it really be described as "transparent"? Perhaps by "voicing" our systems to our own liking, we are moving away from "transparency".

My goal and definition of transparency is parts of no. 1 but aim the is to get beyond and past the system, ie that you can’t define it or parts of it, then you get close to an event, the music and the musical intent. I find ambience of the original event extremely important and transformation of your listening environment to match the original venue key for suspension of reality and a true test of transparency. Number 2 is often a distraction specially when you add fake images into the mix.

david

 

[PeterA]

Can we ever separate the influence of the room from a system? If the system is close to being transparent, IOW it is comprised of the most transparent components we can assemble, but it still has a sound that we can identify relative to other systems we have heard, are we really just hearing the interaction between that transparent system and the room in which it is located?

Using Tom's fish/glass pane analogy, how do we know that we have removed the last bit of distortion from what we are hearing? We would somehow have to be able to directly compare the master tape through some transparent play back system to the recording through our system. That seems like an unlikely possibility. So we are left with our fallible perceptions and memory and the assumptions about what the master tape sounds like.

Perhaps the best we can do it to simply try to hear as many of the differences as possible between various recordings on our systems and try to avoid recognizable colorations and distortions in a continual pursuit toward that elusive goal.

 

[thedudeabides]

And that is why your objective for high-end audio must be to “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

I've heard this statement before. Unless you have the "master tape" at your disposal as well as the machine it was recorded on, speakers that were used for monitoring / mixing, etc., one has no clue as to what it sounds like in its "original" form.

 

[Tango]

I've heard this statement before. Unless you have the "master tape" at your disposal, one has no clue as to what it sounds like.

Even if you have the master, how do you know if your playback gears are true to the tape. How do you know if the tone you hear from the playback is the same as when it was recorded. The word "exactly" should be taken out from the sentence and replace with "approximately." Now I am sounding like people in this forum .

Tang

 

[Mike Lavigne]

another aspect of transparency is 'degrees' of retaining the whole musical message. we can hear something with more prominent detail and think 'transparent', but maybe when we hear it with more correct body and weight then we look back and view our 'transparent' first take as more correctly viewed as relatively incomplete assuming that more complete hearing retained the equivalent detail.

Can we ever separate the influence of the room from a system? If the system is close to being transparent, IOW it is comprised of the most transparent components we can assemble, but it still has a sound that we can identify relative to other systems we have heard, are we really just hearing the interaction between that transparent system and the room in which it is located?

Using Tom's fish/glass pane analogy, how do we know that we have removed the last bit of distortion from what we are hearing? We would somehow have to be able to directly compare the master tape through some transparent play back system to the recording through our system. That seems like an unlikely possibility. So we are left with our fallible perceptions and memory and the assumptions about what the master tape sounds like.

Perhaps the best we can do it to simply try to hear as many of the differences as possible between various recordings on our systems and try to avoid recognizable colorations and distortions in a continual pursuit toward that elusive goal.

agree on the influence of the room; during my room tuning exercise my reference for transparency evolved quite a bit. we think it's all coming through transparently, but then we look back at where we were and realize we need to keep our minds open to higher viewpoints.

i've done lots of format comparisons including plenty of master dub tape to vinyl or digital comparisons. i have to keep in mind that i don't always know the provenance of the tape source for my master dub, but many times it is very interesting to hear the source for our vinyl and digital.....to understand what is transparent and what is 'different' and how. this is why i've always claimed my reference is my other formats more than live music (not that live music is not highly beneficial as a reference). it's closest to the truth of what the potential is of the recording.

especially for musical truth from digital, the source tape is helpful to judge transparency and musical truth. with vinyl i'm not as concerned that the vinyl be exactly what the tape tells me.....as long as the musical involvement is where i like it.

 

[Al M.]

I've heard this statement before. Unless you have the "master tape" at your disposal as well as the machine it was recorded on, speakers that were used for monitoring / mixing, etc., one has no clue as to what it sounds like in its "original" form.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, cannot be emphasized enough. Let me repeat: This cannot be emphasized enough.

What is more, how do we even know if what's on the tape is exactly what the sound/mastering engineers intended? They are dependent on their monitoring equipment. All monitoring equipment, starting with speakers, inevitably has its own sonic signature. Furthermore, it is known that the same monitor speakers sound different in different studios, apparently mostly due to different studio acoustics. Therefore, I would say, there is no way that even the sound/mastering engineers have a possibility of knowing if what's on the tape is exactly what they intended, from a generally applicable neutral sonic viewpoint!

As an aside (an important one), there is another complication: in the case of analog recording, different tape head adjustments on the very same tape machine can give different sonic results, as attested by recording engineers. So how do we even know the exact tape head settings upon recording? We don't. So even if we knew how the tape sounded upon replay in the studio, how would we know that the playback settings were the same as the settings upon recording, and thus the tape sounds exactly as the sound engineers intended?

 

[microstrip]

Do we have access to master tapes? I dont. For me a fake-you-real sensation with little pattern every now and then while listening would just do it.

Kind regards,
Tang

Dear Tang,

Again turning around semantics. "Reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" is built around the idea that the electrical signal should not be disturbed at all and only the electro-mechanical process of transforming the electrical signal in sound waves should be allowed to express our preference. Otherwise we would say "fidelity to the master room!"

We could equality say "fidelity to the digital master" , but allergies would spread in part of the audiophile WBF community. F. Toole uses the concept of transparency we are debating only once in his book, just to say that digital is a " transparent storage device." IMHO his attitude towards sound reproduction can be described as a mix of 2 and 3 ( reproduce exactly what is on the master tape and create a sound subjectively pleasant with the speaker).

IMHO "Reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" is accessed with instruments, not using the ears - it is the aim of most objectivists.

And "Reproduce exactly what is on the groove" is currently meaningless, even with ELP laser turntable.

 

[microstrip]

I've heard this statement before. Unless you have the "master tape" at your disposal as well as the machine it was recorded on, speakers that were used for monitoring / mixing, etc., one has no clue as to what it sounds like in its "original" form.

Referred long ago by F.Toole as "circle of confusion". See his book or http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html.

Many divergences arise on how to break it!

 

[DaveC]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, cannot be emphasized enough. Let me repeat: This cannot be emphasized enough.

What is more, how do we even know if what's on the tape is exactly what the sound/mastering engineers intended? They are dependent on their monitoring equipment. All monitoring equipment, starting with speakers, inevitably has its own sonic signature. Furthermore, it is known that the same monitor speakers sound different in different studios, apparently mostly due to different studio acoustics. Therefore, I would say, there is no way that even the sound/mastering engineers have a possibility of knowing if what's on the tape is exactly what they intended, from a generally applicable neutral sonic viewpoint!

As an aside (an important one), there is another complication: in the case of analog recording, different tape head adjustments on the very same tape machine can give different sonic results, as attested by recording engineers. So how do we even know the exact tape head settings upon recording? We don't. So even if we knew how the tape sounded upon replay in the studio, how would we know that the playback settings were the same as the settings upon recording, and thus the tape sounds exactly as the sound engineers intended?

Another thing I agree w/ Toole on... He coined the term "Circle of Confusion".

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

Basically, the result of the recording process is evaluated on a system when it's mastered, and this is used to evaluate other systems. However there are no standards involved in this process, no standard system that is defined as the reference.

The idea is music should be mastered, and ideally played back, using a calibrated system to make sure the music is heard as intended.

I'm not sure this is practical for many reasons, but the concept is important because it IS easy to get confused as far as what's doing what. Often we don't even know how parts of our own system work, and the truth is nobody really knows everything about every little detail that effects what we hear from an audio system.

Then consider the possibility that some added information caused by resonances from the room and/or the system actually increases the perceived clarity and transparency of what we hear, and we have a very complicated system that nobody in the world truly understands. The best we can hope for is to gain some amount of intuition based on experience and use that to create a system we enjoy listening to.

IMO, if you did manage to accomplish putting together a system that ONLY played back what's on the recording it would sound unnatural and much less pleasant than systems that actually do add some resonances that the ear expects to hear in real life, and that does add some amount of warmth that makes the recording sound more lifelike and natural.

 

[KeithR]

I think most people who focus on "transparency" really mean detail.

 

[DaveC]

Referred long ago by F.Toole as "circle of confusion". See his book or http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html.

Many divergences arise on how to break it!

Darn it micro! You beat me to it by a few minutes.