Transparency and the sound of a system

[DaveC]

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

I think they are related, but transparency also includes an element of cohesiveness and lack of distracting artifacts, like not too much warmth, and no harshness, no mismatched sounding drivers, etc...

 

[Tango]

Wow. The background of the banner is a lot more transparent now with red and christmas spirits.

Tang

 

[Gregadd]

"If you make a great tuna net you are goin to catch some dolphins"
Gregadd

This may explain why some solid state electronics have vanishingly low distortions but are still found wanting. If you think of stereo as an illusion you do not see it as looking through a window back onot the source. It is more of casting an exact image. Ideally it should neither add or subtract. form the source. It is easier to avoid distraction or acting as a filter. Replacing what is lost or altered is more difficult.
When we try to filter out artifacts we will inevitably miss something. We may even add something. When we try to add something we will often be incompetent. and we may distaict something."
"When man solves a problem he creates another one."
Gregadd

 

[lordcloud]

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

I agree.

Though I also think most people look at detail as a negative, as opposed to it being more information.

 

[lordcloud]

This is another issue I think people run into, and one I try to avoid, even though I don'y think it's currently possible: people look at transparency as making their systems sound lifelike and natural, though the recording may not be lifelike and natural. In fact, many, if not most, recordings are not lifelike or natural. So you have some lifelike and natural recordings....but your benchmark is a tampered to death with, typical jazz or rock recording, and your system is built around making something unnatural, sound kinda natural. Because of this, you view your system as being transparent, when it is not at all.

 

[DaveC]

I agree.

Though I also think most people look at detail as a negative, as opposed to it being more information.

All too often more transparency allows you to hear disturbing artifacts that were previously hidden. People don't or can't differentiate and it's gotten to the point where these artifacts are being confused for detail.

 

[Folsom]

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

I was about to post, "maybe it's just a shitty word for audio." It seems to be way too vague. But it does seem like half of all descriptions are just about defining heightened detail or not.

 

[ack]

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

One way to answer your question is by trying to define the opposite: what is NOT transparent? When you listen to any instrument in a system and certain things are obviously off - e.g. thick lower piano registers (one of many examples) - then it is obviously not transparent in that area. When it has issues all around, it is not transparent all around. Why?

Well, years ago I was convinced that there are recordings that can sound Realistic; under the right conditions, they can give you the illusion of actually listening to a live performance. This does NOT mean recordings can correctly capture every single performance. So as you and I have discussed a couple of times in the past, if a system can give you the illusion of listening to live instruments or voices, i.e. render a realistic sound, I consider that system highly transparent. It may not be able to do that with every such good recording, so there are tiers of realism and therefore, transparency.

In other words, given recordings that can give the sense of realism, I tie transparency to it, if we define 'realism' as being fooled to listening to live music. As such, certain aspects of a system, as we discussed in your last visit to me the other day, are just not important from a transparency perspective. For example, when was the last time anyone went to a concert to listen to "imaging" - so who cares if a system can image well or not [again, from a transparency point of view]. Or, when was the last time anyone went to a concert to hear depth - so again, who cares whether a system can render depth well [again, from a transparency point of view]....

Moreover, the very definition of realism is multi-faceted: if you sit in the orchestra, that's one version of it. If you sit in the balcony, that's another; if you are on stage, as the mics are, that's yet another; and so on. So decide all frames of reference for realism, then judge a system based on whether it can portray any one of them; and then, that system will be transparent as referenced to that frame. For me, my frame of reference is where the mics are - and this is why I am looking for transparency to the recording.

Hope this helps

 

[Al M.]

One way to answer your question is by trying to define the opposite: what is NOT transparent? When you listen to any instrument in a system and certain things are obviously off - e.g. thick lower piano registers (one of many examples) - then it is obviously not transparent in that area. When it has issues all around, it is not transparent all around. Why?

Well, years ago I was convinced that there are recordings that can sound Realistic; under the right conditions, they can give you the illusion of actually listening to a live performance. This does NOT mean recordings can correctly capture every single performance. So as you and I have discussed a couple of times in the past, if a system can give you the illusion of listening to live instruments or voices, i.e. render a realistic sound, I consider that system highly transparent. It may not be able to do that with every such good recording, so there are tiers of realism and therefore, transparency.

In other words, given recordings that can give the sense of realism, I tie transparency to it, if we define 'realism' as being fooled to listening to live music.

This is an important part of transparency, I agree.

As such, certain aspects of a system, as we discussed in your last visit to me the other day, are just not important from a transparency perspective. For example, when was the last time anyone went to a concert to listen to "imaging" - so who cares if a system can image well or not [again, from a transparency point of view]. Or, when was the last time anyone went to a concert to hear depth - so again, who cares whether a system can render depth well [again, from a transparency point of view]....

Moreover, the very definition of realism is multi-faceted: if you sit in the orchestra, that's one version of it. If you sit in the balcony, that's another; if you are on stage, as the mics are, that's yet another; and so on. So decide all frames of reference for realism, then judge a system based on whether it can portray any one of them; and then, that system will be transparent as referenced to that frame. For me, my frame of reference is where the mics are - and this is why I am looking for transparency to the recording.

Hope this helps

Imaging is not a straightforward thing to discuss, but I have to disagree with you on spatial depth. If spatial depth is recorded you should be able to hear it as such. You say your frame of reference is where the mics are - but they may very well be at a distance where depth is important. If a choir is recorded in a resonant venue, e.g., a church, and sounds from a distance because that is how the microphones are deliberately placed, then I want to hear exactly that. If the system reproduces the sound as close-up, it is decidedly not transparent to this aspect of recording and the musical event.

My system used to portray recordings with spatial depth as being close-up. But with improvements of room acoustics and lowering of the noise floor (first heard with my old amps when I got external power supplies) spatial depth became audible. Further improvements of room acoustics (over a painfully long period of years, for the longest time I had to fight against generally too recessed images) created the greatest contrast between close-up and distant sounding recordings, with gradations in between, that thus far I could achieve -- and I am now happy with the result of this transparency to spatial information. I do not intend to put more work into further improving the performance of system and room with regard to this particular aspect (this does not preclude improvements that may simply be by-products of future gear upgrades).

Lowering of the system's noise floor on its own does not necessarily result in better spatial reproduction if room acoustics do not cooperate.

 

[ack]

but I have to disagree with you on spatial depth. If spatial depth is recorded you should be able to hear it as such. You say your frame of reference is where the mics are - but they may very well be at a distance where depth is important. If a choir is recorded in a resonant venue, e.g., a church, and sounds from a distance because that is where the microphones are deliberately placed, then I want to hear exactly that. If the system reproduces the sound as close-up, it is decidedly not transparent to this aspect of recording and the musical event.

How do we know what the *hall* sounds like, in all aspects including depth, and how can we know how the microphones captured it? What about the various music halls we frequent? Do you know their sound, from the various seats? I would claim, very few do (e.g. those who did the recording).

The problem is when a system portrays everything flat, not whether it is forward or recessed. Unlike the focus of a recording - the instruments or singers - for which we have real life references, we have no references for the sound of the halls themselves, which can differ by the presence or lack of presence of an audience.

 

[Elliot G.]

I might suggest to all of you to go back in the old issues of TAS and read the great Harry Pearson's explanation of Transparency. He taught eh Industry what it was.
RIP Harry

 

[Al M.]

How do we know what the *hall* sounds like, in all aspects including depth, and how can we know how the microphones captured it? What about the various music halls we frequent? Do you know their sound, from the various seats? I would claim, very few do (e.g. those who did the recording).

The problem is when a system portrays everything flat, not whether it is forward or recessed. Unlike the focus of a recording - the instruments or singers - for which we have real life references, we have no references for the sound of the halls themselves, which can differ by the presence or lack of presence of an audience.

True. But if there is little distinction in spatial information between recordings on a given system, then the system/room is simply not sufficiently transparent to those differences.

The same holds for different spatial information within a given recording, for example when there is pronounced spatial layering from up front to far back. Which system is likely more transparent to the recording, a system that allows for this layering to come through, or a system that reproduces everything in that recording in an either forward or recessed manner?

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.

I like this definition of transparency. Continuing from above, the greater distinction between recordings on a transparent system also extends to spatial information.

 

[PeterA]

I might suggest to all of you to go back in the old issues of TAS and read the great Harry Pearson's explanation of Transparency. He taught eh Industry what it was.
RIP Harry

Elliot, Can you share a link to this TAS article, or give us a summary of what he wrote?

 

[PeterA]

True. But if there is little distinction in spatial information between recordings on a given system, then the system/room is simply not sufficiently transparent to those differences.



I like this definition of transparency. Continuing from above, the greater distinction between recordings on a transparent system also extends to spatial information.

Al, I tend to agree with this. If a system does not portray differences in the listening perspective or spatial information between recordings, the system is not transparent, or the room has such an effect on the acoustics that the listener can not hear these distinctions. Of course, listening perspective and spatial information may not be priorities for a listener.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I tend to agree with this. If a system does not portray differences in the listening perspective or spatial information between recordings, the system is not transparent, or the room has such an effect on the acoustics that the listener can not hear these distinctions. Of course, listening perspective and spatial information may not be priorities for a listener.

Yes, the system/room then is not transparent to this aspect, which of course does not mean that it cannot be highly transparent in a number of other important aspects.

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot, Can you share a link to this TAS article?

I wish I could but the old mags I have are in storage and I really have no easy way to get them. Harry wrote a lot of articles back in the days and the only way I know would be to go through those mags or maybe TAS has a reference to them

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot, Can you share a link to this TAS article, or give us a summary of what he wrote?

I will try to see if I can get a hold of it and then put it up here or a link to it. May take a few days

 

[Elliot G.]

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".

To me by definition its a system that either is or isn't transparent. IN audio components do not exist in a vacuum . We only hear the result of all the items in the signal path from source to speaker. The ability to look into the music is what it means to me. Its an open window to the music. One should be able to "see" the players in a 3 dimensional space. This of course is only possible if the recording will let you. As we know not all recordings allow us to actually do this. I always find it strange to find discussions of singular devices when there is no universal product in audio.
Every item DOES NOT work perfectly with every other item. The purpose of listening to a system . or trying to build a system is to take items that work well together to create the illusion of a musical event. This is of course theater of the mind, travel in time and space without ever leaving your chair. Those systems that elevate to the time machine to me are what moves my soul. I tell my clients and friends I can't bring Carnegie Hall into your house or make a recording sound like it is in Carnegie hall, Unless it was recorded there LOL, however it can transport you there is the recording is done well. Recorded music is also an art form. Recording engineers also have a vision of what they are trying to accomplish and their vision may not be what you and I are looking for. This to me is why we all have different visions of what the system should do.
to quote Jack Nicholson
I never lied to you , I always told you some version of the truth. What I mean by this is different products do things differently and yet all of the designers that make good products believe that this is the correct way to do it.
You own Magico, I own Gobel. They are incredible products and do amazing things however they are nothing alike. I know we , meaning me use the same electronics to play our speakers. We use different sources and cables. The end result however is STILL the total package assembled not one piece or another.
I always advise listeners to hear a system and by what they liked or loved. The pieces deal only results in frustration and failure for many who seem to be searching for mysteries without any clues. I believe that comes from Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac.
I will see what I can find for you
Enjoy the music

 

[ack]

Which system is likely more transparent to the recording, a system that allows for this layering to come through, or a system that reproduces everything in that recording in an either forward or recessed manner?

What sort of layering are you hearing from the balcony close-stage at the BSO - my guess is none. If you are thinking instrumental separation, that's not the same as layering. This information is of very low importance.

 

[Al M.]

What sort of layering are you hearing from the balcony close-stage at the BSO - my guess is none.

A lot is the answer. And I hear even more, tons of spatial layering, when I sit in front of the orchestra, just below stage level a few rows away.

If you are thinking instrumental separation, that's not the same as layering. This information is of very low importance.

Of very low importance to you, that is. And that's fine. It is of considerably lesser importance to me than other things as well, even though more important than it is to you. Everyone has their own priorities, and that's part of this very personal hobby. Nothing wrong with that, on the contrary!

Just like you, I think instrumental separation by timbre is extremely important.