Transparency and the sound of a system

[PeterA]

But it's a friggin' digital recording!

Digital recordings are fine. The gross colorations and pleasing distortions of vinyl mask the fact that they are digital.

 

[microstrip]

I understand that the layering is created during the recording process. And it does fool me, to some extent. When I'm in a large church, the singers on stage or in the choir loft do not sound flat and coming from the same space or plane as the organ pipes. Nor do the violins sound next to the timpani on the orchestra stage. That is not an illusion, though I guess I may be imagining it. The music in my home sounds more real when that illusion of space is created. Especially the illusion of the distance between me and the performers. Some people don't value that. Others do.

Yes, in real performances you have the physical information needed to create a real 2D space, although the visual will help. But when all the information comes from two point or line located sources you have to guess a lot ...

The circle of confusion also applies to layering and localization. If I fine tune my system for the Haitink Shostakovich symphonies (digital recordings) it will not sound optimum with the vintage LP recordings of the 60's. In this aspect the EMT927/SME 3012R was a poisonous acquisition - tonally it is very different from my digital systems.

 

[microstrip]

Digital recordings are fine. The gross colorations and pleasing distortions of vinyl mask the fact that they are digital.

Digital recordings can be excellent because they bypass one phase of analog distortions and noise - tape...

 

[PeterA]

Digital recordings can be excellent because they bypass one phase of analog distortions and noise - tape...

I have a number of Denon PCM LPs which are digital. I particularly like the Bach Sonatas for Viola Da Gamba and Harpsichord. But then, direct-to-disc also bypassess the tape process.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter, the space on the winterreise I meant was different. Not between the singer and the pianist. In the old dieskau Moore it is a studio with him close to the mic, the piano not overshadowed. In the Schrier Richter the concert hall ambience and resonance is captured well, and the synergy of the two as well. It is a live recording.

 

[microstrip]

I have a number of Denon PCM LPs which are digital. I particularly like the Bach Sonatas for Viola Da Gamba and Harpsichord. But then, direct-to-disc also bypassess the tape process.

Surely, and we have excellent direct-to-cut LPs. But with a very limited range types of music - and unfortunately the Sheffield Labs direct cuts of orchestras I own are nothing special.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, the space on the winterreise I meant was different. Not between the singer and the pianist. In the old dieskau Moore it is a studio with him close to the mic, the piano not overshadowed. In the Schrier Richter the concert hall ambience and resonance is captured well, and the synergy of the two as well. It is a live recording.

Thanks, I will look for the latter.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks, I will look for the latter.

Peter,

IMHO if you appreciate Winterreise you must listen to the Peter Pears /Benjamin Britten version on Decca - besides the dramatic interpretation the LP has exceptional recording quality. I have got several versions, but I always come back to this one.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter,

IMHO if you appreciate Winterreise you must listen to the Peter Pears /Benjamin Britten version on Decca - besides the dramatic interpretation the LP has exceptional recording quality. I have got several versions, but I always come back to this one.

Will try

 

[morricab]

I think energy and transparency are mutually exclusive. You can have energy in a non transparent system. Obviously no one is saying you should lose it in the quest for transparency

And just how are energy and transparency mutually exclusive?? This seems nonsensical on the face of it.

 

[tima]

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.

From tr?ns ("across, through") + p?re? ("be seen"). Not a Latin scholar but I'm thinking it was mainly a verb: transpareo

Another word drawn from those used primarily for visual experience. Our visual vocabulary is so much more evolved and refined than our audio/audible vocabulary. It's not uncommon to draw from it in our (sometimes vain) efforts to describe how audio equipment sounds or is experienced. Texture is another of many we adopt and adapt - primarily visual but also tactile.

But we try.

Gordon Holt defines it:
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. (cf. Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary)

Peter's second definition partially hinges on its use of 'clearly'. Another visual word. As is "color" in his first.

I'm inclined to accept the first sentence of his first definition if it leaves out the word "color"; then we have: Lacking distortion. Rather non-plussed, eh?

So much talk lately using words like "color" or "signature". It is in vogue to take these as negatives, something to avoid or rid from our systems. (That recent Tweaks thread was so amusing.) Talk is of "fidelity to ..." a master tape, an original event - things that in all liklihood we will never have access to, either physically or ideally: Like a Platonic form or the ding an sich. In audio it has sometimes been known as a straight wire with gain.

Was it in the Renaissance where things had properties hung onto them - if we could just scrape them away, we can get to the real, the true object.

Transparency seems best to make sense in terms of relative descriptions. "Those new cables are much more transparent than ..." There is no absolute state of transparency. Just like there is no neutral. There is no absence of color. But, but ... transparency works on a relative basis - we use it as one means, a word to help pick and choose which of our perceptions we prefer and to qualify our perceptions in a particular way. Most of the time we can get by just fine with "clear." The dirty panes analogy (removing them) is alive and well.

Oh, I'm as guilty as anyone else, having used the t-word in reviews. If you ask me for an example I'd probably say Atma-Sphere and Berning amplifiers are quite transparent. Taking away output transformers and capacitors do wonders for it. You can tell Dusty brushed with the Ipana, not the Colgate. Others can disagree or have their favorites.

At this point I find myself falling back on "natural" - thank you ddk - as a state to strive for. Sure, listening from row 10 (or my listening chair) is "more transparent" than listening from the hallway, but "clearer" works pretty well for that. When you use "transparency" tell me what you hear that is missing or obscured from the pre-transparent event.

 

[microstrip]

From tr?ns ("across, through") + p?re? ("be seen"). Not a Latin scholar but I'm thinking it was mainly a verb: transpareo

Another word drawn from those used primarily for visual experience. Our visual vocabulary is so much more evolved and refined than our audio/audible vocabulary. It's not uncommon to draw from it in our (sometimes vain) efforts to describe how audio equipment sounds or is experienced. Texture is another of many we adopt and adapt - primarily visual but also tactile.

But we try.

Gordon Holt defines it:
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. (cf. Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary)

Peter's second definition partially hinges on its use of 'clearly'. Another visual word. As is "color" in his first.

I'm inclined to accept the first sentence of his first definition if it leaves out the word "color"; then we have: Lacking distortion. Rather non-plussed, eh?

So much talk lately using words like "color" or "signature". It is in vogue to take these as negatives, something to avoid or rid from our systems. (That recent Tweaks thread was so amusing.) Talk is of "fidelity to ..." a master tape, an original event - things that in all liklihood we will never have access to, either physically or ideally: Like a Platonic form or the ding an sich. In audio it has sometimes been known as a straight wire with gain.

Was it in the Renaissance where things had properties hung onto them - if we could just scrape them away, we can get to the real, the true object.

Transparency seems best to make sense in terms of relative descriptions. "Those new cables are much more transparent than ..." There is no absolute state of transparency. Just like there is no neutral. There is no absence of color. But, but ... transparency works on a relative basis - we use it as one means, a word to help pick and choose which of our perceptions we prefer and to qualify our perceptions in a particular way. Most of the time we can get by just fine with "clear." The dirty panes analogy (removing them) is alive and well.

Oh, I'm as guilty as anyone else, having used the t-word in reviews. If you ask me for an example I'd probably say Atma-Sphere and Berning amplifiers are quite transparent. Taking away output transformers and capacitors do wonders for it. You can tell Dusty brushed with the Ipana, not the Colgate. Others can disagree or have their favorites.

At this point I find myself falling back on "natural" - thank you ddk - as a state to strive for. Sure, listening from row 10 (or my listening chair) is "more transparent" than listening from the hallway, but "clearer" works pretty well for that. When you use "transparency" tell me what you hear that is missing or obscured from the pre-transparent event.

IMHO our general use of the word transparency is not equivalent or connected to David's concept of natural.

Again IMHO it is not the absence of capacitors of transformers that makes Atma-Sphere and Berning amplifiers quite transparent, it is their spectra of distortions that in some way enhances detail.

Lamm's ML3 or M1.2 with their preamplifiers sound very different from the Atmasphere combos - MP1 / M2 . In some sense Lamm's are darkish sounding and less transparent than Atmasphere (or the VTL's, BTW) . But curiously they illuminate the performance in a special way that makes it really enjoyable, perhaps more natural for some people.

We must realize that part of the secret of the illusion is managing detail - too much detail will spoil it.

 

[PeterA]

We must realize that part of the secret of the illusion is managing detail - too much detail will spoil it.

I agree Fransisco. I don't want to hear the guy at the back of the stage with the tympani breathing or the orchestra conductor flipping pages, but those sounds on a close mic'd jazz or string trio may enhance the sense of realism and "you are there" sense of presence. It all depends, it is subjective, and it is in my humble opinion.

David and Tango have written about "enhanced detail" getting in the way of the listening experience or the enjoyment. There is also the notion of too "sterile" or "analytical" a sound. I have heard this too, and for some reason, it does not sound as natural, real, or convincing. I find "managing" or striking the right balance, to be very important.

 

[gian60]

I cannot say by words to explain transparency,everyone of us has different experience of transparency.
I understood transparency in 1991 thanks to Be Yamamura and then to Imai of Audio Tekne.
From 1980 to 1990 i was thinking to have good transparency in my system with Jadis,more transparent of ARC and CJ,with ML,Acoustat,Timpany IV,Soundlab A1 and B1,always biamped.
Then after listening system they built for me i understood the real transparent sound and their ideas.
My sound before was dark and slow.Since then my future system always have been very transparent and also now

 

[DaveC]

We must realize that part of the secret of the illusion is managing detail - too much detail will spoil it.

Well, there is a correlation, but it's not details in the recording that are the problem, it's that once you get to a certain level of clarity, transparency, or whatever, then undesirable artifacts become more audible, and pleasing distortions are reduced.

We don't want to hear disturbing artifacts and we do want to hear pleasing distortions and added harmonics, so it is definitely possible to achieve TOO MUCH clarity.

However, it's NOT detail in the recording that is at fault here!

 

[tima]

But curiously they illuminate the performance in a special way that makes it really enjoyable, perhaps more natural for some people.

Another visual reference.

 

[tima]

"spectra of distortions" enhancing detail - wth is that?

Where does "too much" detail come from? ("the guy at the back of the stage with the tympani breathing or the orchestra conductor flipping pages") Could it be on the master tape? Can fidelity to the master tape yield too much detail? When I listened to Melody Gardot while evaluating the VA-class platforms, I heard a lot more detail that made the experience more intimate and 'human'. Do we have preferences in the detail we want to hear and not hear - listener coloration as it were? Is it detail that makes sound ""sterile" or "analytical""? Can there be too much transparency?

 

[KeithR]

when all i focus on is the "detail" that's not the system for me. picking out pin drops on orchestral stages isn't music to me. and therefore, transparency has never been my foremost goal.

as I heard a Gamut system today, after an hour you don't think about the speakers or system at all. i think its related to their preference for design around timing. while other things weren't my preference, this did remind me of how a lot of hifi is "fireworks" not music.

 

[morricab]

"spectra of distortions" enhancing detail - wth is that?

Where does "too much" detail come from? ("the guy at the back of the stage with the tympani breathing or the orchestra conductor flipping pages") Could it be on the master tape? Can fidelity to the master tape yield too much detail? When I listened to Melody Gardot while evaluating the VA-class platforms, I heard a lot more detail that made the experience more intimate and 'human'. Do we have preferences in the detail we want to hear and not hear - listener coloration as it were? Is it detail that makes sound ""sterile" or "analytical""? Can there be too much transparency?

There are many situations where apparent detail is being exaggerated by high frequency distortion. If gear portrays a recording as detailed but flat or without much ambient sound field then this is s good example.

Some gear obscures details and low level information, some exaggerates it , some does a weird combination obscuration and exaggeration.

True transparency allows what’s on a recording to come through without exaggeration or obscuration .

For me, this means the removal of reproductive artifacts that give away the synthetic nature of reproduction. This does not mean removal of all distortion but removal of the audible distortion that screams “FAKE”. This means something can sound natural but obscure detail (a lot of tube gear falls here) and gear can have tons of detail, some of which is exaggeration, but lacks naturalness as there are many signatures that are perceived as fake.

When a tube amp saturates the OPT this often has an obscuring effect. When you see an amp with a big rise in distortion at high frequency then you may well see exaggeration and a higher degree of unnatural “analytical “ sound.

Finding gear that doesn’t do either or both is VERY rare.

OTLs can seem spookily transparent but longer listening reveals some degree of exaggeration that also alters the tonal balance to somewhat lean. Not all are like this though and on first listen they might seem less transparent but all is there in a more natural balance...same for a good SET.

 

[microstrip]

Well, there is a correlation, but it's not details in the recording that are the problem, it's that once you get to a certain level of clarity, transparency, or whatever, then undesirable artifacts become more audible, and pleasing distortions are reduced.

We don't want to hear disturbing artifacts and we do want to hear pleasing distortions and added harmonics, so it is definitely possible to achieve TOO MUCH clarity.

However, it's NOT detail in the recording that is at fault here!

"spectra of distortions" enhancing detail - wth is that?

Where does "too much" detail come from? ("the guy at the back of the stage with the tympani breathing or the orchestra conductor flipping pages") Could it be on the master tape? Can fidelity to the master tape yield too much detail? When I listened to Melody Gardot while evaluating the VA-class platforms, I heard a lot more detail that made the experience more intimate and 'human'. Do we have preferences in the detail we want to hear and not hear - listener coloration as it were? Is it detail that makes sound ""sterile" or "analytical""? Can there be too much transparency?

Although it can be considered just a question of semantics, I say it is the details - the way the details are inserted in the recording. The whole process of recording is an artificial buildup. It is referred that one of the problems of digital is that its technical high resolution allows engineers to introduce too much detail in the recording, making it sound artificial. Analog recording intrinsically limits this excess.

The recording is filled with artifacts - its is how engineers manipulate the raw information coming from the microphones. Most high-end people consider that they should be allowed to manipulate the recording to their preference, either to sound like their "reality" or just more enjoyable. They just add more artifacts ...

The most transparent equipment I have ever listened is the Devialet. I (and a few friends) always find details in the music that you have never noticed before when you listen to it, particularly in the very low level - a back singer, an isolated intrument playing a tune.