It is a question of distance. Some people appreciate row A or even want to feel on the soundstage. Others, such as me, prefer a more distant perspective. I have found that a good preamplifier helps a lot in such approach - it keeps the detail and liveliness at a lower volume.
Transparency and the sound of a system
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
It is a question of distance. Some people appreciate row A or even want to feel on the soundstage. Others, such as me, prefer a more distant perspective. I have found that a good preamplifier helps a lot in such approach - it keeps the detail and liveliness at a lower volume.
I don't think topology is that simple - as I think it depends on if one prefers second or third harmonic distortion.
Many SET lovers think these amps are by far the most "transparent" due to a single pair of output tubes, no crossover distortion, etc. but some of us find huge scoops of second harmonic offensive. OTLs are mostly 3rd harmonic so would attract a different listener.
I think the entire "OTLs" are more transparent simply because they don't have OPTs is too simple and used to justify them vs looking at the whole equation. Remember, they parallel a zillion tubes to get by the OPT situation (often with negative feedback), which in and of itself, is going to have a sound not to mention the choice of tubes is limited as to what they can use. And if OTLs were always a more perfect solution, they wouldn't be the teeny tiny segment of the market they represent.
Many SET lovers think these amps are by far the most "transparent" due to a single pair of output tubes, no crossover distortion, etc. but some of us find huge scoops of second harmonic offensive. OTLs are mostly 3rd harmonic so would attract a different listener.
I think the entire "OTLs" are more transparent simply because they don't have OPTs is too simple and used to justify them vs looking at the whole equation. Remember, they parallel a zillion tubes to get by the OPT situation (often with negative feedback), which in and of itself, is going to have a sound not to mention the choice of tubes is limited as to what they can use. And if OTLs were always a more perfect solution, they wouldn't be the teeny tiny segment of the market they represent.
Does the listener have the choice, or is the listening perspective more or less dictated by the information on the recording?
When listening live, will not a more distant listening perspective lesson the impression of volume, detail and liveliness? I think an immediate or up front listening perspective should not lack detail and liveliness and a more distant listening perspective should sound more distant, less loud, with less detail and sense of liveliness.
I understand that people's tastes are different and they may want the up front listening experience at lower volumes at home, but I have found that a particular recording usually has a fairly narrow range of volume settings with which it sounds best or most convincing. Enjoyment or individual preference is a different matter, surely. I think it is a matter of balance and whether or not the listener wants the sound to seem natural given the listening perspective presented by a particular recording and type of music.
Great thoughts, I’d suggest that the antonym for natural could also just be synthetic. The layer of synthesis is in the required translation (ie the mind is also doing extra steps therefore in working towards recognising the sound instrument) whereas that which is heard as natural is perhaps being more immediately perceived as a specific instrument and requiring less additional levels or layers of processing for translation. Less work = less cerebral and more limbic.
It's not what listeners find in an amp, unless you are referring to some blind set lovers who will run SETs on anything. It is what the system does. Set horn systems, or certain SETs based simple systems, or OTL systems, are more transparent to recordings than many cone based systems with push pulls or SS. Is this a function of SETs, of drivers, or simplicity of cross over, or a mix of the above, I do not know. I have run SETs on cones and got no transparency that I got in the same room with orangutans. Push pulls on known transparent horns have also been transparent
Sure, amp/speaker matching is critical. I'm just saying the human brain can't be ignored in that decision.
I don’t really agree here, Ron. A good output transformer that is the right size so it won’t saturate will will not unduly color or obscure transparency. The leanness in most OTLs comes, IMO , from the need for negative feedback in those designs.
Now, I haven’t heard a Joule Electra OTL but word is that they are not lean sounding and they manage without negative feedback. Tenor was also not too lean. Others I have heard and owned (Silvaweld and Trsnscendent Sound) were varying degrees of leanness. Both of mine had around 10-15db of feedback.
Here's Harry Pearson's definition of transparency taken from TAS Apr/May 2001 issue. This happens to be 1 of maybe 10 TAS issues I've saved over the years.
You say HP taught the industry what transparency is, yet his own words seemed to imply that he actually had little knowledge or awareness of it. In fact, HP seemed to be all over the map with his definition of transparency. Oh, well. I still liked his writing style.
IMO, transparency is perhaps best equated to an all-encompassing definition of the word believability. IOW, in my listening room the sum of my ear/brain visualization of the performance overwhelmingly and instinctively supersedes and suppresses the sum of my eye/brain visualization of hardware and listening room boundaries such that my listening perspective is clearly somewhere in the audience of the recording hall influenced by its acoustic space (not my room's) with the performance at a distance on the soundstage.
I think the word 'Transparency' is not one that we should be using in this hobby. Transparent to what??
There has never been a recording that could be said to be transparent to the original event, simply because of the recording chain...and what that chain always adds or subtracts to the original event.IMHO.
There has never been a recording that could be said to be transparent to the original event, simply because of the recording chain...and what that chain always adds or subtracts to the original event.IMHO.
I like this description. As for suppressing visualization of hardware and room boundaries: I like to listen in the dark. With no speakers in sight, the soundstage often seems much larger that way, especially on orchestral music.
For that purpose I bought black-out dots that very much dim the lights of my equipment. And the tubes glow nicely in the dark.
Agreed. That is why I like the term believability, as also Stehno uses it.
Transparency to the original event, or even to the master tape, is a delusion. That we can impossibly know how the master tape was intended to sound by the recording engineers has been discussed in the beginning pages of the thread.
Yes, it would seem to require an object. And usage seems only relative, not absolute.
I'm still working through this, but I'm uncertain about the HP usage, claiming an awareness of transparency heard during attendance of a live event. How can a live performance be transparent or have the word applied to it as a characteristic?
Perhaps used for comparison between two things: brand X is more transparent than brand Y?
Of what cannot be said must we not remain silent?
I am loving this version on YouTube, but my LP is quite hard sounding. Will try another or this might be great streamed as well.
For me transparency is an easy term. I have immediate association with the water.
I like the presentation to be as transparent as the water in a mountain river.
And yes, it must be a bit cold , otherwise it can become muddy.
BTW it’s very difficult to find a proper vocabulary to describe the perception of the sound by human brain.
I like the presentation to be as transparent as the water in a mountain river.
And yes, it must be a bit cold , otherwise it can become muddy.
BTW it’s very difficult to find a proper vocabulary to describe the perception of the sound by human brain.
What is interesting here, to stretch the visual analogy, is that something could be colored and STILL have a high degree of transparency. You would only lose transparency in the event that something you are looking at was MASKED by the color of the glass you are looking through. I have heard situations where the overall presentation was highly transparent and all images, space etc. were well resolved but there was a pervasive coloration to the tonality. If that tonality is caused by simple linear distortion (i.e. frequency response errors) then it may not have any impact on transparency whatsover (like the AudioStatic ES100s or STAX ELS F-81s, which were über transparent...but tonal balance was not neutral) but if it is from cabinet resonance, driver break up etc. then there is a situation where the distortion is masking the intended frequencies and this may impact the ability to hear "into" the music. Noise-floor of a speaker will also impact this "hear into" quality greatly.
For electronics, it has a lot to do with noise floor and signal CORREALTED noise floor. If the noise floor is being impacted by distortion components that cause the rise and fall with level, this will negatively impact transparency.
Yes, that is one of the practical problems of lesser digital, and of digital jitter. There is a signal correlated noise floor.
Similar threads
