What is Transparency?

[microstrip]

We do not own the words. IMHO, the most interesting thing is this debates is just debating the "non wikipedia" use of normal words in audiophile jargon. In order to specify db tolerances and distortion versus frequency you do not need the word transparency, neutral or anything else. Graphs are enough.

We are borrowing a word that is mainly used in day life for photons, meaning usually just " a media though which something can go untouched". Such thing does not exist in sound reproduction. So , part of the debate is how we check transparency, and the symptoms of lack of transparency.

Most of us can only contribute subjectively - Jack has posted a nice definition.

Most of my non-educated friends (sorry ) when listening to my SoundLabs sometimes express just the idea that these speakers are particularly transparent to the music message. They do not feel the same about other speakers. (For the non educated people I should explain that the Mylar is not transparent, because the resistive coating is opaque). So they are referring to sound waves, not photons.

I remember reading a very interesting essay in TAS about transparency may years ago. I will look for it and come back.

 

[jazdoc]

Transparency is a global descriptor that includes the sum total (lack of) distortion, dynamic range, noise floor, etc.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I (and thousands millions, happily) have access to real performance - and we are the consumers that the industry has to please.

Are you talking about the many live performances we can attend? A valuable frame of reference for your ears and your imagination, but they have absolutely no influence on your system. It remains oblivious and continues to do its best to reproduce the recording. I know you know this, of course. We're having a purely semantic discussion at this point.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Some good ideas here. In particular, the sense that one can use the word "transparency" in terms of how well you, the listener, are able to "see" the performance occurring, as in there is no impediment to you being aware of what the music would have sounded like if you had been there at the recording session. The more you feel, experience the sensation, and it is subjective, that you are witnessing precisely what the producer and other bystanders did at the time of the recording, then the more transparent the system, and that would also involve the quality of the recording.

Even if the musical event never occurred in acoustic space, was a totally synthesised piece, then if the impression conveyed to you emotionally is that this is what the recording engineer experienced on his headphones or monitors, then you would say that the system was transparent.

How that is achieved is a whole different kettle of fish: part of the equation of course is very low distortion and noise. In terms of assessing pure accuracy of the the replay mechanism in itself, this could be done by recording the output of the speaker, and comparing it using DSP and variations thereof to the source signal. Not trivial of course, would require a high level of expertise and precision, to be sure the process was measuring something real, but could be done. That would settle as least a few of the debates, and disputes.

Frank

 

[mep]

Are you talking about the many live performances we can attend? A valuable frame of reference for your ears and your imagination, but they have absolutely no influence on your system. Tim

Really now. Live music has no influence on people’s systems? Since when? I couldn’t disagree more. Maybe it all has to do with what you mean by "influence." I certainly think that live music influences purchasing decisions for audio gear.

 

[microstrip]

Are you talking about the many live performances we can attend? A valuable frame of reference for your ears and your imagination, but they have absolutely no influence on your system. It remains oblivious and continues to do its best to reproduce the recording. I know you know this, of course. We're having a purely semantic discussion at this point.

Tim

Tim,

They influence my decision of deciding what sounds good, and if I manage to avoid biases I improve my system using what I learn from the real experience. Happily I still am able to choose (and pay for ) my system. And all designers and sound engineers use the real experience as a reference.

BTW, I would be happy if you could avoid the paternalist style of I know what you know, I would not need every time to repeat you do not know what I know, I can think by myself. Perhaps I do not write as well as I would wish, as I do not have much time to improve my careless WBF style. But to improve the quality of the post I quote F. Toole:

"How do listeners approach the problem of judging sound quality? Most likely the dimensions and criteria of subjective evaluation are traceable to experiences in live sound, even simple conversation. If we hear things in sound reproduction that could not occur in nature or that defy some kind of logic,we seem to be able to identify it."

 

[mep]

micro-I think your English is outstanding and you and I are on the same page with regards to how live sound influences our purchasing decisions. I also agree with what you said to Tim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

They influence my decision of deciding what sounds good, and if I manage to avoid biases I improve my system using what I learn from the real experience. Happily I still am able to choose (and pay for ) my system. And all designers and sound engineers use the real experience as a reference.

BTW, I would be happy if you could avoid the paternalist style of I know what you know, I would not need every time to repeat you do not know what I know, I can think by myself. Perhaps I do not write as well as I would wish, as I do not have much time to improve my careless WBF style. But to improve the quality of the post I quote F. Toole:

"How do listeners approach the problem of judging sound quality? Most likely the dimensions and criteria of subjective evaluation are traceable to experiences in live sound, even simple conversation. If we hear things in sound reproduction that could not occur in nature or that defy some kind of logic,we seem to be able to identify it."

Nothing paternalistic meant, Micro, I was merely acknowledging that I wasn't telling you anything that you didn't already know. And of course the sound of real instruments is a reference to listeners and designers. We agree on that as well.

Tim

 

[fas42]

And I agree also. The human voice, the real thing, that is, surrounds us continually and is an excellent reference, should be used always. If my wife says something at about the same volume level as a voice, even though singing, is coming through on a recording, and the two match on a tonal level, in those qualities that we use to identify whether something is convincing or not, then I know I'm on the right track. If there is edginess or slight hyped quality to the vocal replay then I know the system is not right ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Tim-you should enter a bicycle race where you have to pedal backwards to win because you are good at back pedaling.

 

[NorthStar]

micro-I think your English is outstanding ...

And mine, fine? :b

* Transparent enough?

** Who's Tim? :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And I agree also. The human voice, the real thing, that is, surrounds us continually and is an excellent reference, should be used always. If my wife says something at about the same volume level as a voice, even though singing, is coming through on a recording, and the two match on a tonal level, in those qualities that we use to identify whether something is convincing or not, then I know I'm on the right track. If there is edginess or slight hyped quality to the vocal replay then I know the system is not right ...

Frank

The human voice is perhaps the best reference. I'm trying to find some place here between yes, of course we listen to live music, we listen to our systems and, "it sounds good to me, therefore it must be transparent." I could decide I like a 2 db hump at 60hz and a 4 db boost at 2khz. I could even decide that it makes instruments sound more like what I remember experiencing when listening to live music and seek out an amp with those boosts built in. None of the above would make that amp's fr transparent, IMO. Flat fr would do that. Ymmv, of course.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And mine, fine? :b

* Transparent enough?

** Who's Tim? :b

Your canadian is excellent, bob.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

My "canadian", I like dat. :b

 

[JackD201]

The human voice is perhaps the best reference. I'm trying to find some place here between yes, of course we listen to live music, we listen to our systems and, "it sounds good to me, therefore it must be transparent." I could decide I like a 2 db hump at 60hz and a 4 db boost at 2khz. I could even decide that it makes instruments sound more like what I remember experiencing when listening to live music and seek out an amp with those boosts built in. None of the above would make that amp's fr transparent, IMO. Flat fr would do that. Ymmv, of course.

Tim

Except human hearing is not flat. Something the good ol' boys at Bell Labs and the Beeb and their speech intelligibility experiments demonstrated many, many decades ago.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Except human hearing is not flat. Something the good ol' boys at Bell Labs and the Beeb and their speech intelligibility experiments demonstrated many, many decades ago.

No. It's not even consistent, much less flat. This doesn't change the fact that if your system goal is to reproduce the recording, your amplifiers (and preamps and DACs, etc) should be.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Which brings me to a question I asked but you never answered. If you had a choice between a system with electronics that were true to something simple like a sine wave but the sound wasn't or a hodge podge of gear with bumps here and dips there but in the end sound in the listening window was like the test signal. What would you choose? This isn't a matter of preference. Which one is high fidelity?

 

[NorthStar]

What is the most transparent piece of electronica equipment that contributes the most (the best) in the overall 'audio invisibility'?

The loudspeakers? ...They introduce too much distortion, no?

The amplification? ...Transformer's vibration, sine waves (oscillation), ...

The preamplification? Volume pot control introducing artifacts? Circuit paths less than poerfect and picking up undesirable noise?

Our sources? Mechanical noisy transports? Unstability? Spinning, whirling, etc. Even PC based sources with fans?

Our type of connections? HDMI, Analog Balanced, Unbalanced, Digital Coaxial/Toslink, USB,
AES-EBU, ...

Our wires? Interconnects, Speaker wires, AC power cords, Power purifiers, Surge protectors, ...

The acoustics of our own rooms? ? ? ...

...Or the less?

 

[RogerD]

Tranparency is the absence of distortion and electrical interference in a audio system.

 

[NorthStar]

Exactly Roger. :b