What is Transparency?

[Phelonious Ponk]

@Tim

What I'm driving at is simple Tim. Assembling a bunch of top notch, and by that I don't mean exotic or expensive equipment, is no guarantee of accurate performance or pleasing performance for that matter. All it might do is give you a better starting point. You'd end up working the speakers into the room anyway and it doesn't matter if it's on a desktop or a dedicated, professionally acoustically engineered room to conform with your prioritized requirements as dictated by purpose and <<<<GASP>>>> the preferences that follow that. I know this, I know you know this.

I just want to know whether the end result is more important to you than the specs and measurements provided that you and I, in truth, have to take on blind faith as we have neither the skill, time or the resources to verify them. Faith based on nothing more than a company's reputation or that of the independent facility that did the measurements. That my friend is not so far removed from taking on faith the subjective quality based on brand. I don't think it's removed at all! What we do have tools for and for not much time and money is a slew of available test recordings, in-room measurement software and tools that no longer cost an arm and a leg. It is just disturbing when you and others keep drumming up this notion of accuracy and for goodness sake use the word "truth" when no one on this planet has seen or heard a signal in it's actual form to definitively say what came in is what came out. We're left with measurements and what we hear, which includes knolledge removed, both HIGHLY subject to interpretation.

So I ask again more pointedly this time. Even if the components are not "accurate" by themselves but the final output where it counts, the listening window, is a reasonably close to the test tone does this mean that just because the components of the system have deviations the sum of it's parts are not accurate? Will you disqualify a system as having a high level of fidelity just because there are parts, not the whole, that deviate?

Is that what you were driving at? Of course the end result is what's Important. I think the odds of what you're describing are pretty slim, but I suppose the colorations of one component could compensate for the equal but opposite colorations of another, resulting in a result equal to or better than choosing more neutral components in the first place. Synergy? More like the blind leading the wishful thinking in attempting to re-engineer what simply should have been engineered properly in the first place, but it could happen.

It's just that I think it is much wiser, and more successful, "in room" if you stay as close to neutral as you can up to the speakers. And regarding faith, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think perusing companies that embrace science and peruse neutrality, then verifying their results through good, independent measurements (when you can find them), is in any way comparable to seeking out companies that believe in building "musical" components, then verifying through the reviews of journalists who do not believe in measurement, but do believe in magic. The final verification for all of us, of course, is listening. Though I shouldn't even have to say so.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Of course the end result is what's Important.

That's all I wanted to know Tim. Acknowledgement that it "could" happen is enough for me.

Blind leading the wishful thinking? Seriously? There is no perfect passive part much less whole component Tim. When you say "engineered properly" those people worked hard to get the results from all these imperfect parts. That is synergy right there. That you elected to delegate this work to your designer by going active doesn't mean others can't achieve good results themselves. Besides, accuracy is in itself a preference one that can be approached just as any coloration.

As far as agreeing to disagree. I did not imply the act of seeking out companies that value science was even the slightest bit wrong. What I said was an act of faith was accepting the measurements as gospel truth based on nothing more than their reputations.

 

[amirm]

Tim, can you summarize where you think is the thread is at? Sum total of your argument and the opposite?

 

[RogerD]

Tim, can you summarize where you think is the thread is at? Sum total of your argument and the opposite?

Nothing definitive. I couldn't resist:b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, can you summarize where you think is the thread is at? Sum total of your argument and the opposite?

Which thread? Oh, yeah, transparency. I think Roger's got it: Nothing definitive. And I really didn't expect more. I expected that people would have different definitions, some would say there's no way to even know if a component is transparent, some would believe transparency is the result of the synergy of less than transparent parts, etc. And none of that is wrong; it's just fodder for discussion. Personally, I still think the best path (it's certainly the most efficient) is to use all the tools available to you, including any measurements you can get, start with the closest thing to neutral electronics you can afford, listen, of course, and then sort out your preferences at the end of the chain where neutral is damned near impossible anyway (and not particularly desireable -- another thread). But YMMV. I also believe in digital eq. Even have a pre-set labeled "euphonic." I wouldn't think of listening to some records without it.

Tim