CN211276 Posted July 16, 2023 Posted July 16, 2023 For me it is transparency. Put simply a system that does not add anything which gets in the way of the music. 1
Keith_W Posted July 17, 2023 Author Posted July 17, 2023 5 hours ago, CN211276 said: For me it is transparency. Put simply a system that does not add anything which gets in the way of the music. I agree! To me, transparency is the most important of all audio virtues. 1
MattyW Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I agree! To me, transparency is the most important of all audio virtues. Of course, as music is inherently, ah, musical I find all the tonality and texture to the sound I could ever ask for is in the recording and even poor recordings are far better than most would ever expect, yet great recordings are spectacular! Music is after all produced to sound good so it's rare for anything to be unlistenable unless I simply don't like the musical content. Edited July 17, 2023 by MattyW 1
andyr Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 5 hours ago, CN211276 said: For me it is transparency. Put simply a system that does not add anything which gets in the way of the music. 12 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I agree! To me, transparency is the most important of all audio virtues. Whilst I also like transparency, Keith ... I would suggest that if you replaced your Cary amps with some Class D amps ... they would deliver an output which is closer to their input (than your Cary amps) - which could be defined as being "more transparent" - but you wouldn't like listening as much! 2
MattyW Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, andyr said: Whilst I also like transparency, Keith ... I would suggest that if you replaced your Cary amps with some Class D amps ... they would deliver an output which is closer to their input (than your Cary amps) - which could be defined as being "more transparent" - but you wouldn't like listening as much! Mmmmm, I'd argue it's perceived as more transparent however enough musical content is left out that it would be simply less enjoyable. That said, many will not necessarily agree with my view on this. I've not yet hear a class D amp I've enjoyed though I've not yet heard a Purifi based power amp so I guess I'm lacking there. Not a fan of Hypex or other units out there though. They seem great at macro detail, but the fine detail which brings everything to life is simply absent. So the perception of great transparency may not actually be that transparent and may not reproduce everything required for the music to be enjoyed. Edited July 17, 2023 by MattyW
andyr Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 9 minutes ago, MattyW said: Mmmmm, I'd argue it's perceived as more transparent however enough musical content is left out that it would be simply less enjoyable. If the Class D overall THD figures are lower ... it surely must by definition be "more transparent" - given that HD is something that is 'added' by the amp? 9 minutes ago, MattyW said: That said, many will not necessarily agree with my view on this. I've not yet heard a class D amp I've enjoyed though I've not yet heard a Purifi based power amp so I guess I'm lacking there. I'm sure many will certainly not agree with you Matt - people's opinions are their own prerogative! But I have heard a pair of Purifi monoblocs and - like their owner - prefer the sound of his AR tube monoblocs. 1
andyr Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 1 minute ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? According to some, Mark - when there is 0.0001% THD present!
MattyW Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? I suspect views will diverge in this area also..... As I don't believe it's necessarily the best measuring system will yield the greatest transparency, though rather one that will simply allow you to hear further into the mix, revealing everything in all its glory. This however will be at odds to the mainstream view I suspect. I don't believe low THD is necessarily beneficial in this aspect. Edited July 17, 2023 by MattyW
Assisi Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? Good Question. I wondered the same thing? Is it different things to different people and their different systems? If so maybe there is no definitive answer. John Edited July 17, 2023 by Assisi Missing word 1 1
BLAH BLAH Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 41 minutes ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? 6 1
Keith_W Posted July 17, 2023 Author Posted July 17, 2023 1 hour ago, andyr said: Whilst I also like transparency, Keith ... I would suggest that if you replaced your Cary amps with some Class D amps ... they would deliver an output which is closer to their input (than your Cary amps) - which could be defined as being "more transparent" - but you wouldn't like listening as much! I don't think that would much, if anything Andy. The Cary's have 110W, and they are directly connected to a 98dB/W/m horn, so most of the time they are outputting less than 1W. At this level, distortion would be negligible. I could even replace my 110W Cary's with something with much less power and there would be no benefit (apart from power bills). The reason I haven't done that is because I have already paid for the Cary's and I like looking at them. If I was starting out from scratch I certainly wouldn't make the same choice. 2
davewantsmoore Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 32 minutes ago, andyr said: According to some, Mark - when there is 0.0001% THD present! Doesn't everyone know that even 1% THD is likely inaudible?.... depending on what is causing it. 36 minutes ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? Quantify the amount of distortion .... and then reason about the nature (and audibility) of the distortion .... this gives you an idea of "what to expect". Play known stimuli through the system.... ones that have known audibility, and are easy to measure / quantify. I don't mean music.... music doesn't have known audibility, and is almost impossible to quantify. I mean "test tones", as much as that gets people all riled up the wrong way. This way we can play a click, or a pop, or a ding, or a constant tone, or some signal modulated with another, etc. etc. (there are endless) .... and then we can start to say not only even "can we measure the effect of X". (eg. can we see any/lots of distortion in a speaker driver) ... but can he hear the difference between A and B? Can we reliably tell if X is A or is it B. It becomes much more difficult/time consuming to do these sorts of tests with directivity and source positioning in a room.... although from a "practical DIYer what can you do" when you have 2 identical speakers, remember many/most of these tests are valid in mono, so you could setup two speakers close to each other and A/B test things like distance to boundaries, "toe in", or even difference drivers/directivity, etc. etc. 47 minutes ago, andyr said: If the Class D overall THD figures are lower ... it surely must by definition be "more transparent" - given that HD is something that is 'added' by the amp? No... it depends on the cause. If the amp is "operating normally" ... then any sane value of THD is likely inaudible .... if the amp is clipping or misbehaving, then it will sound bad even if its HD is lower than some other. Aside from being able to say "everything is working normally within its comfort zone" ... then non-linear distortion is a pretty useless measure of audible things. It can be very useful for speakers in working out what that comfort zone IS, but. 1 hour ago, MattyW said: They seem great at macro detail, but the fine detail which brings everything to life is simply absent. It's very very very important to ensure that when things are being compared that we have the same frequency response. "fine detail" quite likely to be a frequency response thing (certain regions peaked / dipped / not) .... and if the same frequency responses are "restored" (though EQ, or whatever else) between the two, then the detail assessment will also equalise. Andy gave the perfect example of someone who compared an AR amp with a Purify amp .... these two amps will give a different FR due to their different output loading (both in amount, and that the AR amp output loading changes with frequency). 1
davewantsmoore Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 12 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I don't think that would much, if anything Andy. The Cary's have 110W, and they are directly connected to a 98dB/W/m horn I don't know these amps specifically.... but there is a general idea out there that a "100 watt amp" cannot be the right choice for a 1 watt speaker .... and I must admit I was partial to this thinking for quite a long time. .... but if we have a 1 watt speaker we just have to look at the 1 watt performance of (all the) amplifiers. There are quite a lot of high power amplifiers that don't perform so well at low power levels.... but there are many which perform very very well..... and this goes as much for 200w SS amp, with its <1w performance .... but also often as much for an 8w SET, and its <1w performance.
rantan Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 1 hour ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? When you want to stop listening after 10 minutes, or listen and then start thinking that the room needs painting. 1 3
frednork Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said: Quantify the amount of distortion .... and then reason about the nature (and audibility) of the distortion .... this gives you an idea of "what to expect". Play known stimuli through the system.... ones that have known audibility, and are easy to measure / quantify. I don't mean music.... music doesn't have known audibility, and is almost impossible to quantify. I mean "test tones", as much as that gets people all riled up the wrong way. This way we can play a click, or a pop, or a ding, or a constant tone, or some signal modulated with another, etc. etc. (there are endless) .... and then we can start to say not only even "can we measure the effect of X". (eg. can we see any/lots of distortion in a speaker driver) ... but can he hear the difference between A and B? Can we reliably tell if X is A or is it B. It becomes much more difficult/time consuming to do these sorts of tests with directivity and source positioning in a room.... although from a "practical DIYer what can you do" when you have 2 identical speakers, remember many/most of these tests are valid in mono, so you could setup two speakers close to each other and A/B test things like distance to boundaries, "toe in", or even difference drivers/directivity, etc. etc. I can see where you are coming from and from a speaker designer perspective it makes sense. I am just not sure if your definition and @Keith_W's definition and @MattyW's definition are the same or even related to each other. Is it just another way of saying it sounds "realer" to me ? (depending on what parameters I find important) 1 minute ago, rantan said: When you want to stop listening after 10 minutes, or listen and then start thinking that the room needs painting. Ok, so are you saying that for you transparent means uninvolving? if so thats really interesting. 2
rantan Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 1 minute ago, frednork said: Ok, so are you saying that for you transparent means uninvolving? if so thats really interesting. Yes indeed, albeit that this is not true in every situation, but it can be a euphemism for systems so clinically clean that they utterly fail to incite any emotion at all in the listener. 4 1
BLAH BLAH Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, rantan said: Yes indeed, albeit that this is not true in every situation, but it can be a euphemism for systems so clinically clean that they utterly fail to incite any emotion at all in the listener. 1
rantan Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, andyr said: Whilst I also like transparency, Keith ... I would suggest that if you replaced your Cary amps with some Class D amps ... they would deliver an output which is closer to their input (than your Cary amps) - which could be defined as being "more transparent" - but you wouldn't like listening as much! Damn straight. I do not want or intend to incite a war here but this is precisely why I do not like Class D amplifiers. They are designed to be as clean and distortion free to the point of completely erasing the emotion of the music. What I want in a system is where it makes me do things like shout, cry, laugh, smile, pump my fist, play the "air guitar" and forget the cup of tea that is on the side table which was hot when I made it an hour ago. I don't mind if many people disagree, but that is my system desire benchmark. Edited July 17, 2023 by rantan typo 2 2 1
davewantsmoore Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, frednork said: I can see where you are coming from and from a speaker designer perspective it makes sense. I am just not sure if your definition and @Keith_W's definition and @MattyW's definition are the same or even related to each other. <shrug> sure, it's not easy, right. You just have to make sure that your system isn't "getting in the way" of whatever is recorded.... it's a deep topic, but a lot of nonsense gets substituted in its place. 4 hours ago, frednork said: Is it just another way of saying it sounds "realer" to me ? (depending on what parameters I find important) No. I think you could understand this, having made many recordings. You can record things which don't "sound good" (or "real", or whatever) ... how do we know what it's supposed to sound like? (We want to hear what is actually on the recording... not what we think it should sound like, right?!?!). Conversely, there are many things being discussed that (directivity, lack of acoustic cancellations, etc. etc.) , if we improve them... then the playback does sound more "clear" and "natural" (or whatever, less like "a speaker") .... but our own interpretation or idea of what that should be, is a fairly thorny thing. 3 hours ago, rantan said: They are designed to be as clean and distortion free to the point of completely erasing the emotion of the music. Amplifier distortion isn't where the "emotion" of music comes from.... I think most people would need to recalibrate their speaker, if they switched from different amplifier types though (otherwise you would get a different sound) ... but it's just a calibration issue, not a "one better than the other" issue.... or a "clear and distortion free" thing. 3 hours ago, rantan said: I don't mind if many people disagree, but that is my system desire benchmark. I think most people would identify with that, on some level. Edited July 17, 2023 by davewantsmoore 2
stereo coffee Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 8 hours ago, CN211276 said: For me it is transparency. Put simply a system that does not add anything which gets in the way of the music. To get this, its simple, don't add anything which gets in the way of the music. Less is more.
frednork Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 And just to add another bit of confusion to this, Not that i really want to talk about class D vs whatever but I recently sold a couple of class D's in favour of some vintage 80's mosfet class A/B. The reason is that I was not 100% happy with the higher frequencies in my setup compared with listening to other setups and was wondering if amplification might change that. It was like there was some very small but audible distortion at certain frequencies. As I need 8 channels of amplification I cant afford 8 channels of (creamy smooth ) Vitus or similar as I had when running 2 channel so opted for some vintage well made amps as an experiment. I also dsp full range so it could be argued that most differences in response between the d's and A/B's has been accounted for. I was a bit surprised at how much I preferred the A/B's on upper mid and tweeter. I still use the D's on the bass and lower mid sections but may try A/B's on those also to continue the experiment. I am definitely not a D hater and I still think if you need a lot of power/small form factor/low energy use and dont have big money they are amazing value for money and do a lot very well. The other thing to keep in mind is that I am only using these A/B amps for frequencies above 800Hz or so and may not be as happy with them if they were running full range. But the D's I compared with were also only doing above 800Hz. a) I doubt the A/B's would measure as having less distortion than the D's so is there a distortion occurring that sounds better to me which I prefer over the more technically transparent amp. b)Or are the A/B's more transparent as I can hear more detail and things sound closer to the real thing? Also should add that I preferred Keiths setup with his distortion plugin engaged, not by a huge amount but still preferred. I think @davewantsmooremight say a) but others may say b)? 2 1
tripitaka Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 On 29/06/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bass13 said: I would love the get absolutely everything out of what sources/equipment I already have. My TT is done, I'm extremely happy how she sings, and will not be touching it until I need a new cart. As for digital (Streamer), I'm still in the process of refining what I have, within a cost effective way to improve, and squeeze every last bit of juice out of her, through software & any other cost affective way (switch, LPS power supplies, cables, Roon cores, etc), and I would do this regardless of what brand/type of streamer source I have. I'm nearly there.... As for the Room, no treatments are currently in, I've had my room measured/tested , it seems that my room even with no treatment is pretty good as is, but as they say.....apparently the room will be better with treatments. I will be testing a different position for my speakers, my room has two openings, I'm currently in a near field listening position, will be moving just my Amp and two speakers to the long end of the room, and testing that. If I like the imaging depth, sound, etc better it will stay there. Which leads me to the final position of my system, then I will get my electrician to install a few 20Amp GPO's & a few direct lines. Now that it all should be sweet, back to getting in Christian Corsini to do the room sweeps, etc... What worries me, is he will tell me the system will sound even better with Sub/Subs (which he already has), and you know what most Hifi lovers do when they know it can sound better, we generally do it, when we can afford it or when the Mrs is not looking. Amazing! Put me on the waiting list for a listen Reckon you've been talking with Mr @El Tel? 1
Keith_W Posted July 17, 2023 Author Posted July 17, 2023 4 hours ago, frednork said: So how do we know when a system is transparent? Great question. When I say "transparent", I mean "subjectively transparent". But I could try to give definitions both objectively and subjectively. Objective transparency: good step response, not too wet and not too dry (i.e. RT30/RT60 within 300-500ms*, and more importantly, that it is consistent throughout the frequency range!), even frequency response. (* to be clear, I know that RT30/60 needs a diffuse field to be meaningful, so I am only talking about frequencies above the transition frequency which is by definition a diffuse field). I do NOT include distortion figures in here because some types of distortion are very difficult to hear, and even if they are present I have found that they do not negatively affect transparency. If anything, distortion can add richness to the sound. As you know, in my system I am able to dial in as much distortion as I like. I may have even demonstrated it to you. Everybody who has heard it seems to prefer some distortion dialled in. I do however have a preference for how distortion is added to the system. I would prefer that my electronics and speakers don't add it. I prefer to add it in myself via a VST. Subjective transparency: something my old audio guru (Clifford de Souza) used to call "clarity". In a complex orchestral piece, I listen for each instrument or group of instruments to have its own tone and texture and for it to be separated in space from other instruments and with every note clearly discernible. I think that nearly all clarity is due to factors outside our control - conductor/musician, concert hall, and recording engineer. If you have listened to as many bad classical recordings as I have (i.e. nearly all Deutsche Grammofon in the 80's and 90's) you will understand why I think this way. But if you listen to a system with poor transparency and compare it to another system it is quite obvious. BTW, at the risk of launching another debate ... I think that most room treatment reduces transparency. The problem is that most people implement room treatment without consideration of frequencies they are trying to treat. Also, ordinary room furnishing (sofas, curtains, carpets) in most rooms are enough to get reverb down to target. Nearly all room treatment is too thin to meaningfully absorb low frequencies, so when it is applied in a haphazard manner it tilts the spectral balance away from the top end and you end up with boomy low frequencies with a dead top end. Furthermore, reducing HF reflections by this much robs music of life and has the effect of narrowing the soundstage, particularly if the first reflection point is heavily attenuated. 1
davewantsmoore Posted July 17, 2023 Posted July 17, 2023 2 hours ago, frednork said: I also dsp full range so it could be argued that most differences in response between the d's and A/B's has been accounted for. Sure, if you recalculated all your filters ... and then confirmed that the output of both was identical (ie. no mistakes were made, etc.).... then you know that all the differences in the response are accounted for. 2 hours ago, frednork said: I think @davewantsmooremight say a) If you mean distortion of the non-linear distortion type, then no. It is almost always inaudible, and sounds bad when it isn't. If you mean distortion of the frequency response, then that basically the only remaining explanation.... but you implied the this was matched (how careful were you really?.... did you actually compare SPL overlaid?) 20 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I mean "subjectively transparent". Objective transparency: good step response, not too wet and not too dry (i.e. RT30/RT60 within 300-500ms*, and more importantly, that it is consistent throughout the frequency range!), even frequency response. I think these end up being one and the same thing. 20 minutes ago, Keith_W said: (* to be clear, I know that RT30/60 needs a diffuse field to be meaningful, so I am only talking about frequencies above the transition frequency which is by definition a diffuse field). Yep... even those it's a poor measurement.... I reckon people get what you mean (not too dry, not too reverberant). 20 minutes ago, Keith_W said: As you know, in my system I am able to dial in as much distortion as I like. Yes, I should caveat the above by saying the "types of distortion you get from electronics and speakers" (sound bad when they're audible). One of the big reasons for that is that the thing which causes them is always modulated by the signal / drive level..... as opposed to some sort of "more constant" effect, that you could apply with DSP or special circuit. 20 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I think that most room treatment reduces transparency. "Transparency" is likely a loaded word here.... but I agree about room treatment in general, in the way it is deployed in typical audiophiles listening rooms. Bad idea (in general)... could be in some situations "better than the problem it fixes", but I would go back to the drawing board. The main issue is it creates different reflections around the room, some "treated" (attenuated, delayed, frequency response distorted) .... some not. It would be ok if the "treatment" were consistent, but with absorption that is too much .... and doing it with diffusion is problematic. They need to be too far away ( you can't sit close to a diffusor) and they need to be too big to reach << 1khz...... and as you say, most decently comfortable rooms are fine to begin with anyways.
Recommended Posts