Since I sell this stuff for a living, 
, I use a lot of subjective terms/descriptions of what I hear. One of those is "transparency" and I wonder if this is in fact a low noise floor?
, I use a lot of subjective terms/descriptions of what I hear. One of those is "transparency" and I wonder if this is in fact a low noise floor?
This stuff gets a bit murky... but... FWIW...
Low noise floor to me (separate from other things) is generally no hiss / hum / ear right to the speaker dead quiet ... and ... then we add the fun terms ... the instruments/voices emerging from an inky black background.
Transparency to me (separate from other things) is low distortion or anything associated with adding its own 'flavor' to the recording. Some excellent amplifiers / pre-amplifiers have a harmonic profile that people find pleasing; but to me, they would not be considered "transparent".
Low noise floor to me (separate from other things) is generally no hiss / hum / ear right to the speaker dead quiet ... and ... then we add the fun terms ... the instruments/voices emerging from an inky black background.
Transparency to me (separate from other things) is low distortion or anything associated with adding its own 'flavor' to the recording. Some excellent amplifiers / pre-amplifiers have a harmonic profile that people find pleasing; but to me, they would not be considered "transparent".
Depending on what HIFI religion and the doctrine you subscribe. Like a real religious institutions vary. I have seen church followers use the term “transparent” for speakers, less so for amps.
Personally transparent doesn’t really bother me. The one that really bothers me, being the most vague term used is “true to source”. True to what source? How true are we talking?
Original mixing console from the year the source was created…. HIFI system from that same year?
The term is so arbitrary and says nothing of value.
If you say this amplifier has incredible low distortion that it adds no coloration to the source material. That is a perfectly fine statement. It’s still really not “true to source”.
I know it sounds pedantic, and in fact, its my own personal opinion and not fact.
I welcome the chance for anyone to change my mind.
Best,
Jose
Personally transparent doesn’t really bother me. The one that really bothers me, being the most vague term used is “true to source”. True to what source? How true are we talking?
Original mixing console from the year the source was created…. HIFI system from that same year?
The term is so arbitrary and says nothing of value.
If you say this amplifier has incredible low distortion that it adds no coloration to the source material. That is a perfectly fine statement. It’s still really not “true to source”.
I know it sounds pedantic, and in fact, its my own personal opinion and not fact.
I welcome the chance for anyone to change my mind.
Best,
Jose
Terms like transparency were largely defined in the early days of the industry by Harry Pearson, The Absolute Sound. Back then they didn't take advertising as Harry knew that meant you were beholding to vendors. Usually the description for a term like transparency could be quite lengthy, but I like to use this analogy. It's like looking through a window at a field of wild flowers, cleaning 1 side, then the other, and finally just opening the window.
I am of the experienced but uneducated listener, and suspect that the noise floor extends well beyond no hiss, hum etc. From my listening as well as installing hundreds of systems as well as so many of my own, I have many examples of "tweaks" that I thought were hype only to find in some cases not really. Here we get into potentially muddy water as some will say confirmation bias. To them I wish that I could hear their system or have them hear mine so that we have more common ground, but when I hear something that makes me take notice I demo it for others, usually with total success. One such is using Nordost Kones under a CD player, with a demonstrable improvement in things like seperation, decay, etc.
IIMNM didn't Pa discover that a little 2nd order is often desirable? Sometimes the subjective leads to the objective.
I am of the experienced but uneducated listener, and suspect that the noise floor extends well beyond no hiss, hum etc. From my listening as well as installing hundreds of systems as well as so many of my own, I have many examples of "tweaks" that I thought were hype only to find in some cases not really. Here we get into potentially muddy water as some will say confirmation bias. To them I wish that I could hear their system or have them hear mine so that we have more common ground, but when I hear something that makes me take notice I demo it for others, usually with total success. One such is using Nordost Kones under a CD player, with a demonstrable improvement in things like seperation, decay, etc.
IIMNM didn't Pa discover that a little 2nd order is often desirable? Sometimes the subjective leads to the objective.
After all is said, this is about a subjective experience. I'm just really happy that the folks designing our beloved Pass DIY have great ears to go with excellent design chops!
^ we do have a wonderful congregation of talented folks. All praise to our audio patron and saint, Nelson pass. 
The church sign that you can read from the street says: it’s entertainment and not dialysis.
The church sign that you can read from the street says: it’s entertainment and not dialysis.
Words sometimes mean different things to different people. Transparency, image depth, musicality, presence, smoothness.
Very true, which is why The Absolute Sound spent paragraphs defining terms that we now use. My analogy is the easiest way to summarize a much longer description.
But what if you don’t subscribe to what Absolute Sound‘s definitions are? Besides all these subjective terms are on a sliding scale, there is no absolute transparency, musicality, rhythm, tonality. In other words, there is no absolute sound. See the irony? Definitions from 40 years ago? No thanks.
Last I checked, this is America and you are entitled to use what ever terminology you like, but without a common language.....
Irony? Perhaps you're being a bit literal?
Irony? Perhaps you're being a bit literal?
It’s because I don’t think there is an absolute sound, in my world the sky’s the limit. As my old boss at NASA told me, never get behind anyone 100%.
Here we are in agreement! Out of curiosity, are you familiar with "The Absolute Sound" from the seventies?
Perhaps I could have been clearer with the original post? I had a subjective experience, which I called "Transparency", and gave a quick analogy. I don't have the technical chops to determine if there is a correlation between this and objective measurements?
Perhaps I could have been clearer with the original post? I had a subjective experience, which I called "Transparency", and gave a quick analogy. I don't have the technical chops to determine if there is a correlation between this and objective measurements?
I’m familiar with The Absolute Sound magazine, the one that’s still around. I think there are many audiophile terms that can’t be measured.
The current Absolute Sound is nothing like the early days when they did not take advertising. I suspect there are many who would put Harry Pearson's contributions to the industry up there with some of the top designers.