Announcement

**Johnny Vinyl** · 06-11-2016, 08:39 AM

Playback is media dependent, so could it not be both?

**Alrainbow** · 06-11-2016, 08:43 AM

I do not know , there is only two things I know in audio .first is I know what I like in sound and I am always open to hearing better. the second is I know little of why cause every time I think I know someone points out a fact of how I am wrong lol. did you play the water marked and not water marked ?. its amazing once you tune into it .

**Johnny Vinyl** · 06-11-2016, 08:50 AM

Transparency is one of those things I have a difficult time in understanding. I mean, I only have my own system and when it sings I'm in heaven. Whether or not it's transparent I do not know. How does one gauge this?

**Alrainbow** · 06-11-2016, 09:00 AM

my first thought is you can hear songs quality from track to track .
if you own Elton jonh tumbleweed connection this is a great example .
the standout tracks are love song , come down in time and talking old soldgers just pick any other tracks and go back to any of these . the above tracks to me are far better , more dynamic , cleaner with much more presense . the others are a bit vailed . a piano track is always a great example as well . in analog form piano plays well mostly . in a digital system well its the hallmark of great dacs. while all play it, most play it poorly . transparency is in all of systems its more about having more or less of it I feel. like my truck can only get me so far and then it does not matter how bttere the source is . this was learned to me by using ciems and daps on trains in nyc . now my point is am I right in assuming that's what it is .

**JackD201** · 06-11-2016, 09:30 AM

I relate a system being able to allow you to easily discern between recordings and formats with resolution and neutrality. I could be totally at odds with the general usage so this is just my take folks.

I take transparency in sound as a direct analogy to transparency with light. In other words, how much visibility I get between objects comparing say a foggy day to a cold, clear winter day. So I guess it is a lack of haze or blurring. How distinct is the reverb, particularly the short reflections in the recording. How intelligible are the back up singers? That kind of thing. To me it's about clarity but still within the bounds of sounding natural and not just overtly stripped. I guess my audio brain works more on the acoustic rather than the electrical plane. I was never much for using "transparency" with regards to the upstream sources.

Again, just my take.

**Alrainbow** · 06-11-2016, 10:14 AM

I follow your thoughts and agree. Now here is where compromise comes into play.
Mom my lampi dac I have a feature in dsd called no caps
and with caps. It Bypasses a cap stage and making it more direct in the chain. With the cap on at a certain level of transparency without it it's more of what it really is.
There are times to close is not good. Bad recordings are a good example of wanting less of it.
As for resolutions in recordings yes I can easily tell most from one and another but keep in mind there is some really good reebok out there so hi Rez is not always what it says.
Now when you say natruel I think you mean layered not one demention. This is true but being closer to the source brings this away from Natral in nature in that we can hear the mixin as it happens. Perhaps that's too close or a price to pay for transparency

**MylesBAstor** · 06-30-2016, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Alrainbow

In playing with my setup , very time consuming ..... I have come to a conclusion that I think my system is pretty transparent .
So my first question is , is this a good thing. ??
Second question what makes it so ?
While playing various quality of manic sources in my truck I can detect many variations but there is a point where it does matter. I am guessing this is the point where my system is not transparent enough to make it sound better .
When I got home today I warmed my system up,for an hour and just played music period no real listening . After dinner I tried something . I played tidal m a hirez PCM download from hdtracks and finally a SACD rip of a set I own of Nora jones . While HD tracks was ok it had that dull PCM sound witha touch of glare . The tidal did sound better than 24/96 download by a margin . My last was my SACD rip now that was music good sounding music.
So my last question is my system transparent or just plays some tracks better at certain resolutions ?

What's funny is that Jeff Joseph made some 5 hours of 24/192 digital copies of my tapes and they were as, if not more, transparent than the best digital I've heard. So the question is what is going on with the normal commercial releases? Or as I've said before, there's now more recording to recording variation in digital because of the care (or not care) in transfer.

**Alrainbow** · 06-30-2016, 08:25 AM

Bingo remember insaid I like digital from tape not pure digital
while I am not an analog guy Persay
its how I like my music. So yes what the hell are they doing to our music
also how much or st all would it be if done in dsd 128 ?
Here is what is funny your an analog guy as such I would tend to think you would like dsd more ? I have a friend who has a bucks up system I buy vinyl
he rips. It's my way of getting what you vinyl guys have . Now while it's clean and nice it's only as the vinyl is meaning no better. Tape is better or closer to master right.
Mao it's why I said what about laquers. They blow away vinyl. Is it better or just that I like the EQ they use to fix the process .

**Alrainbow** · 06-30-2016, 09:06 AM

Funny. I have heard that since I was amid and I am 59 now while it may be true there is nothing we can do
. I have seen pictures of small speakers and also headphones. While I am a headphone guy as well. I feel they are not good for mixing where they do not throw real imaging nor the correct ambience. So why don't we ask the pros who make our stuff why as well. Does anyone have a link to an album of great quality done on tape but new not from the golden error I'll buy it to prove the point

**MylesBAstor** · 06-30-2016, 08:00 PM

Let's go back to the original question. Transparency begins at the source and you aren't going to get the ultimate in transparency with multi-tracked recordings. Just ain't happening. Always going to be compromised in one way, shape or form. That's what's makes those earlier 2-track recordings with minimal slicing ever so more amazing. Don't forget that each tape generation away from the master tape subtracts some transparency too. So take those 24, 32 or 48 track recordings. How many generations do you think the final tape sent for making the LP or CD are away from the master.

Now of course, there's digital. While I'm not an expert in it, I've had conversations with those who probably more about say ProTools than probably ProTools knows themselves. Take someone like Allen Sides. He will tell you that ProTools just is awful with multi-tracked recordings.

Then again, much of what affects our systems also holds true to the original recording. Equipment. Cables. Electricity. Room. What is the monitoring system. What time of the day the recording was done (that's an interesting story will share one day!). Etc. Etc.

Then there's the playback end and everything affects transparency. That's we spend hours, days, weeks, months, years to fine tune the system to get that point. That ever so elusive "aha" moment. That moment that takes ages and so much effort and attention to detail to achieve and that can be lost in the blink of an eye. What has the biggest impact when it comes to the home playback system? I would say having the right equipment. But for me, the things that make or break a system or make the most difference at that point are cables and power cords, vibration isolation, electricity and the room. Even a modicum of room treatment can quiet down a room and make it more transparent (perhaps it's also easier to get transparency in a near field rather than distant listening position?)

**Steve Lefkowicz** · 06-30-2016, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Alrainbow

Funny. I have heard that since I was amid and I am 59 now while it may be true there is nothing we can do
. I have seen pictures of small speakers and also headphones. While I am a headphone guy as well. I feel they are not good for mixing where they do not throw real imaging nor the correct ambience. So why don't we ask the pros who make our stuff why as well. Does anyone have a link to an album of great quality done on tape but new not from the golden error I'll buy it to prove the point

Not sure if it will be your style, but Samantha Crain's "Under Branch & Thorn & Tree" is a recent (2015) all analog release. Sounds wonderful and everyone I played it for at THE Newport Show loved it. http://samanthacrain.com/music

**Guest** · 06-30-2016, 11:00 PM

Transparency begins at the source and you aren't going to get the ultimate in transparency with multi-tracked recordings.

Corollary 1: Transparency begins at the source but you aren't going to get the ultimate in transparency with output transformers in the system. ;->

**Alrainbow** · 06-30-2016, 11:08 PM

Well than what do amps do ?
Myles your answer is depressing lol.
I do understand your thoughts but I do own many multi tracks that I consider reference
i am not sure what makes a track great
the same album always has tracks that are better and worse

Announcement

System transparency

System transparency

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment