[marvda1]

what is the difference between the two? most people seem to think that a detailed amp with a detailed speaker will not work. what about a transparent amp with a transparent speaker?

[srclose]

Works great if you can find the controls.  

[_scotty_]

Transparency is what allows detail to be heard.   To use a visual analogy,
the cleaner the window the more you can see. It is possible to have a transparent system,{ie.,CD player, cabling,preamp,poweramp,and speakers},
my system would qualify as such. However great demands are placed on the source component and software, Garbage in equals garbage out,GIGO for short.  If your system has high transparency and detail it could also be described as reproducing the recording with a high degree of fidelity.
This means that you will frequently know more about the decisions made in the recording studio by the engineer or producer than you may want to.
This sort of resolution isn't everyones idea of sonic nirvana.  It will invariably
reveal shortcomings in the recording and the technology used at the time it was recorded. Warmth and harmonic completeness will only be heard if they were part of the original recording, a system like this won't add these qualities to all recordings.   Most people windup striking some sort compromise between hearing everything possible from the recording and hearing as much of the truth as they can stand.  Everyones tolerance for reality is different and so are their expectations from their stereo systems.
                    I hope this diatribe was helpful,Scotty

[timbley]

Maybe somebody can make a ruthelessness controller.  

So if a detailed speaker doesn't go with a detailed amp, I have to wonder if it's really because the resulting fidelity is too high, or if it's because both speaker and amp are doing something that's really not hi-fidelity and compounding the effect.
Using visual analogies, it's possible that detailed could mean something like oversaturated, over sharpened, or with too much contrast.

High fidelity is kind of hard to define and measure, as I've discovered playing with an EQ and calibration mic. If I EQ a pink noise signal coming off the speakers look very much like the line level signal coming in, which is perfectly flat across the audio band, it sounds distinctly too bright. So I roll off the treble and it starts to sound more natural and my ears start to accept a real sense of space and realistic imaging. Furthermore, if I do an RTA analasys on a recording, and set the RTA to average function, I can see that the albums I'm listening too already have a clearly defined treble roll off, so I have to compound that effect to make it sound real to my ears. I find that fascinating, and confusing. It seems to me if the speakers re-create the frequency response that's on the recording, it should sound the most realistic.

[John Ashman]

It's more like this -

"Detail" as it's currently used usually means "bright" and/or "harsh".  Most "detailed" speakers are anything *but* detailed and they are often laden with distortion.  Some very popular "high-end" salon brands come to mind.  If the first thing you notice about a speaker or amp is how "detailed" it is, it is almost certainly just brightness.  Real detail is the lack of distortion.   It is easier to fake detail

Transparency, on the other hand, is the real deal.  It is low distortion combined with accuracy.  It is refined, smooth, natural, realistic.  The detail is revealed as nuance, not as forwardness.  You don't hear the word transparent very often, especially with regards to speakers.  Speakers are generally miles from transparency, but there is hope in the form of digital speakers which have advantages in lowered distortion and increased accuracy.

[_scotty_]

John, I think we have to look beyond the powerful bandaid/speaker design aid that digital processing represents, to the fidelity to the original signal that the raw driver is capable of reproducing.  The mechanical means we use for creating an acoustic reproduction of the information contained in a recording
is far from perfect and still needs a lot work.  The way it stands right now no one is fooled into mistaking a reproduction of reality for the real event.  
Until someone sucessfully tackles the problem of transient dynamic nonlinearity in loudspeakers and the rest of the recording and reproduction chain, reality will remain an illusive goal for people wishing to recreate it.
I also think you should amend the statement

Speakers are generally miles from transparency

to read "many speakers are generally miles from transparency" there are a few that make a good attempt at being transparent.  The problem is of course that they are frequently executed for bearing the bearers of bad tidings.  The speaker is almost always blamed for a problem that exists upstream of it if it very transparent.  I myself am always on the lookout for a higher fidelity driver.
Scotty

[_scotty_]

timbley, The treble rolloff may be present but there is no way of knowing if it is intentional or is a consequence of the mikes used and the distance from
the instrument the mike was. The mike selection and its associated response
characteristics as well as the spectral content of the instrument being recorded needs to be considered as well.  If you EQ for flat response at the listening position it may very well sound un-natural depending on the spectral
content of the original recording.  The variables I mentioned earlier make it almost impossible to have the right EQ curve for the accurate reproduction
of every recording.  The response curve of most rooms we listen in have an attenuation characteristic in the high frequency region in addition to air absorption losses depending on the distance we are from the high frequency
driver in the system.  We could only wish that recording standards were applied to music the way they are to movie soundtracks.  Unfortunately many artists might view such a standard as restriction to realizing their artistic goals.
Scotty

[John Ashman]

John, I think we have to look beyond the powerful bandaid/speaker design aid that digital processing represents, to the fidelity to the original signal that the raw driver is capable of reproducing. The mechanical means we use for creating an acoustic reproduction of the information contained in a recording
is far from perfect and still needs a lot work. The way it stands right now no one is fooled into mistaking a reproduction of reality for the real event.

Sure, but DSP now can eliminate the huge limitations of passive crossovers *and* the additional driver limitations caused by having to with them.  Distortion levels are being more than cut in half by digital crossovers, dynamic range is improved, accuracy is obviously improved and that means drastic improvements in real detail and transparency.  And, yes, drivers need to improve *but* the next big limitation is dispensing with stereo and getting at least three channels up front because the best drivers with full DSP will never sound realistic because we don't hear a voice from two places in real life.  

Until someone sucessfully tackles the problem of transient dynamic nonlinearity in loudspeakers and the rest of the recording and reproduction chain, reality will remain an illusive goal for people wishing to recreate it.

There are serious engineers working specifically on this right now.  NHT has already indicated that it is just a matter of time before they add linearity correction to their digital speaker, as soon as it's deemed to be ready, but there are people hard at work on it and it is coming.  

I also think you should amend the statement
Quote:
Speakers are generally miles from transparency
to read "many speakers are generally miles from transparency" there are a few that make a good attempt at being transparent.

Perhaps  you should reread what I said.  "generally" = "many" = "less than all".  You're asking me to make a redundant statement.  Why would I do that when I said what you wanted me to say the first time?

 The problem is of course that they are frequently executed for bearing the bearers of bad tidings. The speaker is almost always blamed for a problem that exists upstream of it if it very transparent. I myself am always on the lookout for a higher fidelity driver.

What speakers would you call reasonably transparent?

[WEEZ]

Transparent: "Sonic description of a component or system that has very low levels of coloration. A soundstage in which the acoustic space sounds clear rather than veiled."

Detail: "Low-level components of the musical presentation, such as the fine inner structure of an instument's timbre".

(Source; The complete Guide to High-End Audio by Robert Harley)

Oh, and one more:

Resolution: "The quality of an audio component that reveals low-level musical information".

WEEZ

[_scotty_]

This discussion should not degenerate into a dissection of the relative shortcomings in transparency of individual loudspeakers.  Transient dynamic non-linearity in speakers needs to be addressed at the raw driver level first as well as in the complete system.    Hopefully with FEA,supercomputers, and a few geniuses at work on the problem somewhere, some progress will be made.
While I don't deny that DSP has moved us closer towards the goal of more realistic reproduction but I believe my contention that the driver itself is not good enough stands, and that so far the best combination drivers and DSP still fool no one
into mistaking their reproduction of the acoustic event for the real thing.
 I am afraid the "window to reality" will remain a bit grundgy for some time to come.
 Scotty
Here is a short list of a few speakers that are a step in the right direction and all can no doubt benefit from the magic wand of digital processing.My apologies to those I omitted. Soundlab A1,Quad 989, Epiphany20-21,Dali Megalines,Rockport Antares,Reimer TetonGS.

[_scotty_]

WEEZ,good post.  It helps to have a clear definition of the subject under discussion.  An examination of the some of the identifying characteristics of a Transparent loudspeaker with good Resolution and Detail would probably be in order.  I think transparent speakers should probably be un-impressive at first listening because of a lack of coloration,distortion and neutral character. They should also be chameleon-like,in that they take on the character of the equipement upstream of them including the cables.  They should clearly show any changes made in associated equipement or cables.
They should also preserve the dynamics present in the original recording and
sound alive with the first milliwatt of applied program signal and not require
a high playback SPL to sound lifelike.
My two-bits worth, Scotty

[WEEZ]

scotty,

Agreed.

To me, the more transparency the better. Same with resolution. The more the equipment 'colors' the sound; or masks the subtle micro-dynamics in the music- the harder the ears (and brain) have to work to 'fill-in' for the illusion of reality. The result is fatigue.

A highly resolved and transparent presentation will tend to sound more natural and real in the long run. That is, after all, what separates the truly high-end components from the all the rest.

I don't understand the notion that 'detailed' equals 'bright'. They are a long way from being the same thing. "Brightness'" is a coloration in the upper-midrange/lower treble that is the result of a lack of transparency- therfore brightness is a coloration that is undesireable in that it 'masks' detail and is unpleasant to listen to.

IMHO, transparency and resolution are desireable characteristics in all components.

WEEZ

[Steve]

Hi guys,

     Nice comments.
     But I am not so sure I am sold on equalizers from some of what I have read (can't remember the guy's name).

I think alot depends on the room's acoustics.

If the room has lots of resonances, than the equalizer also measures the reflections, and includes the primary signal from speaker. When "smoothed out", the primary signal from the speaker is also reduced. So our primary signal is not linear.

     I thank John for commenting on artificially introduced fake detail. I think I have heard this in components (esp amplifiers) as the music sounds rich, lots of harmonics, but the recording room reflections and other small details are missing.

 

[John Ashman]

WEEZ, let me clarify that *I* don't think that "bright" = "detail", but when people hear a bright speaker or one with a lot of upper midrange cone resonances, they think they are hearing details that they didn't hear on another speaker.  It's just that people don't properly educate their ears by listening without bias to a lot of different speakers and comparing that to *real* sound as a reference.  

I think high-end is going through an *awful* stage when brightness is revered as detail and each successive generation of speaker is brighter and/or harsher.  I see engineers making very poor design choices and can only think that this is being done because the marketing department is showing that people think "brightness" or "resonance" = "detail" and, if you choose a speaker based on first impressions, then "bright" = "$$$$" and that's what they do.  Raise the midrange crossover point or make it shallower or toss in metal drivers haphazardly and you can easily inject more cone resonances and *blammo* more people buying your "more detailed" speakers.    Or just tune the speaker to have a more tipped up response and proclaim upon unveiling that you have made the speaker more detailed and the press listens and nods in unison, and the folks jump on board.  

I have speakers that are definitely more detailed than most competitive speakers, but they don't *seem* detailed at first.  They're actually very smooth.  But put in a CD that has difficult to understand passages and the speaker that very "voice-forward" is unintelligible and the speaker we have which sounds very smooth, even dull by comparison, easily reveals the words to the song.  

I agree with Scotty's recommendations, at least the ones with which I'm somewhat familiar, especially as analog devices.  Digital, however, will substantially improve their capabilities.  I think DSP is really in its infancy as it will be able continually improve.  But for instance, with the NHT digital system, you can upgrade that software to do more linearity correction and other things.  Drivers are pretty primitive devices.  My ideal transducer would be an electromechanical sphere that expanded and contracted in all directions as current runs through it.  Until something like that happens, we're kinda stuck at the moment with the drivers that exist.  

BUT, 5.1+ discrete recording is WAY more accurate, WAY more natural and real than stereo which is utterly flawed from the beginning.  We just need to get some engineers that know how to mix for it.  When it's done properly, it's so much more real than stereo.  So, I think we should hope for that before we hope for better drivers, that former could be done right now.  Unfortunately, Meridian processors which have the wonderful Tri-field mode are still quite expensive unless they're used.

[WEEZ]

John,

I didn't mean to imply that bright = detail was 'your' belief. As you correctly point out, it is, however,  the belief of many. Maybe too many.

WEEZ

[orthobiz]

Bright and detailed. Haven't thought about this one for years: in 1972 I bought my first stereo from "Big Julie's" in Hempstead, NY on Hempstead Tpke. He made his own speakers, in either with Advent cabinets or Advent woofer, can't remember, but anyway they were three way home built speakers with a Marantz 2230 and a Dual 1215S with a Shure M55e(?).

I had a three minute demo: the Eagles' first album, the song "Earlybird." Basically consists of synthesized tweeting noises followed by the bass and banjo and evenetually all the boys. He would crank it loud, fill the room with chirpy noises and say, "now listen to those tweeters!"

But, it gets worse. What do I do (hey, I was only 17)? I play the same damn track for my friends and anyone else silly enough to listen.

Just listened again...brings back memories. For my next set of speakers I bought this tiny set of Heco's with beautiful cabinets, metal grille, and something like a 5" woofer...

biz

[avahifi]

I associate the term "detailed" with a kind of etched mid and high frequecy quality that got lots of Ooohs and Aaaahs with much really expensive solid state equipment of the early 1990s.  One can typically get the same result with an excessively capacitive interconnect cable or speaker wire. From an engineering viewpoint, I suspect it is caused mainly by transient overshoot and slightly underdamped resonances through out the upper audio spectrum.

"Detailed" does not wear well. Exciting short term, fatuguing long term.  Some equipment seems to be designed for "detail" on purpose.  I suspect it is simply a cover up for not achieving the natural transparency of a truely wide band non-resonant circuit, a rare animal still.

By the way I have heard gobs of "detail" from every switching amp I have evaluated so far.  Nasty.

Frank Van Alstine

[WerTicus]

i personally prefer to hear the music!

terms like these are irritating.

i started out thinking detailed  =  bright too, and not until i heard some real tweeters do i understand what true detail is (raven ribbons).  

Its probably the same thing as 'bass' when its bloated mid bass and not true bass impressing people on their bose speakers.  Its something your average 30 dollar boom box cant do!

loved the first post joke

[boead]

This means that you will frequently know more about the decisions made in the recording studio by the engineer or producer than you may want to.

I don’t know if that is so true. I worked with a gentleman who was a recording engineer for Columbia Records and other labels located in NY City during the late 60’s and 70’s. He worked with a whos-who list of famous artists. He couldn’t express strongly enough how horrible the speakers were most of the time back then. He would laugh at me sometimes when I talked about HiFi. He said most engineers back then used headphones when listening critically and that headphones then compared to today’s standards weren’t half as good.

Besides, he said they smoked so much pot and took so many drugs during sessions; he’s surprised most of what we hear today is actually acceptable. He said he would kick famous artists out of the studio because they were usually too much of a distraction. It was his job to make sure the quality was retained along with certain criteria. Not always possible when your head is full of marijuana and cocaine.

I still work with people that worked in the music industry back then, a couple knew people like Phil Spector (my boss was friends with Phil for a number of years) and have lots of great stories about what actually went on in the studio and can’t express enough how disillusioned one might become if you knew exactly what was done.

Don’t think for a minute that your HiFi is getting you closer to what the ‘recording engineers’ heard. Most for them didn’t hear half what you are hearing now.
Sure, recording technique was and still is important but much of that could have been highly altered between the recording session and the final product.

All of this is subjective to the music type and era.  I’m speaking for mostly pop and rock between the 50’s and 80’s.

Today we have the birth of the ‘Pro Tools’ era, where a $250,000 recording console is replaced with a $2000 piece of software running on a Apple MAC G4. How’s the quality? You tell me, most of what you are listening too today is worked on in the digital domain. Do you speak Lexicon?

[boead]

Sure, detailed is commonly used to describe bright(er). I agree with Frank Alstine that ‘detailed’ does not wear well. It’s exciting in the short term but very fatiguing for the long term listener. And yes, lots of equipment today appears to be designed to produce lots of detail on purpose. Many HiFi digital sources will intentionally roll off the highest frequencies to control the edginess of lots of popular gear. Many popular IC’s (like Nordost) are VERY detailed and definitely can be considered bright. For a soupy sounding amp it might be perfect, for my system its not.
Yeah, the wow effect is strong and if the person listens for short sessions, then it might be good or provide stronger instant gratification like fat bass.

Is to much detail a bad thing? I think so.

I think transparency is the unveiling of subtle nuances that makes ‘sound’ musical. It aids in the separation of instruments and the layering of sound from front to back. I don’t think a more highly transparent system is necessarily more detailed, but it certainly could be. In revealing more of what’s there, the level of detail can come through more easily and sound bright, revealing the good and bad of each and every component and wire used in the system.
As someone commented, ribbon tweeters allow for detail without the usually associated edginess and fatigue. This can also be said to be more transparent.

The confusion of terminology is most likely between ‘transparency’ and ‘detail’ – I think they are closely related and interact with each other but are commonly confused.