Mrtennis wrote:
These comments puzzle me. You yourself have initiated 88 threads on Audiogon. Here are some of your titles:
-What is good sound?
-Hardware or software: Which is more important?
-Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components
-What is the difference between good and bad sound?
-Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference?
From your thread, "Neutrality or transparency: What's the difference?", your original post read:
Does this passage not bear a striking resemblance to the topics discussed on this thread? Is it not "an analysis of stereo systems"?
...many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way…i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music, rather than an analysis of stereo systems.
These comments puzzle me. You yourself have initiated 88 threads on Audiogon. Here are some of your titles:
-What is good sound?
-Hardware or software: Which is more important?
-Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components
-What is the difference between good and bad sound?
-Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference?
From your thread, "Neutrality or transparency: What's the difference?", your original post read:
neutral and transparency are often considered the same by some hobbyists.
in fact they are not.
neutrality implies no alteration of the signal, whatsoever.
i have used the term "virtually" neutral to imply no audible coloration. of course this is a subjective term.
transparency is a subset of neutrality. it implies a perfectly clear window on the recording.
let me illustrate. suppose an amplifier has a slight deficiency in bass reproduction, e.g., it cannot reproduce any frequencies below 40 hz. that amplifier would not be considered a neutral component.
if said amp reproduced all "information" on a recroding within its range, i.e., above 40 to whatever, without covering up any detail, it would be a transparent device.
thus transparent includes the pssibility of an error, but also implies the passing of all information within the range or capability of the component.
transparency is a subjective term. often when used it means "virtual" transparency because it is possible a component may be hiding information that one is not aware of, but yet one perceives that no information is missing.
any thoughts ?
Does this passage not bear a striking resemblance to the topics discussed on this thread? Is it not "an analysis of stereo systems"?