2. misc-audio
  3. 1145555404

neutrality & transparency: what's the difference ?

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 ?
mrtennis
jamscience
95 posts
 

IMHO

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.

The two terms are independent. (no subset implied)

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.

Actually it means it has an abbreviated frequency range. It can still be considered neutral.

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.

If a component is truly transparent, there will be no errors. That is why subjective terms such as "slightly veiled" "slightest ringing" etc. etc. are used to describe the transparancy. I know of no component that is transparent.

A component can be warm,neutral or cool and have a range of subjective transparency.

IMHO
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
The way I use both terms seems to coincide with your statement about neutrality meaning no coloration and transparency implying a clear window, but I don't quite think your analogies work for me. But later on you say that transparency includes the possibility of error and I agree with that.

To me neutrality is the absence of perceived warmth or coldness in a presentation. Whereas I think transparency can exist to a degree in a warm, cold or neutral sounding system. Depending on the system, the coloration of the tonal balance won't impede its transparency
newbee
4,756 posts
 
While your at it, why don't you also include a definition of 'resolution' and how it differs from 'transparency'.
More to discover