WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye
Where has the transparency gone 
In the original review of the Marantz PM6004 it says
Play Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’ soundtrack to the bleak movie The Road, and the longing and melancholy of the weeping strings is made abundantly clear, thanks to a degree of transparency and timing that’s truly exceptional for this amount of money.
It then marks in the for section as having excellent Transparency.
In the latest addition of the mag it has a mark against it for Transparency.
Am I missing something?
I am genuinely interested to find out
The Rotel that beats it has more transparency which raises the bar?
The real trouble is that the term is meaningless (as is "timing").
Chris
The real trouble is that the term is meaningless (as is "timing").
Chris
It's not meaningless, but you do need some sort of reference point to stop it becoming so.
The Rotel that beats it has more transparency which raises the bar?
Even so, it doesn't really make any sense.
Any WHF care to comment.
how can transparency be FOR in one review and in the AGAINST on reviews of the same product?
What is this transparency anyway? Timing - isn't that something endemic (hopefully) to the music and not the hifi?
What is this transparency anyway?
+1
I'd be interested to know what people mean when they use the word 'transparency' to describe a sound.
I have asked for clarification from the Tech Ed.
The real trouble is that the term is meaningless (as is "timing").
Chris
It's not meaningless, but you do need some sort of reference point to stop it becoming so.
So what does it mean? 
Chris
What is this transparency anyway?
+1
I'd be interested to know what people mean when they use the word 'transparency' to describe a sound.
I assume transparency is the number one cause of the "a veil has been lifted" line
Again, though I wasn't involved in the review, to clarify: 'transparency' isn't the 'AGAINST' here: rather it says of the Marantz 'Just a shade soft and smoothed out – could do with a touch more transparency' (within the context of the test group assembled for the Group Test in question).
The way I read the test, it's simply that Rotel has raised the bar in this price-category.
The real trouble is that the term is meaningless (as is "timing").
Chris
It's not meaningless, but you do need some sort of reference point to stop it becoming so.
Genuinely interested - please provide a (layman's) example / "reference point ".
Ta 
Again, though I wasn't involved in the review, to clarify: 'transparency' isn't the 'AGAINST' here: rather it says of the Marantz 'Just a shade soft and smoothed out – could do with a touch more transparency' (within the context of the test group assembled for the Group Test in question).
The way I read the test, it's simply that Rotel has raised the bar in this price-category.
Thanks for the reply, I guess the Rotel must be a great bit of kit then, even though it doesn't come with a " remote control" 
I think I need to watch the award winners video, because you guys really raved about it then.
We judge products against similarly-priced rivals. In this case the arrival of Rotel's RA-10 has raised the bar, and shown that the Marantz could be better in certain areas.
By transparency we mean the ability of the amplifier to let the music signal through unchanged.
Transparency........my aye!!
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide