Have your say & ask the experts!

WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

169 replies [Last post]
CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11427
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

Overdose wrote:

I agree entirely, but I'm keeping an open mind in case it's true, rather than an in case it isn't.

That's fair enough.

Now if we could liberally sprinkle that sentiment round the forum, what would we all argue about.  shifty

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

Overdose's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 3143
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

The_Lhc wrote:

Overdose wrote:
But unless universally accepted as a truth, it is just theory. 

You do understand that scientific theories are developed from evidence don't you? That's like people who say evolution is "just a theory", as if that means it isn't true. It's a theory that's supported by 150 years of observational evidence.

"just a theory", three of the most mis-understood words in the english language...

Evolution can be considered to be universally accepted. New ideas of a few people about how speakers are thought to work would not in my mind constitute anything other than theory unless proven and in this field of engineering, I would imagine that it should be relatively easy to prove one way or the other. For starters we have quite accurate measuring equipment and we don't have to reach back billions of years to begin our search for evidence, or indeed 150 years.

__________________

Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Jan 2008
Posts: 22655
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

No it's not. 46% of adults in the United States believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

__________________

Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6  |  751BD  |  651A  |  Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3

Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com

Overdose's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 3143
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

John Duncan wrote:
No it's not. 46% of adults in the United States believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

Population of the world is around 7 Billion, 46% of the population of the US is around 143 million, that's around 2% of the worlds population and hardly constitutes anything near a significant minority.

I take your point though and it could just as easily be only  this 2% that believes the speaker theory that we are discussing, rather than the other way around.

 

__________________

Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts

SpursGator's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Jan 2012
Posts: 233
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

John Duncan wrote:
No it's not. 46% of adults in the United States believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

 

I think a truer statement is, '46% of adults in the US, when someone doing a survey asks them, point-blank, some form of the question, "Do you think the Bible is true?" says some form of "Yes." '

Ask the question differently and you get very different answers. The number of Americans who really, fully, acutally believe that the Earth is really, truly less than 10,000 years old is much smaller.

I happen to be a Spurs supporter. If some stranger with a northern accent calls me out of the blue and says, 'Is Gareth Bale a diver or not?' My answer is going to be, 'No.' Ask me a more nuanced version of the question and you might get a more nuanced answer.

A lot about human perception is nuanced, even if the world around us behaves predictably.

__________________

Living Room: Mac Mini, Oppo BDP95EU disc player, Benchmark DAC1, Balanced Audio Technology VK-50 SE preamp, McIntosh MC150 power amp, DIY 22 litre standmounts based on Scan-Speak 18W/8542, DIY subwoofer based on 15" Dayton Reference HF and a Hypex DS4.0 amp.

Office: A bunch of computers, Cambridge DACMagic, Naim Nait 5, DIY 11L standmounts based on Scan-Speak 15W/8530K00

On hand, testing, or selling: Pathos Logos, ProAc Response D18, B&W PV1D subwoofer, Tripath 2020-based 'Class T' amp, Single-driver speakers based on Fostex FE103EN, PMC DB1i, Boston A25, Roth OLi RA2

Recently sold: KEF Q300 speakers, AudioEngine D1 DAC, Mini TL speakers based on Seas W15LY001

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 658
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

I'm not sure if this makes sense but although I'm not able to properly describe what 'transparency' is in a hifi context, I know it when I hear it. And the one thing I've found is that for me, greater transparency doesn't necessarily equate to more enjoyable listening.

An example - one of the most transparent systems I've ever heard is a full FM Acoustic setup. Massively expensive; crystal clear sound with hardly any coloration but too sterile or clinical for my liking. Similarly, Soulutions electronics paired with Magico speakers - jaw-dropping transparency but a bit bland.

At a fraction of the price though, a tube Macintosh preamp/solid state Mac power amps driving Emerald Physics speakers - sonic heaven! A warm, inviting but colored sound no doubt, but more enjoyable to me.

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11427
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

Singslinger wrote:
I'm not sure if this makes sense but although I'm not able to properly describe what 'transparency' is in a hifi context, I know it when I hear it. And the one thing I've found is that for me, greater transparency doesn't necessarily equate to more enjoyable listening. An example - one of the most transparent systems I've ever heard is a full FM Acoustic setup. Massively expensive; crystal clear sound with hardly any coloration but too sterile or clinical for my liking. Similarly, Soulutions electronics paired with Magico speakers - jaw-dropping transparency but a bit bland. At a fraction of the price though, a tube Macintosh preamp/solid state Mac power amps driving Emerald Physics speakers - sonic heaven! A warm, inviting but colored sound no doubt, but more enjoyable to me.

I agree.

I think it poses the question of whether a system needs to be analytical to be transparent.

Also, what exactly is the relationship between Neutrality, Transparancy, Accuracy and Detail.

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

Sliced Bread's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 1393
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

altruistic.lemon wrote:

Nah, CNO, swapped the Naim for an Electrocompaniet, Class A jobby, then sold that for the Pioneer. Really not much difference if any. Had Musical Fidelity before, in Oz, don't rate them.

In the end, it's the speakers that make the difference, amps just peripheral. Whoops, off now, b**ger.


It's really interesting that different people have different experiences.

I've always found a huge difference between amps. One of exampe is the Electrocompaniet amps vs Audiolab. The differnence was huge. Audiolab being death by detail and Electrocompaniet being detailed, but smooth warmish and gorgeous. Just as I like it rockin out

__________________

Samsung PS50Q96HD (Screen) | CA 640c V2 (CD) | Pioneer BDP 320 (BluRay) | Onkyo 905 (Amp) | B&W CM8, CMC & CM1 (Speakers) | MA RS-12 (Sub) | Chord Odyssey 4 (Speaker Cable) | Van den Hul - The Name (Interconnects)

Sliced Bread's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 1393
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

CnoEvil wrote:

MeanandGreen wrote:

the record spot wrote:

altruistic.lemon wrote:

Yeah, but which ones have you heard doing all this? Same with timing. does an amp really have influence on this? In fact, does any component? Can we name and shame?

I've always thought PRaT was a joke on the back of the acronym.  I've never yet heard an amp, or source, affect "timing".  What timing is going to go exactly?  Will the drum beats be out of sync?  Will the guitar be a beat behind?  Will the conductor suddenly lose the orchestra?  Nope...never anything like that yet. 

Indeed I think the whole "timing" thing is nonsense. Timing of individual instruments on a recording cannot be affected.

An amp that can't properly control the bass driver on a speaker, turns the whole bassline and drums to a sort of muddled mush...thus effecting the timing (IMO).

Exactly! It's all about control.

__________________

Samsung PS50Q96HD (Screen) | CA 640c V2 (CD) | Pioneer BDP 320 (BluRay) | Onkyo 905 (Amp) | B&W CM8, CMC & CM1 (Speakers) | MA RS-12 (Sub) | Chord Odyssey 4 (Speaker Cable) | Van den Hul - The Name (Interconnects)

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11427
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

Sliced Bread wrote:

Exactly! It's all about control.

........very necessary, when someone is "pushing your buttons" on a forum.  shifty

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 658
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

CnoEvil wrote:

Singslinger wrote:
I'm not sure if this makes sense but although I'm not able to properly describe what 'transparency' is in a hifi context, I know it when I hear it. And the one thing I've found is that for me, greater transparency doesn't necessarily equate to more enjoyable listening. An example - one of the most transparent systems I've ever heard is a full FM Acoustic setup. Massively expensive; crystal clear sound with hardly any coloration but too sterile or clinical for my liking. Similarly, Soulutions electronics paired with Magico speakers - jaw-dropping transparency but a bit bland. At a fraction of the price though, a tube Macintosh preamp/solid state Mac power amps driving Emerald Physics speakers - sonic heaven! A warm, inviting but colored sound no doubt, but more enjoyable to me.

I agree.

I think it poses the question of whether a system needs to be analytical to be transparent.

Also, what exactly is the relationship between Neutrality, Transparancy, Accuracy and Detail.

Yes, I think an over-analytical presentation is very impressive at first listen but over time could prove fatiguing. At the risk of being flamed or drawing the ire of any Swiss members (and apologies in advance if I do) my experience is that high-end Swiss electronics tend to emphasize this sort of presentation- a very clean sound, with plenty of detail and neutrality but one that encourages the listener to focus on how impressive the sound is, sometimes to the detriment of the music.

Sliced Bread's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 1393
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

CnoEvil wrote:

Sliced Bread wrote:

Exactly! It's all about control.

........very necessary, when someone is "pushing your buttons" on a forum.  shifty

LOL rolling on the floor laughing

__________________

Samsung PS50Q96HD (Screen) | CA 640c V2 (CD) | Pioneer BDP 320 (BluRay) | Onkyo 905 (Amp) | B&W CM8, CMC & CM1 (Speakers) | MA RS-12 (Sub) | Chord Odyssey 4 (Speaker Cable) | Van den Hul - The Name (Interconnects)

Sliced Bread's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 1393
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

John Duncan wrote:
No it's not. 46% of adults in the United States believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...ha

__________________

Samsung PS50Q96HD (Screen) | CA 640c V2 (CD) | Pioneer BDP 320 (BluRay) | Onkyo 905 (Amp) | B&W CM8, CMC & CM1 (Speakers) | MA RS-12 (Sub) | Chord Odyssey 4 (Speaker Cable) | Van den Hul - The Name (Interconnects)

Alec's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 5900
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye
__________________

Formerly known as al7478...

HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR

Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.

"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 12628
RE: WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

SpursGator wrote:

John Duncan wrote:
No it's not. 46% of adults in the United States believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

The number of Americans who really, fully, acutally believe that the Earth is really, truly less than 10,000 years old is much smaller.

I'd be willing to bet it isn't...