WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

How far have we come from the OP. Still quite can't fathom how transparency appears in for and against for the same product.

Anyone ...... Bueller........Bueller:quest:

moon wrote:

Still quite can't fathom how transparency appears in for and against for the same product.

Anyone ...... Bueller........Bueller:quest:

Answered many, many pages back, where I said of the review in question:

"'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'"

Andrew Everard wrote:

moon wrote:

Still quite can't fathom how transparency appears in for and against for the same product.

Anyone ...... Bueller........Bueller:quest:

Answered many, many pages back, where I said of the review in question:

"'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'"

sorry I thought I'd read in the magazine the word transparency was quite clearly in the against column, I must of misread

Further I don't really buy it that an amp that has had so much praise heaped on it and won awards in its previous reviews , including " nothing of note" in the against  section is suddenly found to be soft and smooth and needing more transparency when a new model by Rotel comes out. It just doesn't make sense.

It is, but with all those other words, too

ok no worries. I hope the thread has been enjoyed anyway. Just to clarify I enjoy the magazine and the reviews. Even if some descriptions cod mean various things to various people.

We also had a definition of transparent too: "the ability of the amplifier to pass the signal unchanged" (apart from amplifying it).

As used by the WHF team, transparency appears to be a catch all term for all types of distortion, including: harmonic, inter modulation (non harmonic), noise, temporal, deliberate, bandwidth, etc.

So basically, the test team seem to think the Marantz has a bit more distortion than the Rotel. Something a bit more specific would have helped I guess.

the same can be said about the Chord Carnival Siverscreen spaker cable in the past it was the cable of the year and now WHF 

changed their mind and the latest review said it lack transparency ...

I am getting suspicious on WHF reviews now many great companies such as Tellurium , Storm Audio act. are never been reviewed  

on WHF- Why ??? I decided that my own demo is the best way to judged ... 

is that THD? Because the Marantz measures 0.0008% and the Rotel measures 0.03% according to the Hifix website.

THD = Total Harmonic Distortion, it's not a measure of all distortion, hence why I suggested it would have been helpful if WHF has used a term more specific than a catch all term.

Hi,

i had a quicl look at the specifications of the amplifiers in question - one person commented that transparency can be correlated with the ability of the amplifier to control the loudspeaker.

If we use this as a basis for indicating that one amplifier is more transparent than another (i cannot prove this, it is assumed).

There is a specification that amplifier manufacturers provide which is Damping fator - the ratio of an 8ohm load and the amplifier output impedance :

Marantz PM6004 Damping Factor is 100.

Rotel RA-10 Damping Factor is 180

As such, the Rotel has nearly half the output impedance than that of the Marantz. This may account for why the Rotel can control the loudspeaker with greater ease than the Marantz, and hence provide the reviewer with the perception of greater transparency.

Regards,

Shadders.

Can somebody direct me to and show me the specs that show my Cyrus mono's and Spendor A9's are thin and bright?

Hi,

Damping Factor can change over the frequency range - as does the impedance of the loudspeaker, hence there are probably a multitude of variations of amplifier and loudspeaker combinations that create a specific sound.

Regards,

Shadders.

Why?  Are they?

Look at the specs and tell me....