Can your audio system be too transparent?

Some audiophiles can't ever have enough transparency.
Audiophiliac T-Shirts and Mugs! teespring.com/stores/audiophi...
------------SUPPORT--------------
Thanks for watching, this channel can be supported through Patreon
/ audiophiliac
---SUBSCRIBE-----------------
/ @steveguttenbergaudiop...
Twitter: @AudiophiliacMan
Instagram: Steve.Guttenberg
#audiophile #highendaudio #audiophiliac

[@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac]

I wish I pointed out in the video that studio monitors, in some of the top New York studios, have always sounded too bright to me. True monitors after all, are designed to reveal flaws, not sound "good." The recordings played for me were mainstream, compressed, EQ-ed, and processed, and sounded that way. Revealing flaws is the goal, but for me, I'd prefer to have a system that makes the music I like sound good. That's my choice, but in my reviews, I'm trying to describe what I heard.

[@monetize_this8330]

Over the past 35 years, the recording industry seems to believe tightly-controlled average loudness is a good thing. No doubt due to the tools they (over) use in the studio, plus the power handling of the monitors has really improved enormously in that time. Unfortunately, they equate high SPLs with sounding good, or better than subtly quieter. Today everything sounds "tight", but forceful and brash at the same time. I'm guessing, that's it's a knock-on effect from movie soundtracks being catered for at these studios. Could it also be due to the use of compression-drivers in the monitors? I'd prefer it if speakers still had level controls for the tweeter and midrange on the cabinet.

[@NoEgg4u]

Imagine a restaurant whose goal was to find flaws in the preparation of the meal, and not be testing for how delicious the meal should be. They miss the entire point of the purpose of a great meal, as do the audio engineers miss the entire point of the purpose of preparing great sounding music. This is precisely the problem with the "engineers" in the studios. They do not know how to listen for quality. It is alien to them. And the problem is compounded because they think that they know. They listen for enough echo, enough autotune, enough double-voicing, enough equalization, etc. They listen for timing of mixing the stems. They are not listening for realism. This is not intentional on their part. They do not listen for realism because they don't know about it. They are oblivious to imaging and soundstaging. Most music retains an element of imaging and soundstaging, but only because it is on the master recordings in abundance, so some imaging and soundstaging live through the excess processing. Imaging and soundstaging are not there because of the engineers. Imaging and soundstaging are there by chance of the engineers being oblivious to it and some of it survives their butchering. Recording companies are the restaurants that do not taste their own food. But since they own all of the restaurants, and the people want to eat, the people eat their food (the people listen to their music).

[@monetize_this8330]

@@davidfromamerica1871 Nice to have, but storage space and physical weight of collection becomes an issue. 2. You do know that frequencies below 300Hz often get mixed to mono for vinyl?

[@TheElisangelinha]

Amei, muito legal, parabéns muito sucesso, beijos 😘😘

[@teoadoro889]

The real goal from the beginning needed to have been to achieve BOTH things at once (reveal flaws but attaining a graceful satisfying sound) .That is the true High fidelity that my own system's Creator, for me the One and Only at that, intended from the beginning...but I do like your thinking about people having the freedom of choosing the right speaker, Mister . Good thinking indeed...

[@williammay8413]

Time to get off of this crazy train and be happy with what I have and only upgrade when something breaks down.

[@CeeStyleDj]

Yeah, just enjoy man. I'm sure your choices were good for you.

[@wesspangler]

My thoughts exactly.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Upgrading when something breaks makes no sense. Why not just fix it? You upgrade when you're not satisfied with your system. Most people are either too poor or lack the expertise to put together a system that will satisfy long-term.

[@williammay8413]

carlos oliveira I have 10 year warranty on my amp and have high end equipment

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

@@williammay8413 What's your point? You seem to agree with what I said. Very few high-end manufacturers give warranties more than 5 years.

[@halpearson4226]

The best advice I ever got was to chase tonal accuracy and everything else will follow. Chase detail and nothing else will.

[@jonathansturm4163]

The odd thing about accidentally listening with my inferior DAC was that the frequency response was fine, but the detail (soundstage) was MIA. That’s why I erroneously thought it was my ears that were at fault. Assuming here that by “tonal accuracy” you mean FR.

[@dcrook232323]

Absolutely agree. 👍 But at the same time, I've told clients for decades, "Hey, I can/will show you quality source material w/ quality playback gear and can/will help "educate your ears" but at the end of the day, trust your perceptions, be comfortable with your budget, and have fun."

[@jonathansturm4163]

@@dcrook232323 Indeed. Without “ear-training” I wouldn’t have known what I was missing. Ever am I grateful to those who took the time to teach me what to listen for fifty years and more ago.

[@veniceog]

Tonal accuracy against what benchmark? A tone generator? The actual instrument vs the track? Your memory? As it’s mixed? There is no such thing. Chase enjoyment. That’s a win 100% of the time.

[@legrandmaitre7112]

I totally agree. I've heard plenty of very revealing systems that suffer from what I call "tonal bleaching". That is, instrumental timbre or colour is amiss / skewed.

[@user-od9iz9cv1w]

Always good food for thought. You have been presenting a case to be happy with your music and avoid the constant chase for gear. Refreshing attitude from a gear reviewer.

[@jonathansturm4163]

The odd thing here of course is that Steve the Subjectivist is supposedly a dreamer according to the Objectivists. Yet following the Objectivists’ advice and going by the measurements doesn’t (in my experience) give you a satisfying listening experience. Following Steve’s advice (in my experience) is far more likely to result in a satisfying music system. Who are really the dreamers? Go figure...

[@HareDeLune]

@@jonathansturm4163 A most excellent, and somewhat wry, observation. : )

[@shuckylad]

I’ve just gone for a “sound” I can listen to for hours on end without fatigue. Couldn’t give to hoots how transparent or accurate it is. Sounds great to me so that’s really all that matters. 😜

[@stuartkirsh2633]

That's my definition of a great system.

[@ZenFuKid]

I wish I could complain about my system sounding too good.

[@Justwantahover]

The better it sounds with a good recording, the worse it will sound with a hissy crappy recording (like a lot of KZbin stuff). That's the point of this video. On KZbin many of the standard deep house videos are bad, with too much or NOT ENOUGH bass, and a really really "CHIFFY" hi hat sound. But some backyard doofers sound WAY better on KZbin.

[@bradschofield9400]

if you enjoy being the sound engineer at home, then consider a pre amp processor so you can bend the sound AND also swap speakers with quick connect banana plugs. My everyday listening speakers are Sonus Farber Liuto (in 5.1 setup) driven by Marantz AV8003 pre amp - i can customize a lush soft sound 16 different ways. When i want that pure audiophile experience i swap in Maggie MG12s and switch the sound mode to source direct and bypass all the tailored modes. The Maggies are easy to move and need to standout 5+ feet off back wall - absorbing lots of real estate that i dont want to sacrifice daily. The whole process takes just 3 minutes. Two completely different soundscapes at the snap of a finger, but less practical for the bigger Maggies of course.

[@christopherjackson8958]

I added a Quad 33 preamp to my audiolab 8200a (retaining the audiolabs excellent power section and eschewing with its horrid preamp section), and it changed everything for the better. I agree with the modular approach if it's available .

[@Condorsat10]

Just have more than one system.

[@scottyo64]

I like to have choices

[@JohnDoe-np3zk]

I knew you would cover that subject based on our discussion about the DAC vs. the plus. Good job I liked your take on this.

[@thomasandersen1784]

It took me +35 years to learn the art of being an satisfied audiophile, and i still have some basic understanding that needs attention. It's impossible to put together a high-end system without missing out (or getting too much information), as it all depends on the source (recordings)? If you only have one system (as for most), you really need to pin point your personal taste and what music your listening too? U CAN'T get it all to sound perfect/good, so you need that understanding that took me many years. I learned how to live with a killer system, that do it's thing (like it's supposed too), but never colors anything to hide what's really going on. You either love that or not? So my best suggestion is, to think these thing trough before spending , because you can't have it all in one system, no matter how many money you got. Cheers from Denmark

[@AlejandroGomez-yx1sg]

@Thomas Kirkegaard Andersen that is a very wonderul pice of advice. Wonderful reflexion from an audiophile. Cheers!

[@thomasandersen1784]

@@AlejandroGomez-yx1sg Ur so welcome :-)

[@louisxiiii]

Again, some true wisdom from Steve. Through most of my audiophile life, it seems most equipment misses this point, striving instead to be "ruthlessly revealing," even if by simply having prominent higher frequencies without real resolution.

[@heinzr9734]

I understand your message very well, Steve. Ok, I'm 61 years old now, and it takes some experience to really appreciate your message. I also believe that listening priorities can change just as much as musical tastes can change over the decades. I really had to smile when you mentioned your Klipsch speakers. Among other things, I have old La Scalas (with a Bob Crites crossover, so original circuitry). These Klipsch heritage speakers can do exactly the opposite (among other things) of what many people think or imagine. It's the ease of listening at low volume that these speakers do so well. And as you say, it's allowed to have a nice sound at home. I don't have to repeat the work that someone had to do in the studio. That's why I don't have to buy his tools to show off to my friends that I can hear it "just as it should be". But there is one point that is ambivalent, at least in my experience. If I like different music, for example to name two extremes, string quartet and blues rock. Adapting the system to the style of music will be a positive feedback and could have a filter effect on what I like to hear. On the other hand...there is no "objective" system that can do everything equally. So the lowest common denominator is really the magic formula "nice", as you say, Steve.

[@ahey4]

I have Magnapan 1.7’s but driving with a Prima Luna EVO 400 preamp and 120 watt tube mono block kit amps that I put together. Now that sounds incredible together. The amps are VTA M-125 from Bob Latino who is the designer. I need to say what really brought the stereo system to life was Augmenting them with SVS-PB 16 subwoofer’s now I have that deep powerful high SPL bass to match the Magnapan with 15HZ deep powerful bass.

[@sivagurupathamvadivelu680]

Love the music and everything will fall beautifully in place

[@keithperry602]

Thank you Steve for a very informative talk. Please keep up the great job of helping to inform the audio community. Thanks again

[@shkermanshahi]

Amazing. Thanks Steve!

[@TorToroPorco]

Some very good points especially with regards to the quality of the source material. On my own system the times when it sounds really transparent (when the power grid or other factors creates such a condition) the tonal qualities tend to suffer. When I can get the proper balance of detail, transparency and tonality I’m generally much happier.

[@jonathansturm4163]

Having a system that would be _too_ revealing is what keeps me from going down the rabbit hole. I’m primarily interested in listening to my music. However, I just had several weeks of frustration trying to get my imaging and transparency back. I’d concluded it was deterioration of my hearing when I discovered I’d forgotten to switch back to my Schiit DAC after recording some vinyl through the mediocre DAC I have to use use for recording. Maybe that’s a solution to listening to poor quality recordings for many. Use a shit DAC rather than a Schiit DAC (or whatever quality DAC you possess). The difference is for me chalk and cheese. More than that really as I have three DACs of varying quality. But it’s _so_ nice having my imaging back :-)

[@freesaxon6835]

The salesman said my system was so transparent you couldn't see it. Paid $3000 for it took it home, but still can't find it, in the box.

[@humanitech]

Hifi is alot like food. Sometimes it's nice to have fine dining and other times a bacon sandwich. Each can be equally as rewarding and good. But other times fine food can be too rich and OTT and simple food to bland and boring. Truth is we are never fully satisfied all of the time. Except when we back off from being to critical and judgemental and just simply enjoy the moment ...and accept things for what they are. Which granted, can be difficult. Therefore my primary interest and motive with hifi have always been the emotional connection and engagement with the music, and the complete musicality of a piece of music or performance. As I rarely go to a live performance to listen critically or judge if the eq or artists are on point or whether things are forwards or backwards in the mix etc. I go simply to enjoy the artists performing their music. Which is the same when listening at home. That doesn't mean I don't like good clarity, detail, space and seperation...and of cource a holographic presentation. But I would never want to have a system that can only play only good recordings on, as it is the artists and music I love not the hifi system. I have some friends with very resolving kit but they refuse to play or listen to certain music or artists they used to like, simply because they now only hear the weaknesses and failings in the recordings...which kind of misses the point for me. although admittedly the music they play does sound great. I guess we all have our own personal interests tastes and musical journeys and are lucky to have such a great variety of hifi equipment to choose from...to try and match our needs, desires and budgets.

[@thorstenamesoder4803]

Every time i listen to Steves wisdom, this "master yoda feeling" is kinda comin up. :)

[@lenimbery7038]

I remember going into a studio in Nashville with a studio musician in the early '80s. I still remember him saying how great the playback in the studio sounded and that if they could get that out there, then everything they recorded would be a hit!

[@Jack96993]

I have two sets of speakers, one set is the Definitive Technology Mythos ST with built in powered subs and the other pair is Maggie's 0.7's I have the option to use my VAC PA 100 100 tube amp or my Spectron musical MK II class D amp My tube pre amp is the ARC LS 15 Source is the Oppo BD 105, external DAC is the Exogal Comet plus When I use the Spectron with all its watts/current (65 amps for 500 miliseconds) with my Maggie's the highs and mid range have so much energy the notes just seem to jump out at me like a life event! Not sure if that's too much transparency, but whatever it is I love it!!

[@chrispicquet733]

Steve,great subject matter! I have multiple different types of speakers/amps.so I have been playing with the vast potential combinations of presentations available.i also designed some very transparent 6 1/2 " two ways that sort of bridge the gap between Klipsch Heritage series and Quad ESL 57's.but I get into moods where I like the laid back sound of my LS3/5a's,or Celestion 300's,SL 6's.But your right! when I use some of my Horn speakers or other super revealing equipment,program material becomes an issue! At that point,I can only listen to good recording's Thanks Again.

[@lmagus]

Thank you for this Master Class

[@michaelmarcin1003]

This is just, as usual, a definitional argument. Transparency, as used in the objective measurement sense, is the degree the sound reaching you ears matches what was recorded. Anything else is simply distortion or signal processing. I sometimes like euphoric tube distortion, but I think the goal should be to match the sound intended by the recording artist and engineer. Therefore, the most audiophile of systems, would be the most transparent. If you want to play with the sound to change it, to add warmth etc., then do so intentionally through DSP or similar effort. But to reiterate, if transparency is defined as being as close to what was recorded as possible, then yes, the goal should be to create as transparent a system as possible, since anything else is distortion or post-recording signal processing. If you want "effects" then do so intentionally and with equipment designed to do that and which can be removed from the signal path as desired.

[@HouseofRecordsTacoma]

Made it into this "OTHER THING" is spot on. Look what MAGIC Rudy V.G. did with the minimal mic.

[@carlitomelon4610]

Appreciated this episode. Just read the KEF LS50 white paper. They highlight that the speaker is smoother in it's top end at 10° horizontal offset. I prefer them on axis, with my system and almost 60y ears, but the fine tuning option is there. Love their prentation of sound stage and tonal character with in 2.2 REL subbed setup!

[@ianjohnhorwood2605]

My late last edition monitor audio gold reference GR20's , are superior to the the kef ls50, the kef ls50 just cannot cut it compared to the the GR20'S, the ls50 are deficit on the whole level of performance capabilities that the GR20'S can provide.

[@carlitomelon4610]

@@ianjohnhorwood2605 Apples to oranges? Floor standers to mini monitor? Nice vs transparent?? My comment was in response to Steve's direct mention of the LS50s and toe-in setup suggestions. I got the LS50s as a frame of reference, since so many reviewers have a pair. And for good reason! I wasn't intending to start a speaker comparison discussion, matey. Very happy that you love your speakers as we all should :-) (My Floor standers are in a different room btw;-)

[@quantumdave1592]

Over emphasis or highlighting is often substituted for Transparency...most of the detail in a recording can be heard on most systems. The balance of detail vs actual musical tones and textures is the key. Steve is correct. I have the JBL 4429’s which are highly detailed yet completely relaxed at the same time.

[@DannyHoffman57]

Yes, I want the transparency. I have an extremely transparent system (Kii Three) and I don't find that the transparency is a detriment. If you have a harsh recording or something like that, then you can play around with it and change the sound with DSP, tone controls, a tube preamp, etc. for playback of a specific recording, instead of crippling the sound of your whole system. I also don't agree that there aren't systems that don't sound good on all types of music. If the recording is bad the recording is bad - not the system that reveals it.

[@jasonwalsh9211]

I would have expected anyone who's into their hifi and music to already know the answer to this and 'dialing in' is or can be a big factor here... I.e speaker positioning and toe yes, seating position, wall coverings, cables all can help fine tune a revealing set-up.

[@1mctous]

This parallels your recent Denafrips review: how much resolution do you really need?

[@stimpy1226]

A revealing system usually points out both the attributes and the detriments of the source material. It's up to the individual listener to decide what type of system they are looking for. There's nothing like a revealing system playing great source material for me.

[@FrankySilverFace]

My Yamaha integrated receiver, B & W 606 with an old technics MASH CD player sounds perfectly fine with the 2 old Sony Subs. In my 16x10 room with moderate treatment it pounds my chest and delivers amazing details and all the volume I want my ears exposed too. I have 4 systems in total. 3 in this room and one for movies in the living room. None of my systems are considered hi end by today's standards but they're great for me. My opinion may change as I have a listening appointment with a friend and his bryston monoblocks, neighborhood shaking subs and maggies. But until then I'm super super happy and content with what I have.

[@arnaudpollet-thiollier6054]

Hi Steeve. What is the best active speakers for a tv regarding voice clarity between: Klipsch the Fives (with 100sw subwoofer) or Naim mu-so 2 or one devialet reactor or Kef Lsx or Klipsch r-41pm / r-51pm with a central speaker and subwoofer or anything else and what system with cd player & dab radio?? Thanks. Arnaud.

[@gme10955]

As long as the recordings are of good quality, my system sounds good with all genres of music. If the recordings are of poor quality, doesn't matter what the genre is, the sound suffers.

[@mesonto]

And there you have it... crap in - crap out.

[@mesonto]

@James Herndon oh absolutely, some of my favourite music I used to listen to all the time no longer gets played as frequently... But on the plus side I discovered so much new music, while I search for better recordings of my old favourites.

[@badgerdms]

I like music for music, not for how it sounds or was recorded. So I would argue any system that discourages you from listening to what you actually like is the wrong system. That said, my current speakers sound really good with less than stellar recordings and my only upgrade will be up the line of the same brand of speakers.

[@mesonto]

@@badgerdms Then my system is too good/expensive/detailed or whatever, because you can definitely hear bad recordings, whether it was bad production or a product of the loudness wars. I hear it all. But unlike what you argue, I am not downgrading, I have been constantly upgrading throughout the last 35+ years. My system grows and develops every few years with new and better components. The only counter I have had is to search out the best recordings of the albums I had previously loved. Ironically my music played through my watch and then on my Bluetooth headphones when I run always sounds great. But then again I am not really listening to it.

[@stuartkirsh2633]

Well, that's the price you pay for resolution-- it's a double-edged sword. Because I want to be able to enjoy the music I love, a less than uber-revealing system is my choice. I still try to find the best sounding masterings I can, but in general, I do not want my system to dictate what I can enjoy listening to. To me, that's backwards!

[@mikepdx487]

If you have a system with DSP, you can usually store several presets. So one for music that benefits from plenty of sparkle; one for music that benefits from a little relaxation. Definitely easier and more repeatable than changing toe-in of the speakers for various recordings.

[@jamesm90]

I agree wholeheartedly. When I worked at a studios that closed all the staff wanted a pair of the £20,000 monitors to take home except me. I found them fatiguing to listen to for long periods.

[@marce8760]

I completely agree with you on this Steve. I found out for myself I prefer a sound thats effortless and tonally correct over a sound thats holographic and clear with some recordings and unlistenable with others. So yeah, I'm in the smooth top end camp. Also use the stereo speakers for films to great effect. They never bore me and always get straight to the heart of the music or sound effects. Got the Beolab 9, should anybody wonder.

[@billd9667]

Damn - that explains why I keep stubbing my toes! Seriously though, if they are transparent AND forgiving, that’s the aim. If, on the other hand, they are transparent and ruthless, I’d rather have Cerwin Vegas. I find that Maggies are close to perfect, as are LS50s. But, I sometimes want real guts - and that is why I have an A-B switch 😝

[@redstarwraith]

A lot to unpack in this one. Seems it all boils down to a question of, "what are you after?" I already know that striving for ultra transparency is of very little interest to me. Sure, a revealing system playing great source material is no doubt thrilling, but - and I'm just being realistic here: I know my music collection and a lot of the stuff I love to listen to isn't recorded all that well. Gimmie a non-fatiguing system that I can listen to for hours on end.

[@mic982]

Yeah, I think I'm like you here. Besides, I'm not all that certain exactly what 'transparency' is. It's another one of those terms that can be very subjective .

[@legrandmaitre7112]

If you have really broad taste, then there are many older recordings which will only sound great if they've been really well remastered - and most haven't. Music first, that's what matters - music is what it's really all about.

[@stuartkirsh2633]

Yep. Many audiophiles seem to me more focused on sound than on music. They listen for bass extension, sound-staging, detail, "air'", timbral accuracy and don't seem to even engage with the music. In other words, what they care most about is the relative performance of pieces of gear. That's an engineering perspective, not an aesthetic/artistic perspective.

[@mic982]

@@stuartkirsh2633 I believe you're right there; you and 'redstarwraith' (sounds dangerous!) kinda nail it. I can't tell anyone why, exactly, my system sounds so good (other than to tell them I have a decent system and take good care of my vinyl) but I sure do enjoy it.

[@stuartkirsh2633]

@@mic982 ...and In my view, that's what's most important-- that YOU enjoy it !

[@thorwulfx1]

I think this "horses for courses" approach leads us toward headphones, since the scale of cost is far smaller, and the ability to switch them out is a far simpler thing. You can slap on the right set of 'phones for the music you're listening to at that moment.

[@jwcollect6642]

Hey Steve, Great videos. Is the technics SU-g700 amp good enough to drive the KEF R3 speakers? Thanks

[@martineyles]

I got some new headphones (Sony h.ear on 3 (closed back), free with my phone), which have got me really audio confused. You can use them wireless or wired, and if wired, turned on or off, and when they are turned on the sound is completely different to off - a LOT more treble. Thing is, I can't decide if I like them better on or off, or prefer my old Sennheiser HD435s, which are also less trebly, more like the Sony's turned off. I've no idea whether I've been listening with a low pass filter for years or if the extra treble is turned up loads, beyond flat. Sometimes the extra treble is nice but on some things it's major sibilance, but is that the recording? Have you ever had your audio world turned to confusion by hearing something radically different? Any idea how to cut through the audio confusion? Is confusion a good topic to discuss in a video?

[@mattb9664]

Sounds like that Sony headphone has a DSP. When it's off, you're hearing the raw drivers. When it's on, you're hearing the drivers with a non adjustable EQ.

[@martineyles]

@@mattb9664 I get the mechanism, but it's the sound philosophy. Sony clearly think that the way they're meant to be heard is turned on, as that's the only option when using them wirelessly. It's like some Bose speakers, which were supplied with equalisers. But it's also being suddenly presented with a radically different sound and not being sure which sound is not only more accurate, but also which sound do I like most. That's more where the confusion lies. That's more the topic I was thinking would be interesting to discuss.

[@stevemiller9480]

A friend, who always had cheap stereo's, recently inherited a very good transparent audio system and wondered why the Bluetooth receiver plugged into it sounded bad when it sounded fine in the cheap one.

[@Mikexception]

I do not trust in reality of system sounding until I proof to myself that any recording from any possible source sounds according to it's limitations as good as possible and I have no conclusion what could be wrong. That is proven many times by me,. Reality of system is ultimate dream but it doesn't mean that if it isn't amazing at all. any recording will amaze . Only regular presentation is must.

[@petermortensen8125]

Too often, too transparent is intermixed with too bright.

[@teoadoro889]

Truth and Light are One regardless...

[@editorjuno]

You can "fix" a transparent system to tolerate poor recordings with DSP or some other EQ and/or dynamic range expansion method. It's much harder to get transparency from a system deliberately designed to accommodate poor recordings as its default performance mode.

[@shangrilaladeda]

Bruce Morgen how?

[@pandstar]

I completely understand where you're coming from, there is no 'free lunch' in audio. Those 'fixes' you mentioned you mention are not without their own negative artifacts. But overall, it might be the best compromise.

[@editorjuno]

@@pandstar -- Yup. Making a poor recording sound better always involves trade-offs, but I'd rather not have those trade-offs carved in stone so that in effect they make great recordings sound less great.

[@mortenwammen4159]

@@shangrilaladeda Loudness compensation (loudness, dynamic eq, whatever they call it) in combination with compression, that is the way I know to make a good system sound 'cheap' and forgiving, it will also let you play at lower volume, so there is that. These controls are almost always available on AV Receivers, loudness is available on some of the mid-range integrated amplifiers like Yamaha. (you can make do without the compression, it will just let you play at a slightly lower volume without too much trouble). Yes, these things will cause artefacts, but at this point you are no longer chasing transparency, so it is a tradeoff.

[@3rdaxis649]

That is so true!. Never thought of it that way but your right. higher end speakers aren't better or worse their different flavors. Okay then ponder me this. What "type" of speaker would you suggest for listening to classic rock on vinyl? I current have a very clear and transparent setup and it's amazing but it's definitely not the right fit for classic rock. Not enough mid bass and to bright. And I know there's hundred that would fit the bill but a general "major brand" pick?

[@iangibson6015]

Just today I compared two iems, one planar, the other with a carbon nano-something driver. The planar picked up the airiness of the concert hall, but weirdly completely failed to convey the "bite" of the bow on the violin. The carbon nano driver was pretty much the exact opposite. So I'm wondering is there such a thing as absolute transparency?

[@agustin1990alarcon]

I think i git a perfect balanced system (for my taste) for different music when I put toghether a pair of Sony ss-s31 speakers with a Sony TA-F6B amp. Very detailed sound without loosing "musicality".

[@mrboat580]

Yes. And in the 80's, the large speakers that are often trendily discounted by the audiophiles of today, were perfectly matched to the most popular recordings. Not only that, when you subjected them to better recordings, they could only sound even better. CV, Fisher, Pioneer etc., were all able to emulate the live concert, garage/warehouse band and studio experience. JBL, is another brand that tends to get this right. I own neutral speakers. They sound great on superb recordings and are worth doing because of that. But I also own a system that plays classic rock, jazz and even country/bluegrass extremely well. All of my speakers THD is still to the right of the decimal, regardless. That, and headroom, is pretty much all that mattered, otherwise. The downside of all this transparency, as measurable as it can be, is that it tends to instantly get manufacturers off the hook. Measure them for yourself. They're "ruler flat." It has to be your sources and your crappy room. You know how you can tell it's wrong? It's when someone is questioning the performance of a over-hyped and expensive brand they own online, and people in the know, are inclined to ask if they have the polarity correct. Because to normal ears, that's how off, transparent speakers can sound. EQ/tone controls, were all that was needed to bridge the different genres with a single set of speakers. Somewhere along the line, those who could not EQ their way out of a wet paper bag and knew nothing other than the "smiley" configuration, won over and now we aren't qualified to EQ our own gear/rooms and sources. Learning how to use these things was an expected learning curve among the real music heads.

[@brunonjezic6208]

When looking for revealing speeker i would go for studio monitors. Neumann KH120 blow me out with soundstage and clarity. But off course to each his own and i agree finding sound that suits you it's what is all about. Great video

[@richards707]

Excellent advice! Side note: The way those Magnepans where set up in that picture makes me wonder. The back of the left speaker looks like it’s firing down a hallway. The speakers are choking for air.

[@705johnnyboy]

my speakers are insanely revealing ,very musical and im keeping it that way,MAR952

[@shahrulhaidi3782]

Have been chasing perfect or balance tone everytime since moving from floorstand to bookshelf

[@homerwinslow9047]

I love my Magnepn 1.7i speakers.They’re not too revealing. They are just right.

[@oldschoolaudioenthusiast]

I think the goal of assembling a system with the highest resolution / transparency your budget can afford is an important part of being an audiophile. I learned a long time ago that the quality of recordings both old and new can vary drastically for different reasons. IMO, if you love music across genre's then you owe it to yourself to strive for a system that reproduces the media as it is. If you're musical taste is focused on one specific genre or another then there are ways as already mentioned to optimize equipment choices or setup accordingly. Doing so however changes the objective. At least with high resolution equipment, you will have the chance to experience in-home listening potentially at its best assuming the recording is up to the task. If not, you can still enjoy the music!

[@TheHammerofDissidence]

I dialed back the transparency in my system by switching to a more laid back speaker (Elac DBR62'S). Still plenty of detail but my black metal records won't kill me anymore.

[@hugeshows]

I'm not sure I agree, Steve. Deliberately choosing a less accurate speaker keeps you limited permanently. Choosing a preamp to soften harsh recordings when needed, and bypassed when not, is a much more flexible solution. Also, if that picture of 1.7i is the system you're talking about, the problem is far more likely to be the reflective walls and hardwood floors in that tiny room.

[@timmckenzie2727]

If I'm being honest , I think this obsession is more about the equipment than it is about the music - how many musicians are audiophiles as well

[@DakTirCue]

I find a lot of time that "harshness" from a quality system that can sometimes overpower you with clarity can be toned down by speaker placement and room choice. If you have another room in your house with different acoustics, maybe carpeting instead of hardwood, try your set up in there. I moved my system into 3 separate rooms before I ended up leaving it in the den!

[@johnkreutz3207]

How do environmental factors affect sound. Dos temperature,humidity and such have an affect on an audio system i seem to notice differences.

[@jovannydiazabad6123]

Are the Elac Debut 2.0 B6.2 considered transparent or are they the kind that goes well with any genre

[@genez429]

What timing for this video... Living in an apartment requires that I keep the listening level down a bit. I have Audience 1+1 V3 speakers that are a transparency wish come true. But, it requires volume levels a bit higher than I feel comfortable with keeping the peace. I just opened a box today for a pair of Cambridge Audio Minx XL Speakers for my audiophile desktop system. Their mellower sound allows lower listening levels, yet they are very good in their own right. Just not transparent like the Audiences are.. But, I can rest easier now. Might be saving the 1+1's for when I can finally find my own place... Well, got to experiment for now. The new speakers are not broken in yet... Just the same. This video's theme is exactly saying what I have been looking for lately.

[@eetu2532]

My advice is: always strive for transparency. If you don't, you can end up with very expensive products that offer various amounts of euphonic distortion, coloration and 'voicing'. Once you have a system that coats everything with 2nd & 3rd harmonics you can't 'switch' to a transparent sound if you wanted. If you start with a transparent system, you can play with toe-in, EQ/DSP etc to fit a particular genre/recording IF needed. I would also like to add that the definition of hi-fi is literally the playback of music with as much fidelity = as little distortion/alteration to the recording as possible. So if you take the euphonic distortion approach you may be an audiophile but it's not hi-fi.

[@CraigLafferty]

Love that shirt! Are those cucumber slices?

[@gottrekk5798]

Steve is 100% correct but I love high level of details.

[@scottyo64]

I just want what pleases my ears. To many over think what they're doing in this hobby.

[@stuartkirsh2633]

Except that, given the sheer quantity of gear that's available and the fact that one never really knows how well any possible combination of components will sound together until one hooks them up in one's listening room, "just pleasing one's ears" is rarely as simple as you seem to suggest! A certain amount of "thinking' is required by most of us. I consider myself a music lover first and an audiophile second but it's taken me about twenty years of experimentation to put together a system that pleases my ears.

[@ltsheadphones8634]

True, and one of the reasons why I started designing and building my own gear a few years ago. Nothing is as satisfying as listening to something that sounds exactly as you want it to.

[@MrJimbobrude]

My Shure KSE1500 is probably in the to transparent Category. When the recording is right and I’m in the mood nothing can beat them. For the rest of the time I use my Sony IER-Z1R for when I want more forgiving and ‘fun’ sound. The Shure is like being directly connected to the mics, the Sony are like listening to the recording on the best sound system with a world class subwoofer.

[@bellrobert1978]

I've had speakers with all manner of materials used in their construction. Now I've gone full circle and think I prefer good old fashioned paper cones and soft dome tweeter.

[@thisisnev]

Same! Though I do have a bit of a thing for cast metal cabinets...

[@bellrobert1978]

@@thisisnev I've never heard any o don't think.

[@lenimbery7038]

So Steve, how can one choose the best system if you like a very wide range of varying music and yet have budget constraints and/or size constraints for your room?

[@hugobloemers4425]

Is it time to bring back the graphic equalizer to tame that revealing speaker for bad recordings?

[@timgreen7208]

Room correction software can help a lot. DIRAC is very adaptable. I have 3 target curve setups I use for different music and mood.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

You totally misunderstand transparency. A graphic EQ will not make a transparent system less so anymore than it can increase one that isn't.

[@FOH3663]

@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt Spot on

[@FOH3663]

My take; Transparency is an absolute 1:1 reproduction of input-output. Whereas the transfer function is absolute. Herb and Steve discussed this recently in terms of minutia loss. It's not necessarily a THD, it's simply lossy... akin to magnetic or thermal compression, ie., the small stuff doesn't survive the process. I learned a valuable lesson in gear and Transparency. I'm mixing a live act and this particular show is a "briefcase gig". Such a gig as a FOH engineer is you show up and mix ... nothing else involved, no setup/teardown etc. The outboard gear selection was all brand new/quality stuff, but the compressors were inexpensive Behringer pieces. I utilized a comp on both the kick and the bass. As an instrumental jazz/fusion/rock act, a good one, no vocal comp needed. The last number of set one they bring a vocalist out to accompany them... good stuff. For set two, I patch a compressor in on the vocal ... a Behringer compressor. Well, it destroyed the nuance and simply tossed a veil across the singer ... it sucked. That's a lack of transparency. I pulled the patch and handled by gain riding. Subsequently I performed testing confirming the results ... indeed same. A lead vocal needs dynamics processing via a compressor. That said, be it a comp ... or any piece the signal is routed thru, it must be of ample quality as to not step on the signal that much.

[@stuartkirsh2633]

Try the very affordable Schiit Loki.

[@ReflectedMiles]

Very true. There is an entire category of the audio industry devoted to being "too" transparent: top end pro-studio gear (not home/semi-pro studio gear). The studio that has 8 figures or more invested in its engineering and capabilities is ultimately still less than its competition at half that investment if anything is left undetected. This is because if something goes undetected, it--and its effects for better or worse--cannot be controlled. That is why audiophiles are typically not going to have the same goals or appreciate quite the same experience as the best pros in the industry. The audiophile is listening for enjoyment, for the best experience; the engineer at his or her custom Rupert Neve console is listening for whatever might have gotten by that is yet to be corrected or improved. Uncolored accuracy and transparency are a never-ending quest and demand on the studio side for that reason while they are much less necessary, perhaps even undesirable to an extent, for audiophile purposes.

[@stephensmith3111]

@ 2:25: "they want it to be the way it is right now." Exactly. Who the foxtrot are we to tell other people what to listen to and especially the musicians how to play their music? Don't say "Well, they just don't know any better." They are not stupid, they know. There is plenty of music out there already that is 5 star approved by the most rabid of audiophiles and more of it really is coming out all the time. I'm a U. S. government certified Old Dude and I've got a lot of those LPs, CDs, and SACDs in my music library right now and I buy more as my finite resources permit. But it's not the only music that I buy. If some, even most, new music is heavily processed because that's the way the musicians wanted (for example "This Land" by Gary Clark Jr. is heavily Autotuned on several songs, not my personal favorite effect, but it helps to get his point across), that's fine. That's the way it should be. If you don't like, it nobody is forcing you to listen to it (although in this example you would be missing out on some really good music by a very talented musician if you don't). =//=OldDudesStillRock

[@thisisnev]

Well said. I'm tired of so-called 'audiophiles' who once saw a five-minute KZbin rant about 'compression' or 'loudness wars' thinking they know better how to record music than qualified sound engineers with years of experience in the business. Or even anybody who's spent a couple of hours getting stuck into a DAW app on their phone, for that matter. Honestly, I think there are more than a few audiophiles who can't be happy unless they're beating some poor sap over the head with their second-hand 'wisdom'. It's about the enjoyment of music, people!

[@smallfry8]

STEVE can you suggest to me a cd player i have willsenton amp pontus DAC n klipsch speakers no more DCD600NE the DCD-800 NE ok

[@robertm8518]

It’s like asking if you can have too much money! My understanding of what Transparency means is how much the speaker disappears. Revealing is a totally different characteristic.... which can allow bad recordings to sound bad and not mask them.

[@jimf5160]

My system is pretty transparent...Magnepan MGIIa ...high quality amps etc..and it definitely reveals the quality of recordings...be they vinyl or digital. I was amazed at how badly some vinyl was recorded...and some digital too. ...but I can live with that..

[@bernardlanguillier7970]

I understand the point, but I wonder how bands/engineers know what people like music to sound like. I wonder through what mechanism they establish this knowledge. Btw... my system sounds pretty great with all types of music... and it's hyper transparent and revealing. It can be done. I would argue that the systems that sound worse with poorly recorded music are those that very revealing but not quite revealing enough. Sort of as if their resolution conflicted with the resolution of the music, just like moire can happen in photography when the frequency of the imaging sensor matches that of the image detail. There are 2 ways to solve this: one is to add an anti-aliasing filter, which basically is about blurring detail (what a non revealing audio system does), the better way is to add resolution so that you go beyond the issue. If your system is revealing enough that you go beyond this level of conflict with the information contained in poorly recorded music, you end up resolving the poorly sounding artifacts in a way that is no more unpleasing, as least not more unpleasing that what you get with a poorly resolving system (it won't make a poor recording sound great). But that takes a lot and careful choice of speakers, amp, clocks,... and is typically a very costly endeavour unless you are very very lucky with second hand deals (which I have been).

[@Mikexception]

In my opinion it is more pleasant to receive not direct instruments sounds but whole recorded happening with it's original acoustic, reverberation and existing other sounds like it is in concert . This will allow those reverberations to be heard and of course it will affect "transparency" which is not the case in concert. .Clear transparent single instruments may be received with bigger tolerance to listeners concern.

[@jimgardiner1558]

I liked the video. I have to agree that there is no one speaker or sound system that sounds best on all types or quality of recordings. As a general rule I always felt there were two broad classifications American Rock or European sound. In the rock category you have speakers like JBL that tend to have some base emphasis (probably not all JBLs but most of them). They also tend to have a bit of emphasis on the high end too if I remember correctly. On the other hand you have European sound which tends to strive for the flat response. Of course this is only part of the picture as frequency response doesn't tell the whole story. Probably more important for revealing sound is transient capability. Systems with good attack and decay characteristics really seem to bring out the detail. Also minimal distortion and resonances so detail is not overpowered. For people like me who enjoy most types of music the choice becomes difficult. Some compromise might be the answer. Some things I am not willing to compromise on are things like minimal resonances and distortions. I also feel good transient response is a must have. What does that leave? Well when I designed my last set of speakers I did choose a concave soft dome tweeter with phase plug which had a slight roll off on the high end on-axis response. The Off axis being even more rolled off than most dome tweeters (so reducing toe in softens the response). For base response I found speaker placement gave some flexibility. For base emphasis I move the speakers closer to the wall (or even better put them in corners where possible). Of course moving speakers around is not very convenient every time you change venues. In this case I kind of split the difference and place the speakers for some base emphasis but not too much.

[@snuffpappy]

I'm going thru a "paradox of quality" now. :) I have Martin Logans which are amazing especially with great recordings - a bit too revealing with lesser recordings. I also recently got a used set of Paradigms for $80 and a pair of Energy CF-30's for $150 / pair and I have to admit that overall I have more FUN with the Paradigms and Energys. They are both revealing with nice sound signatures, but not so revealing as to make me wish recordings were done better. I find myself getting more into the songs and the "music" than the "reproduction of the music" which makes it more of an enjoyment session than a sonic analysis session. I do wonder if the sound signatures of mid-fi products is deeply rooted in our memory and therefore we tend to find more comfort and familiarity with sound that is very good but not so revealing as to expose faults in recordings we once thought were great. Can anyone relate? Should we start a sonic support group? :)

[@mattgiunt]

This holds true for home theater. My Polk LSIM 706 is a huge center channel speaker and with Blu Ray and 4 K movies the dialogue is fantastic. Poorly mixed dvd films result in harsh or muffled dialogue. Center channels can also be too revealing with poor material.

[@brunorivademar5356]

Ever considered investing in double glass windows Steve? I myself will be spending on acoustic courtains. If I can lower the ambient noise by 5db i'll be a happy man. Not much of a problem right now since we are still on lockdown but once we get back to normal i'm gonna miss the silence lol.

[@johnsimmons5056]

Hmmm, this video comes shortly after your Terminator Plus review....coincidence ?

[@joybrucebruce3377]

I want Kodachrome sound with Kodachrome transparency. Put some Paul Simon on it!

[@HareDeLune]

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away!

[@67spankadelik]

If the guy with the 1.7 I's switch to a tube preamplifier he will be happy. I have those speakers and that's exactly what I did. I'm very pleased to say the least. .

[@opticaldjcartridge]

I recently bought a pair of Kef Q750 they are so detailed im using them as studio monitors is that a good idea??

[@ianjohnhorwood2605]

None of the kefs are as revealing as as my older late last edition monitor audio gold reference GR20 loudspeakers, ( and I do not mean the gs20 either ), the GR20's are capable of a higher order of resolution, transparency, and detail, balanced sound reproduction, of 30hz - 30khz at - 6 decibels each end of the frequency range, and they should be used with quality high calibre equipment, and they should be biamped or monoblocked. The late last edition monitor audio gold reference GR20 could be used as a true studio monitor, but not so the kef Q750 as they are not at a high enough quality standard of reproduction.

[@opticaldjcartridge]

@@ianjohnhorwood2605 thanks for the info - I am so impressed by the kef 750 it will be years before I replace them. I really like the clear and wide stereo image it's really great. I have not heard the Monitor Audio so I can't comment on them, but i will listen to them when I replace these in a few years.

[@bc527c]

I have found something of an inverse relationship between musicality and transparency while climbing the audio $/quality ladder. You really have to sort out every little thing and have the right kit and have an acoustically sorted/acceptable room to have it all. The most musical sound system I have just might be my JBL Flip 4....

[@anonymerzyniker9183]

bvocal that last sentence, big time oof.

[@bc527c]

@@anonymerzyniker9183 Not sure what your meaning is... but for context/perspective, my main/big rig is the most musical big stereo rig I've ever heard, and as revealing as any... my comment is to highlight the notion of what is musical... it's not technical perfection that does it... it's getting that mysterious 'thing' right... Capturing the Gestalt of the music's hook, melody and rhythm in a way that just leaves the feeling and need to dance... I reckon this is just my opinion...

[@vinyl1Earthlink]

This is one of the reasons why original pressings of great records are so expensive. If you have an ultra-transparent system, having spent $500K, you'll go after original Blue Notes and EMI SAX classical. At the highest levels, you need a different system for each record. That could get expensive.

[@supes323]

Ah!! ...Just remembered. Must buy Cucumbers

[@stephenwilson7025]

Steve, you are correct and I think I’m experiencing the same. I have the Martin Logan CLX Art with Sonic Frontiers Power 3s and Line 3 along with a Thorens TD 125 MK II with a SME M2-9-R & Ortofon 2M Bronze and other digital Sonic Frontiers gear. I’m not sure I matched my system well, it does sound beautiful and at times recordings do not. I give you an example, I just recently purchased a MoFi copy of Marvin Gaye Let’s get it On, and to me, it didn’t sound good on my system at all. And to be honest, I’m now looking at my ARC PH3SE as having too much gain for the 2M Bronze.

[@anoxicfiltrationplenums]

Nice sound, like you get from a Wurlitzer jukebox . Nothing sound real but nothing sounds bad either. But is that the sound and audio file really wants?

[@a0r0a7]

It is a shame the bad recordings in my collection just don't get played. It amazes me the difference in production quality across all genres of music. Good advice on having a slightly more warm, tonal less revealing speaker does help no doubt.

[@Dude5405]

Hey Steve! Just so you know, I love your shows and I follow you on Twitter. I don’t know if you read this message or not, but I have a great idea for some of your commentary. I am an older audiophile like you. I have a CD that will put out test tones at different frequencies. My hearing range stands somewhere around 14 kHz. My question to you is, what is the relevance of upgrading at this point, when you may not hear the difference? It’s a good conversation also about diminishing returns. I don’t think I ever heard anyone speak on this. FYI, I also have the Klipsch Cornwall Speakers. However I added the Crites crossover, and titanium replacement for the Twitter because I have the older series Cornwall II. They are the last speaker I will ever buy. And I have on some of the most popular, including JBL L100. One of my favorites. So we do have that in common! Best of luck to you buddy, Keep doing what you’re doing. Ray Crowe Lakeland Florida

[@Frankinsteinguitar]

Very few stereo systems sound like a live concert; I loved my EV Pi15-3s with my Phase Linear 400 and correlator. It had the volume and raw edge that concerts have. Just sayin'.

[@Vintaronica]

This is quite true. I purchased some kef 104/2 Raymond Cooke specials. The guy I bought them from demo'd them but his setup was far too bright, far too revealing, and would only play plinky plonky audiophile nonsense. I got them home, set them up with a much warmer setup, Technics SU-v 505 and also a Yamaha AX-492 that can be switched over with my sepaker selectlor. Both are warm sounding, the Technics has more pace than the Yamaha, and tends to react quicker to more dynamicly complex music, whilst the Yamaha sort of looses pace with complex music, especally at higher power levels, but is much more revaling than the Technics when it comes to music that is sonicly singular and slower paced. Both sound great, both do the job, and both have thier own charcater, which is actually what I enjoy the most, the diffeences between the diferent setups. its fun.

[@ARGBlackCloud]

Hey Steve , have you checked out Dennis Foley of Acoustic Fields, I really believe that a lot of issue with rooms and audio systems can be solved with room correction . Acoustic Fields and Dennis are legendary in the design of many studio's.

[@zaoria123]

I learned from a respected sound engineer that the more transparent a system is, the more it closely reveals exactly what is on the source. I want to hear, as closely as possible, what is on the source. I don't want my system coloring the sound.

[@vncstudio]

So much transparency till the audiophile becomes even more unhappy with their system...

[@robertthurston6858]

Hi Steve, are going to go have listen to the Apogee Full Range Speakers @ SkyFi Audio ? And then tell us what you think. It would be the first review in history that I know of them. Sure they don't make them anymore but what the heck. I live in Vancouver, Canada so they're a little to far out of my way. They're pretty exotic stuff and I think a lot audiophiles would be interested. Thanks, Robert.