J
I think you'll find there are degrees of tranalucency inbetween: transparency and opacity are just the extremes.JMacMan said:I know it's semantics...lol... but if it isn't 100% transparent, isn't that opaque instead?
Indeed.jcbrum said:Transparent is not the same thing as translucent.
I fear not.jcbrum said:Something may be both translucent and opaque
I thought we were discussing semantics now.jcbrum said:I don't think translucency has anything to do with HiFi
Opaque: Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent.jcbrum said:Transparent is not the same thing as translucent.
Something may be both translucent and opaque, according to the degree of those qualities, but transparency excludes both.
JC
Chebby, that is an absolutley sublime post. Thank you.chebby said:'Transparent' is just another failed word in the lexicon of attempts to describe what is fundamentally indescribable. (Like 'natural', 'neutral', 'organic', 'warm', etc.)
It's a sense like sight and smell. Describe differences between greens on a colour chart and the variety of greens of springtime that you experience during a walk in the woods. Describe the colour of an old oak table in bright sunlight. The wood contains too many shades/hues and has too many reflected colours to just call it 'brown'. Describe the smell of leather without reference to leather. On top of this there all the personal associations and memories that forests, leather, old furniture etc. will have for you (just you) that cannot be conveyed adequately to another. Even artists and poets can only hope to try and communicate their impressions in any meaningful way. (They can't do yours. Although good ones can evoke or 'trigger' your own feelings and memories, they can't actually know that that will happen or put words to them.)
It's the same with hi-fi replaying recorded music. Someone who has heard a lot of their music collection live at concerts will have different impressions and memories and personal experiences than someone who has only ever heard music from stereos, radios, TVs etc. Their requirements of a system will differ. One experience is no more 'valid' than the other. We can't judge what the music from those people's systems will evoke in them. The concert goer is not more 'qualified' to choose a system for the other person or vice versa. However, they will have fundamentally differing musical 'triggers' when it comes to selecting a system they like. (As would someone who is actually a musician.)
Measurement merely goes as far as to tell you how well the component measures against tests accepted by the industry to demonstrate some degree of technical 'competence' and/or fitness for purpose, electrical safety and so on.
For every system described by it's owner as 'transparent' (or 'natural', 'organic', 'musical', 'smooth', 'fast' or whatever) there will be another person who finds it the opposite. (And I guarantee that will include any system whether active or not and whether costing £45 or £45,000.)
Back in the radiogram days people would say 'it has a nice tone' and would buy it, if it was the right price and suited their other furniture.
'It has a nice tone' says just as much to me as 'transparent'. (Ok it says more to me because I grew up in that era and know what it meant and how highly 'a nice tone' was valued.)
I'm rambling so thats it. Stopped now.
Ah right – so you can degrees of one absolute, but not degrees of its opposite. Glad we optimised the pellucidity of that one... 8)jcbrum said:There are degrees of opacity, just as there are degrees of translucency.
If something trasmits 50% of incident light, it is 50% opaque, and translucent.
In the context of the OP, and thread title, 'Audibly transparent' means changes caused to the sound are undetectable by human hearing.
So, 'transparent' must be a 100% condition, in that context.
Personally, I'm wary of quoting definitions like this from dictionaries. Dictionaries follow general usage which often changes over time and, of course, words often have many subtly different meanings.Covenanter said:In relation to sound there is a clear definition:
"Of sound: clear, not blurred; without tonal distortion. " Shorter Oxford Enlsih Dictionary
Chris
Are you trying to write in clear english, Andrew ?Andrew Everard said:Ah right – so you can degrees of one absolute, but not degrees of its opposite. Glad we optimised the pellucidity of that one... 8)jcbrum said:There are degrees of opacity, just as there are degrees of translucency.
If something trasmits 50% of incident light, it is 50% opaque, and translucent.
In the context of the OP, and thread title, 'Audibly transparent' means changes caused to the sound are undetectable by human hearing.
So, 'transparent' must be a 100% condition, in that context.
No, not trying at all.jcbrum said:Are you trying to write in clear english, Andrew ?
Hmmm, then you're probably being successful at not trying to write in clear english.Andrew Everard said:No, not trying at all.jcbrum said:Are you trying to write in clear english, Andrew ?
Yes but unless we have a common understanding of what a word means then using that word is pointless.Phileas said:Personally, I'm wary of quoting definitions like this from dictionaries. Dictionaries follow general usage which often changes over time and, of course, words often have many subtly different meanings.Covenanter said:In relation to sound there is a clear definition:
"Of sound: clear, not blurred; without tonal distortion. " Shorter Oxford Enlsih Dictionary
Chris
I would say that transparent, in the context of this discussion, is very slightly different to that definition.
Like this oneCovenanter said:Yes but unless we have a common understanding of what a word means then using that word is pointless.Phileas said:Personally, I'm wary of quoting definitions like this from dictionaries. Dictionaries follow general usage which often changes over time and, of course, words often have many subtly different meanings.Covenanter said:In relation to sound there is a clear definition:
"Of sound: clear, not blurred; without tonal distortion. " Shorter Oxford Enlsih Dictionary
Chris
I would say that transparent, in the context of this discussion, is very slightly different to that definition.
Perhaps WhatHiFi could publish a short glossary of the terms that they use in reviews so that we can have a common understanding!
Chris
Definition of more Transparent is less Fogg, Phileas!Phileas said:Actually, I think the definition in the context of the OP is quite, well, transparent.
And so around and around we go... :rofl:CnoEvil said:Definition of more Transparent is less Fogg, Phileas!Phileas said:Actually, I think the definition in the context of the OP is quite, well, transparent.![]()
.......I take it that you mean, "around the world we go", but it seems to take a lot less than the usual 80 days. :twisted:Singslinger said:And so around and around we go... :rofl:CnoEvil said:Definition of more Transparent is less Fogg, Phileas!Phileas said:Actually, I think the definition in the context of the OP is quite, well, transparent.![]()
CnoEvil said:.......I take it that you mean, "around the world we go", but it seems to take a lot less than the usual 80 days. :twisted:Singslinger said:And so around and around we go... :rofl:CnoEvil said:Definition of more Transparent is less Fogg, Phileas!Phileas said:Actually, I think the definition in the context of the OP is quite, well, transparent.![]()