WHF review , lack of transparency? Aye

[moon]

Where has the transparency gone :quest:

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.
[/b]

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?

 

[CnoEvil]

Transparency........my aye!! :shifty:

 

[moon]

I am genuinely interested to find out

 

[cstanwhf]

The Rotel that beats it has more transparency which raises the bar?

 

[Covenanter]

The real trouble is that the term is meaningless (as is "timing").

Chris

 

[CnoEvil]

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.

 

[moon]

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?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

What is this transparency anyway? Timing - isn't that something endemic (hopefully) to the music and not the hifi?

 

[steve_1979]

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.

 

[Andy Clough]

I have asked for clarification from the Tech Ed.

 

[Covenanter]

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

 

[Andrew Everard]

how can transparency be FOR in one review and in the AGAINST on reviews of the same product?

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.

 

[Paul.]

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

 

[6th.replicant]

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

 

[moon]

how can transparency be FOR in one review and in the AGAINST on reviews of the same product?

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.

http://www.whathifi.com/awards/2011/stereo-amplifiers

 

[Ketan Bharadia]

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.

 

[MeanandGreen]

how can transparency be FOR in one review and in the AGAINST on reviews of the same product?

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.

Something I've always found interesting with What Hi-Fi reviews this, "the competition has raised the bar".

I wonder if products are actually revied and rated for how good they (actually are), or how well they compare with the competition. I mean there are always 5 star products in every category you can think of. Does that mean those products really are fantastic, or that they are the best from a selection at that price?

Hi-Fi technology doesn't change very rapidly, a £500 amp now will sound very much like a £500 amp 10 years ago. Yet we hear of raising the bar when newer models come out?

 

[MeanandGreen]

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 would interpret this as clarity of the sound.

Like others have said though if it sounds clear in one review it should in another, unless they don't rate products on their own true merits as mentioned in my previous post.

 

[MajorFubar]

Hi-Fi technology doesn't change very rapidly, a £500 amp now will sound very much like a £500 amp 10 years ago. Yet we hear of raising the bar when newer models come out?

Does that include inflation, or is the assumption that the SQ really has improved so much that it's inflation-beating (rhetorical question). My PM66KI was £500 in the late 90s, and the Cyrus 2+PSX I've boxed ready to sell were also £500+ several years earlier. How much would you spend to equal them now...

 

[Andrew Everard]

Hi-Fi technology doesn't change very rapidly, a £500 amp now will sound very much like a £500 amp 10 years ago. Yet we hear of raising the bar when newer models come out?

Does that include inflation, or is the assumption that the SQ really has improved so much that it's inflation-beating (rhetorical question). My PM66KI was £500 in the late 90s, and the Cyrus 2+PSX I've boxed ready to sell were also £500+ several years earlier. How much would you spend to equal them now...

Well, inflation calculators (at least for the UK) suggest that £500 in the mid-90s would be the equivalent of about £750 now.

 

[MeanandGreen]

Hi-Fi technology doesn't change very rapidly, a £500 amp now will sound very much like a £500 amp 10 years ago. Yet we hear of raising the bar when newer models come out?

Does that include inflation, or is the assumption that the SQ really has improved so much that it's inflation-beating (rhetorical question). My PM66KI was £500 in the late 90s, and the Cyrus 2+PSX I've boxed ready to sell were also £500+ several years earlier. How much would you spend to equal them now...

I'd look at the same price range now. A budget component 10 years ago was sub £250, that is still true today. The price sectors haven't changed.

I had a £300 NAD C350 amplifier from 12 or 13 years ago owned it since new. It has stopped working so I replaced it with a NAD C326BEE from today's range at £300. Is the new amp significantly better than the old one? No it isn't and it still slots into the same place in NAD's range that my C350 did 12 years ago.

 

[Overdose]

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'd use the term 'transparency' in the context of lack of unwanted audible artifacts in the music, so as an example distortion in speakers and jitter effects from digital components, the window analogy if you will, with no obscurities.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I'd look at the same price range now. A budget component 10 years ago was sub £250, that is still true today. The price sectors haven't changed

Indeed: the hi-fi and AV sectors don't seem to do inflation.

 

[Overdose]

Hi-Fi technology doesn't change very rapidly, a £500 amp now will sound very much like a £500 amp 10 years ago. Yet we hear of raising the bar when newer models come out?

These glib statements of improvements are made every time a new product comes out. It's called marketing and applies to practically every consumer product out there.

Sometimes advancements are actually made in real terms, as opposed to aesthetics or a change for changes sake, but usually any improvements are rather small, so it pays to buy a previous model when a new one is announced, to get the best VFM.

 

[CnoEvil]

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

IMO. Transparancy or clarity is what you get when when anything that reduces it (transparecy) is removed ie. All types of distortion, artifacts / noise introduced by elements like poor power, jitter etc etc....Nb. the effect of a room can undo transparancy.

IMO. Well designed streamers are often more transparent than CDPs (at the same price point); some NOS Dacs (eg Audio Note) achieve it; well designed SS Class A amps can be more transparent due to the elimination of Crossover distortion; the new breed of Class D amps are looking very promising on the transparency front (Nad, Primare, Bel Canto, Devialet); certain AB amps, like Bryston.

On the speaker end, you could be looking at the Reference type monitor, like ATC, Focal, Kef Refs, B&W 800 Diamond series...also you would need to include well designed Actives here as well.

Like most other adjectives to do with describing the way hifi sounds, it's subjective...both by the person describing it and the person reading it. If benchmarks are used by the reviewer, it helps put the remarks in context and makes comparison easier.

I seem to be waffling a bit - sorry.