PREAMPs: Neutral/Transparent vs. Colored/Character

[GregWormald]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

If only that were true...unfortunately current measurements are next to useless in determining whether or not a pre amp is revealing the nuances in a recording.

 

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Are you positing that a preamp with measurably high noise and/or high distortion is capable of transparency?

 

I remember having the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" explained to me. Good measurements are necessary to provide transparency even if they are not sufficient.

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Are you positing that a preamp with measurably high noise and/or high distortion is capable of transparency?

Sure it could be more revealing than measurably lower noise pre amp and therefore more transparent. 

[fas42]

One preamp could be subjectively more revealing than another with better measurements ... because the numbers obtained through the normal means are not giving weight to what matters to the listening brain ... .

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Sure it could be more revealing than measurably lower noise pre amp and therefore more transparent. 

To give an example, I use this track to determine whether a pre amp is delivering the full emotion of the performance. If the opening piano doesn't bring a tear to my eye, somethings wrong. (Note I use analogue versions)

[Summit]

On 11/12/2021 at 2:35 PM, ArcticSapien said:

Hi, I am interested to know why audiophiles here may prefer:

* Neutral/Transparent preamps (eg Holo Audio Serene or PS Audio's BHK Signature),

vs.

* Colored/Character preamps (eg the likes of ARC, McIntosh or Naim).

 

(1) I appreciate that there will be different preferences. I don't think there's a "right vs. wrong" choice but am keen to know the reasons for your preference... this helps me to decide on my own path! Thanks.

Here's a story. A sound engineer I know often expressed his bewilderment on why HiFi folks don't value accuracy as much as them. But of course, it's a different kind of listening. Sound engineers try to reproduce exactly what they hear... voices & instruments. Perhaps they miss out on the "fun" factor. Nonetheless, I thought they may have a point about neutral reproductions.

 

Did I just trigger an Accurate vs. Musical debate? Didn't mean to. Just wanted to hear your reasons for your preference.

 

(2) Is there a magic formula to match or synergise components? Eg do you stick with transparent components all the way (DAC + preamp + amps)? Or mix-and-match along the way to "balance" them out?

 

 

(My own view of preferences is guided by Daniel Kahneman's work on psychological perceptions. To have a taste of this, check out this short BBC clip about the McGurk Effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 ... or recall the Yanny vs. Laurel debate. In short, YMMV. But your reasons are important for me to learn.)

 

1. Sure most audiophiles says that they value accuracy above all, but do they really? I don't think so and how can they if the rest of their audio gear, recording and room has it's own sound. 

 

2. There is no magic formula to match synergies between components and the only way to know which match good is to try them in the room and system. 

 

3. I value all audio aspects and can't chose one over all others so I would look for a preamp with as few audible flaws as possible. 

[ArcticSapien]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

This is a good indicator that one is looking for something that is not truly accurate

Good warning and cold shower here! This hobby has a way of creating itches that demands heavy scratching... at your peril. Ahhh, those tube preamps are like those irresistibly sweet singing sirens...

 

21 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes but now that science has defined the receptor mechanisms and their distribution, the measurements can be properly directed.

And keep up the good work at Stereophile! We're all depending on your controlled testing... together with the wisdom of the crowds.

 

9 hours ago, GregWormald said:

When I was trying to decide whether to buy the restrained silver or black, or the more 'stand-out' two-tone

Thanks for listing your criteria. I just saw this two-tone... gorgeous when stacked up. See from 3'28". Do you use the Moon 820s as your 740P power source?

 

 

[MarkusBarkus]

@SummitI agree with the main points of your post above. I would add that, although there is no "magic formula" for pre-determining synergies, one helpful approach that I think is reliable, is to combine components by the same manufacturer, as possible. 
 

That does nothing to help in regards to the room, of course. And not every company offers the individual components one might like.

 

The approach is not fool-proof, but can get a core "unity" I have found. Of course, then you get into debates about "house sound" and all that jazz. 
 

Another approach I have used is to consider the pairings made and seen in the various show reports. I have also contacted manufacturers to ask about specific pairings. 
 

It's understandable, one must still be sensible in evaluating these pairings and responses, but it does provide additional data for a starting point or upgrade path. 
 

Those approaches have worked well for me. So there's one more data point for consideration. Cheers...

[ArcticSapien]

21 minutes ago, Summit said:

3. I value all audio aspects and can't chose one over all others so I would look for a preamp with as few audible flaws as possible. 

Do no harm (your point) vs. Seeking Perfection vs. Spice them up.

As others noted, one problem with Spicing them up may be Sustainability... or rather Unsustainable listening. 

So, we all shall remember Homer and Hippocrates.

[Kal Rubinson]

11 hours ago, GregWormald said:

I remember having the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" explained to me. Good measurements are necessary to provide transparency even if they are not sufficient.

That was exactly my point.  As many others have pointed out (in support or denial of its significance), the achievement of measurably low noise and low distortion is common.    

 

11 hours ago, Rexp said:

Sure it could be more revealing than measurably lower noise pre amp and therefore more transparent. 

 

Yes, Sure it could be because there are so many variables ( for example:  how much lower is lower) but would you correlate higher noise with greater transparency?   Tell me how increased noise and/or distortion is compatible with transparency?  (I am not interested in arguing about subjective preference; that is something else.)

 

 

[audiobomber]

Neutral/Transparent for me, which is what I get from my exaSound DAC/preamp.

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

Yes, Sure it could be because there are so many variables ( for example:  how much lower is lower) but would you correlate higher noise with greater transparency?   Tell me how increased noise and/or distortion is compatible with transparency?  (I am not interested in arguing about subjective preference; that is something else.)

 

 

In the absence of useful measurements, subjectivity is all that matters.

[Kal Rubinson]

36 minutes ago, Rexp said:

In the absence of useful measurements, subjectivity is all that matters.

There are useful measurements even if they are only informative.  Subjectivity is personal and, as I said, I am not interested in arguing about subjective preference. 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

Yes, Sure it could be because there are so many variables ( for example:  how much lower is lower) but would you correlate higher noise with greater transparency?   Tell me how increased noise and/or distortion is compatible with transparency?  (I am not interested in arguing about subjective preference; that is something else.)

 

 

 

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'. Now, transfer that specific noise spectrum to the playback gear behaviour; and then listen to a pristine recording ... is it, no longer so transparent?

[GregWormald]

I'm with Kal here (again).

 

Just because there don't appear to be measurements that completely describe what we can and are hearing isn't the same as saying that NONE of the measurements we do get are useful. I know from 60 years of experience that I appreciate low harmonic and IM distortion and minuscule levels of noise.

[GregWormald]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'. Now, transfer that specific noise spectrum to the playback gear behaviour; and then listen to a pristine recording ... is it, no longer so transparent?

It appears to me that you are using "transparent" in a different way than I am. 

[GregWormald]

13 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Do you use the Moon 820s as your 740P power source?

No , the built-in power source—it's already pretty special.

 

If I had wanted to go that path I would also have looked at the Pass xp30 and the MOON 850P, but the cost per increase in quality was just too much for me to swallow at the time. Maybe if I'd had more wine before deciding, but I listen sober so ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, GregWormald said:

It appears to me that you are using "transparent" in a different way than I am. 

 

Fully transparent to me means I hear absolutely nothing that gives the game away that I'm listening to playback - the illusion is complete, and rock solid, irrespective of the recording ... it's a pane of glass that I am completely unable to detect; not one speck of dust, scratch, or optical aberration which allows me to focus on the presence of some glass between me and the event ....

[GregWormald]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Fully transparent to me means I hear absolutely nothing that gives the game away that I'm listening to playback - the illusion is complete, and rock solid, irrespective of the recording ... it's a pane of glass that I am completely unable to detect; not one speck of dust, scratch, or optical aberration which allows me to focus on the presence of some glass between me and the event ....

To me that would imply that transparent doesn't exist in audio. After the performance has travelled through microphones, wires, mixing boards (including engineers' modifications of the signal), and then through playback equipment it certainly wouldn't be indistinguishable from the original event.

 

Back to your question then:

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'. Now, transfer that specific noise spectrum to the playback gear behaviour; and then listen to a pristine recording ... is it, no longer so transparent?

The old recording is definitely NOT transparent, so the rest of the question doesn't make sense.

 

I have some of my father's records from the late 1930s and my own from the late 1950s until today and while I can admire parts of the older recordings—primarily the music and the performers' skills—none would meet your definition of transparent.

 

IMO in terms of playback equipment the most transparency we can hope for is transparency to the recording at hand.

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'.

It's not transparent.  It is simply good enough to enjoy for what it is.

[Summit]

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-t-u 

[Summit]

The biggest problem with measurements IMO is:

1) the conditions has to be exactly the same for them to be of any use, and they seldom is

2) most audiophiles don't know how to interpret measurements very well

3) just like with statistics you can mislead and make something look better or worse than it is

4) the measurements that really would says something meaningful is often missing

5) focus is often on marketing aspects  

6) there is often no established correlation to better SQ for many measurements of electronics

[Summit]

On 11/15/2021 at 2:34 PM, MarkusBarkus said:

@SummitI agree with the main points of your post above. I would add that, although there is no "magic formula" for pre-determining synergies, one helpful approach that I think is reliable, is to combine components by the same manufacturer, as possible. 
 

That does nothing to help in regards to the room, of course. And not every company offers the individual components one might like.

 

The approach is not fool-proof, but can get a core "unity" I have found. Of course, then you get into debates about "house sound" and all that jazz. 
 

Another approach I have used is to consider the pairings made and seen in the various show reports. I have also contacted manufacturers to ask about specific pairings. 
 

It's understandable, one must still be sensible in evaluating these pairings and responses, but it does provide additional data for a starting point or upgrade path. 
 

Those approaches have worked well for me. So there's one more data point for consideration. Cheers...

 

All approaches that work are good, and what works well for me may not work for you and vice versa.

 

With that said, preference is probably both the most important factor and the most difficult to interpret if you read reviews.

[davide256]

11 hours ago, GregWormald said:

To me that would imply that transparent doesn't exist in audio. After the performance has travelled through microphones, wires, mixing boards (including engineers' modifications of the signal), and then through playback equipment it certainly wouldn't be indistinguishable from the original event.

 

Back to your question then:

The old recording is definitely NOT transparent, so the rest of the question doesn't make sense.

 

I have some of my father's records from the late 1930s and my own from the late 1950s until today and while I can admire parts of the older recordings—primarily the music and the performers' skills—none would meet your definition of transparent.

 

IMO in terms of playback equipment the most transparency we can hope for is transparency to the recording at hand.

Agree. Like the old Mercury LP’s of the 50’s but that wooly bass can distract. Transparency is of less value than being engaging, it’s the sizzle, not the steak. If the dynamics and tone colors aren’t solid, transparency becomes an irritant. When they are solid it’s easier to deal with other short comings

[Kal Rubinson]

55 minutes ago, Summit said:

The biggest problem with measurements IMO is:

1) the conditions has to be exactly the same for them to be of any use, and they seldom is

If they are not exactly the same, then they do not qualify as more than inference.

57 minutes ago, Summit said:

2) most audiophiles don't know how to interpret measurements very well

That is unfortunate, for them, so they have to rely on the explanations of those who do.

58 minutes ago, Summit said:

3) just like with statistics you can mislead and make something look better or worse than it is

59 minutes ago, Summit said:

4) the measurements that really would says something meaningful is often missing

Such offerings do not qualify as valid and are not worthy of consideration.

1 hour ago, Summit said:

5) focus is often on marketing aspects  

They are either valid measurements or not.  If the focus is not relevant, they are just not useful.

 

1 hour ago, Summit said:

6) there is often no established correlation to better SQ for many measurements of electronics

True for some but not for all.  

Arguing against the acceptance and use of valid measurements is to ignore factual information.    

[fas42]

15 hours ago, GregWormald said:

To me that would imply that transparent doesn't exist in audio. After the performance has travelled through microphones, wires, mixing boards (including engineers' modifications of the signal), and then through playback equipment it certainly wouldn't be indistinguishable from the original event.

 

There is no such thing as, The Event ... even in the presence of purely live, intimate music, exactly where you are in the room changes the sound, how noisy the people around you were impacts, if your ears were somewhat blocked for some reason it would sound different, etc. Then you move on to recordings which are highly manipulated; with parts of a track recorded at different times, in different places; and finally there are recordings which never existed as something picked up microphones, such as purely synthesizer compositions, etc. The event you can experience is the capture of music after whatever processes brought it to you - that's the transparency that matters.

 

15 hours ago, GregWormald said:

Back to your question then:

The old recording is definitely NOT transparent, so the rest of the question doesn't make sense.

 

I have some of my father's records from the late 1930s and my own from the late 1950s until today and while I can admire parts of the older recordings—primarily the music and the performers' skills—none would meet your definition of transparent.

 

What you do get with those recordings is a connection to the music making - IME, listening to such tracks on a competent setup is vastly superior as a subjective experience as compared to nearly all shows, etc, right to current times which are put through sound reinforcement rigs - the latter are very far from being transparent in aspects that matter to me, and that depresses me ...

 

Interestingly, I was playing a CD of hits from the 30s and 40s yesterday, and we were both bouncing along to the sense of the energy of the musicians - that's a very big part of transparency, .

 

15 hours ago, GregWormald said:

 

IMO in terms of playback equipment the most transparency we can hope for is transparency to the recording at hand.

 

Exactly.