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.

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

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

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.

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. 😜

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

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.

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.

Just have more than one system.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)

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.

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.

Too often, too transparent is intermixed with too bright.

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.

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

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.

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.

Amazing. Thanks Steve!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Me: I thought the producer had high paid audio geniuses sitting at control panels with 100 levers and switches listening for hours and creating exactly the sound they wanted before it was released....Audiophile: But some recordings don’t SOUND right. Me: I thought a transparent system eliminated equipment altering the version the producer wanted me to hear. Audiophile: Sometimes you want to the sound less bright or warmer. Me: I used to use tone and loudness controls before you guys eliminated them. Audiophile: We prefer to adjust the sound to our liking by power cables, conditioners, interconnects, certain DACs, digital room correction, special amps, tubes, specific speakers and lots of stuff you wouldn’t understand. Me: ok, thanks.

@ 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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Love the music and everything will fall beautifully in place

Thank you for this Master Class

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.

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 😝

Headphones are a affordable solution to maximising different stuff.

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.

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

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..

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!

Technically there is no way a system can be “too transparent” .... as you can not remove color, harmonic or saturation... yes you can add all of the above... now if you don’t like a clean system... that is another situation... and a preference

I agree forget transparency, go for the color or spice. Transparency has become boring.

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

The ideal goal should be accuracy to the recording. If that’s what transparency means, so be it. I miss the days of the popularity of equalizers. That should be the mechanism for changing the sound to what you “prefer”. Not an inaccurate speaker system.

It’s amazing how even astute audiophiles really don’t understand the recording, studio & “playback” processes: how sound travels in the real world, different concert venues, recording goals, studios, etc, etc. .The bottom line: with a better understanding, it can save one a whole lot of money.

If ''transparency'' means layers of the scene = ''depth'' , then YES, because after a certain boundary, the sound becomes artificial or manipulated. However, if "transparency" has the orginal audio-technical meaning, and that is that the devices are completely neutral, then NO, because there hasn't been made device without some level of influence on sound and that reproduces sound absolutely true yet, as well as recorded music.

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. .

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I think it comes down to what the artist's want it to sound like. Would a digital picture of Mona Lisa be better then the painting of The Mona Lisa? The digital would be more reveling but the painting is whole different level. I think most "revealing" systems just show how bad most recordings are.

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!

I have a theory about the popularity of really crispy, bright sounding, super transparent articulate "airy" sounding metal tweeters are are ultra revealing in the highs. I think like tubes they add this sort of mild level of always there distortion that some people just find pleasant. I've gone back to fabric because they don't really do that, they are far less revealing but they have a sort of natural distortion free energy to them while sacrificing the "air" which I think most people find to be detail and top end transparency, but I think often it's just pleasant sounding distortion.

"what went down in the studio" to most audiophiles that seems to mean hearing the sound bounce off the milimeter-crack between sound-panels on the back wall, which was obviously 4.3 feet from the backside of the piano. And just as the music was about to start, the bassist dropped a pin, towards the back right, and the drummer breathed through is hay-fever congested nose and someone closed the studio door, as quietly as possible.. yeah, all well and good, but what about measuring that in other parameters, like, say, dynamics rather than transparency?.. or tonal fidelity? the drive from the rhythm section, playing as one? To me, the chasing of "audiophile parameters" (of which transparency is one) is a dead-end. If paired with things like dynamics and tonality, then fine, but for its own sake, no. But we all have different hobby-horses we ride, I guess.. 3:04 well, you've tested and recommended a component which will make all kinds of music sound good; an equaliser..

That room those magnepans are in is a very unfortunate size with bare walls.

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

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".

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? :)

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'.

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.

I'm not an audiophile because I want my speakers to mimic reality. I want them to not get in the way of the art of the recording/production. Audiophiles who chase the non existent holy grails of transparency and resolution are taken to places that never existed in the intention of the original album recording and, all of a sudden, are in despair because their super expensive and shiny hi-fi is inducing listener fatigue...... and the remorse of WTF did I get a second mortgage on those $30k speakers, the $35k amplifiers, $15k cables, $10k re-generator and a DAC that weighs 9 kilograms.... etc. The law of diminishing returns is real and you'd think folks would be smart enough to - oh never mind 😎

Sitting next to most engineers during sessions is the person with most of the power over what the recording is going to sound like. Not the singer, or the lead guitar player, nor the drummer, not the keyboardist, and not the band PR guy. It's the *producer.* He has the money, and determines what the recording is going to sound like, and in what playback environment is his market. That might be a Bose Wave Radio, a Lexus or BMW, or a Ford Fiesta car radio, or most likely, a bored teen with earbuds. It is never some old dudes surrounded with tubes and tweeters. Never, ever, amen. I have a combination of components which are capable of being overly 'revealing.' On good recordings (regardless of age, it seems) they are very adequate to the chore. But on some majority of recordings (pop especially, but classical, piano solo, intimate jazz) they uncover -- even feature -- the recording's skews of tone and timbre. At my wit's exit, I adopted the $150 Schiit Loki. It goes between my preamp and power amp. It is unity gain. It has 4 points of filter adjustment. It provides gain adjustments of +/-12dB at 20 Hz and 8kHz, and +/- 6dB at 400 Hz and 2kHz. As important, it has an 'in/out' switch on the front panel. Perfect solution? Hardly. Solution? Mostly. I can leave it switched out of the circuit for high quality recordings. For harsh recordings (and there are a lot of them), switch the Loki in and adjust it to take out the gritty nastiness. Unlike a "tone control," it doesn't have to filter out the music's detail and higher frequencies just to take the edge off of nastiness. -Just one solution. It might be the better $150 I ever spent on clothes-on adventures.

In my experience systems can never sound too detailed but systems can and do sound wrongly detailed. Thd imd and frequency response are important but critically important is system noise characteristic behaviour which controls system timbre dynamics and resolution. This noise behaviour is what changes according to cables etc and system materials and is what drives 'house sound'. Fortunately the timbrel changes caused by recording and playback equipment can be reversed by application of 'quantum filtering' such as Bybee Purifiers and other devices.

I fully agree with this. I listen to a lot of metal - for this I think the system should be not too revealing, neutral, modest at the high and low and capable of reproducing a lot of noise all at once.

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.

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....

Yep. I have a nice 1953 Brubeck album I can demo that with.

it' s NOT about the speakers. it's about the amplifier imho when it comes to such problems ... you can find lots of 'euphonically coloured' amplification.