It's not absolute, but it is overwhelmingly likely.

Of course I could throw that same thing back at you.  How do you know that the "information" you think you're hearing is actually on the recording and not something added by whatever equipment you like?  Adding small amounts of certain kinds of distortion is frequently interpreted as adding more 'detail'.  That's how those 'exciter' and 'enhancer' devices work and they were pretty damn popular in professional recording studios back in the 70's before the loudness war ruined mixes.

I don't know, I believe I'm overwhelmingly, likely correct based on my knowledge and experience same as you don't know either but beleive.  Neither positions are poorly reasoned unless you apply a particular metric which would be better satisfied by one position over the other. 

If you can show me a paper or research showing how adding distortion increases perceived or actual detail and separation from a pluck of a double bass, strings on a Cello, smacking and parsing of lips, the sensation of air originating from the throat and not lips to the natural decay and ringing of a cymbal let me know.  I'm not talking about fake detail either that results from attenuating one side of the FR balance like say a Shure 1840/1440 does by cancelling out 1/3rd of the spectrum to better hear the rest.  I'm talking from 20 to 20. 

Btw, this potentially 'added' or 'perceived' detail belongs to a lot of equipment I never intended on liking or buying.  I bought the Leckerton UHA4 and 6 specifically to debunk them as Head-fi hype I perceived on my part.    They simply ended up doing better than anything I owned and I had no excuses left for not keeping the 6.  I hated ALO gear till purrin forced me to try the RX3 and was blown away by it.  I was intent on liking/buying the LCD2 and never even trying the HD800 as I was in my anti Sennheiser place at the time.  Did a flip flop on that one.  I wanted to like the Leben, Decware, Isabellina, etc, etc.  Heard them all and crossed them all off my list.  I wanted to like the O2 so I could do a firesale and make my money back but stuff in my music just disappeared.

To better answer your question I guess I could offer this experience/analysis.  I can hear the transparency of the ODAC using my less better measuring amps better than using the O2.  The O2 definitely gets in the ODACs way pretty obviously.  It's not unlike listening to a speaker w/ the grills on versus off.  It becomes pretty obvious when you hear things just get out of the way and know what to listen for.  I have a few theories about why the O2 sounds the way it does and where to look for fixes as I'm sure others probably know as well.  At least it's not a Leben and performs well for the price.   

What else would you mean by transparency for an amp or DAC if not faithfulness to the input signal?

The paranormal parameter. The Truth Is Out There.

When something like the O2 that measures better than my tube gear yet hides information on the recording I know I have more that needs to be investigated. 

Or it's perhaps the contrary, it's your tube gear that reveals details more than it should.
I  don't know if you've heard the difference between the single "let it be" original,
and the one from "let it be naked". The "Wall of Sound" technique  gives a feeling of a more rich and deeper experience. I'm tempted to think that's what tube are doing to a much lesser extent.
To the  predictable objection that we can't reveal what's not there, I'd say it's same with the processing of photo, there's lot of processing technique to reveal hidden details (such like basic sharpening).

Quote from: maverickronin on October 02, 2012, 06:45:05 PM

What else would you mean by transparency for an amp or DAC if not faithfulness to the input signal?

The paranormal parameter. The Truth Is Out There.

Watch the snide attitude.  You don't have to participate if you don't want to.  If you want to turn this into the Head-fi sound science forum I'll just shut you down.  I could give a fuck if your feelings get butthurt either.