From reading some of these definitions, if transparency exists then all other factors exist. If a transparent system allows you to feel like you are listening to the original sounds, then detail, musicality, soundstage and all we hold dear would also be there, no? Transparency is then less than a useful term since it describes everything.
I wonder whether transparency is more like the second part of the stereophile definition -- i.e., it is more of an overlay than the only objective. For example, detail can exist without the sound being tonally correct or neutral across the spectrum. Perhaps transparency can exist even if the soundstage is lousy, detail is not all there or dynamics are bad.
I don't think audiophiles have yet developed terms that are truly "orthogonal" or independent of one another. I'm still struggling with the language but I think that no term stands alone but must stand with a variety of concepts to really be understood. And, almost every term overlaps with others. Right now, I wish audio terms were more transparent ;-)
If detail, tonality, neutrality, great dynamics and soundstage are present, does transparency have to exist? Or could some other factor still make all that sound veiled somehow?
