Good thoughts, but it can't "be" clock jitter per se, since it existed before the advent of digital audio, back in tape and LP days...
...I think it is a pretty common occurrence in most systems, and people tend to "live with it" or "rationalize it".
I have some unsubstantiated conjecture as to what the mechanisms may involve, but it's not clear afaik.
Wondering what the group has to say about the perception of objectionable sibilence in their systems or other systems that they have heard?
Forbidden topic?
Define away.
If you have facts, state them.
Put the whole topic to bed in one shot.
Also, no need to get nasty and make snide remarks...
...we could go back to speculating about carbon on Bybee device jackets or Barkhausen noise - all much more productive and practical topics I expect?
And, this is the SAME topic, even if you don't grasp the connection(s).
I'm sorry, when you want to lob insults at others under a thin veneer of decorum, expect to have some pushback.
Last edited:
Interesting conjecture... so what frequency range?
And from whence cometh this "excess of energy"??
How much "excess of energy" before it is noticeable?
How could it occur in any reasonably well designed DAC, since the frequency response has been measured flat within some silly degree of flatness??
Many even roll off by 20Khz... fwiw.
What's the mechanism?
How would you measure it and predict it?
Go ahead explain, if you will?
And have you ever heard what you would consider "objectionable" sibilance in your own system? Other's systems? Yes? No?
_-_-
avoidance of the topic
That was fairly inane.
The question is not what is sibilance, but what accounts for excess or objectionable sibilance in some high fidelity systems.
Since you read this before, why in the world would you post what you did?
Either you have something to speak to the actual issue, or you do not.
Why not step up and tell the world (here, such as it is) how you would characterize the "sibilence" produced in your system?? Do you like it? Do you wish it sounded more "natural" like a real voice? Do you even think that this is possible in a high fidelity system? Or do you think that all systems pretty much already sound "natural"
Tell us please.
That was fairly inane.
The question is not what is sibilance, but what accounts for excess or objectionable sibilance in some high fidelity systems.
Since you read this before, why in the world would you post what you did?
Either you have something to speak to the actual issue, or you do not.
Why not step up and tell the world (here, such as it is) how you would characterize the "sibilence" produced in your system?? Do you like it? Do you wish it sounded more "natural" like a real voice? Do you even think that this is possible in a high fidelity system? Or do you think that all systems pretty much already sound "natural"
Tell us please.
My system doesn't have any sort of sibilance. Generally pretty balanced. Some recordings seem "hot miked" a bit and get a bit of the sssss and ppppphhhh sounds that are classically defined as sibilance. Happens a lot more live TBH than in recordings.
I'm sorry you take concise for inane. If you have another definition of sibilance that is not standard, then the onus is on you to define it rather than making up hand wavy terms. Or perhaps you should change your little moniker under your name?
I'm sorry you take concise for inane. If you have another definition of sibilance that is not standard, then the onus is on you to define it rather than making up hand wavy terms. Or perhaps you should change your little moniker under your name?
well if you look on any site that deals with mixing they will tell you about sibilance. You can get plugins for many common DAWs that automatically deals with it. In the olden days, when people like Peter Walker used engineering rather than flooby dust to design products there was a mad set of knows that allowed adjustment of frequency response to deal with these problems.
Strangely in the 80s this became unhip
Strangely in the 80s this became unhip
Another thing I didn't list
In these days of wireless everything, consumers seem to be sending a strong message that they do not want to run cables if they don't have to.
Another rather audibly-disturbing effect is excess latency among channels in a wireless link. I'm not sure where it would fit in to the hierarchy I outlined. In a soundbar system I worked on a bit, and before it was compensated by a commensurate delay in the soundbar, in the separate wireless subwoofer it produced an initially-baffling problem that was explained when we got in touch with the link manufacturer. Before that my co-worker imagined that it was simply an EQ problem.
It turned out that we had gotten a beta version of an eight channel system, and it had a huge latency of 50ms. I heard only the co-worker's side of the conversation, but the response from the manufacturer was in essence WHAT in hell are you doing with that?? When I heard the number of fifty (and not fifteen) milliseconds I began to mime beating my head against the wall, as it explained things. I suppose if it had been a hundred ms it might have been obvious, but with my limited experience it was quite difficult to describe before I knew the cause.
In these days of wireless everything, consumers seem to be sending a strong message that they do not want to run cables if they don't have to.
Another rather audibly-disturbing effect is excess latency among channels in a wireless link. I'm not sure where it would fit in to the hierarchy I outlined. In a soundbar system I worked on a bit, and before it was compensated by a commensurate delay in the soundbar, in the separate wireless subwoofer it produced an initially-baffling problem that was explained when we got in touch with the link manufacturer. Before that my co-worker imagined that it was simply an EQ problem.
It turned out that we had gotten a beta version of an eight channel system, and it had a huge latency of 50ms. I heard only the co-worker's side of the conversation, but the response from the manufacturer was in essence WHAT in hell are you doing with that?? When I heard the number of fifty (and not fifteen) milliseconds I began to mime beating my head against the wall, as it explained things. I suppose if it had been a hundred ms it might have been obvious, but with my limited experience it was quite difficult to describe before I knew the cause.
All that percentage stuff is based on DSM IV definitions.
DSM V (as of 3 years ago) has a broader and much more realistic perspective.
(in the end, we'll all be classified)
Derfy,
Not a useful cite. I expect you can do better.
Sibilance can show up on a frequency spectrum as an excess of energy around 6,000 hertz. But trying to equalize it out does not work because it actually is caused by a resonance that allows that energy to hang around longer than it should. Thus more energy apparent to our perception than should be there.
Most of the D'sers are really limiters with the detector looking at the frequencies of interest. They sort of work but it is better to eliminate any added resonances out side of the naturally occurring ones in speech.
It shows up as a spike in a three dimensional plot that shows level frequency and time. Not as rare a measurement as it used to be.
Not a useful cite. I expect you can do better.
Sibilance can show up on a frequency spectrum as an excess of energy around 6,000 hertz. But trying to equalize it out does not work because it actually is caused by a resonance that allows that energy to hang around longer than it should. Thus more energy apparent to our perception than should be there.
Most of the D'sers are really limiters with the detector looking at the frequencies of interest. They sort of work but it is better to eliminate any added resonances out side of the naturally occurring ones in speech.
It shows up as a spike in a three dimensional plot that shows level frequency and time. Not as rare a measurement as it used to be.
Last edited:
A friend and I listened to Goldmund's wireless setup at a show. We noticed they had coaxial links laying on the ground. We asked if we could hear with them. They told us sure, you'll be impressed how it sounds the same. We immediately both agreed it was obviously different but didn't have a preference.
But for TV I can see the point. Delay is not tolerable. When I watch something on my computer I'm super sensitive to delay. Even when it's close, I can tell; and it drives me nuts.
I wouldn't have bet the farm on fast neutrons. Carbon 12 is showing promise as it's release depth is dependent on the energy of the beam. Heidelberg is running one as is Japan. Beam delivery using normal magnets is too large though, a superconducting gantry is more manageable.
Proton therapy is being used more and more, but I've no experience building magnets for proton beams other than polarized.
The tungsten collimators, how do you cool them? The mech heads here are using aluminum nitride to insulate electrically,and cool a glidcop structure about a foot long and 5 inches diameter to pull the heat.
John
Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from over-powerful and overly-sustained "s" and "p" -s. Well, tbh, I'd have expected it a bit lower.
Yes, that's why I commented more on it seems a bigger problem live (worse mics?) and has to be taken care of much more on the mechanical side.
Of course in my case it was simply skew in the audio. The problems of sync with video like HDMI were a struggle for many and for a long time. I'm not doing any of that lately so I don't know how well-resolved things have become---or not.
HDMI is better today, but you need to scrap all your old stuff. . . And you will get 32 channels of 1,536 KHz sample rate audio. Even your cockroaches will be impressed.
Wireless audio for video is challenging at best. 50 mS is really a target for latency (delay) between source and sound. Less only happens with a few proprietary solutions that are sort of a dead end. You can delay the image to match in some systems. Bit of a disaster for gaming.
If video is not a part of the issue you can get microsecond delay and stability between channels wirelessly which opens up lots of potential for no wire stereo. However that might be the death knell for the cable biz, not to mention and amp of the week etc. No place for the myrtle stands.
Wireless audio for video is challenging at best. 50 mS is really a target for latency (delay) between source and sound. Less only happens with a few proprietary solutions that are sort of a dead end. You can delay the image to match in some systems. Bit of a disaster for gaming.
If video is not a part of the issue you can get microsecond delay and stability between channels wirelessly which opens up lots of potential for no wire stereo. However that might be the death knell for the cable biz, not to mention and amp of the week etc. No place for the myrtle stands.
Output |= Input. Sibilance is gross distortion I postulated years ago that large diaphragm microphones have HOM's that exacerbate the problem. No one is anteing up for me to do this fun research but I'm all ears. It's known as there are recording chains that are not sibilant so compare the two.
Speaking of ears the real elephant in the room is the person this thread is all about. JC freely admits if he can't peek the differences disappear in fact he has stated this numerous times, you must be extraordinary.
What are the chances you will sit next to SY and participate in any kind of listening experience where you might do the same. Not holding my breath. Too, too, too much to lose.
EDIT Ed is right HOM's fit the symptoms, energy storage and non-minimum phase behavior.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.