Plenty recordings have an issue with sibilance.....
It is actually a sign of good bandwidth. Sibilant exaggeration was abbreviated to sibilance and few question it now. Some microphones cause it with some people and not others. Sibilance is what the French don't have. This means not one word can be understood by outsiders. They prove it by using far more letters than the word requires. I joke a bit. Spanish is not like that although sounds similar. Forgive me educated French people as you don't deserve this.
I was watching a 1940's French film on VHS. I could not understand a word. Watched it on the rerun and could via TV. Although the original was poor the quality of the VHS finished the process. A true French speaker wouldn't have the same difficulty. Jacques Tati Jour du Fete. Lack of sibilance was the reason.
Children are thought to have a 40 kHz bandwidth during the first year. They hear the clicks of sibilance well and it teaches them quickly the punctuation. They can synthesis the sounds in the head when hearing drops off in later life. This is why learning a language is so difficult. The facility is already lost and the gaps not apparent in words.
For me, if the sibilance attracts attention to itself then that is a sign of faulty playback, I use the presence of it as a marker of "something that has to be sorted out", it's shorthand for distortion saying, "hey, look over here, this is where I am!".Plenty recordings have an issue with sibilance.....
Louis Armstrong is fine - if the tone disturbs then there is a playback issue; correctly reproduced, you hear a real human being with a very distinctive voice, full of character and expression.
Again, a good system is not one that shows up, emphasises these issues; rather it maintains composure, is always well-behaved. If you drive over a "bumpy" road you don't praise the car that lets you know where every hollow in the surface is; the one that allows you to drive over it at high speed with full control is the vehicle that shows quality engineering ...
Err No,
I'm looking for a system that is faithful to its input, not one that is polite , the problem is not only bad recordings , its the issue of system distortion when reproducing regenerations of said bad recording. The more neutral and accurate the system is the more it will differentiate recording anomolies. Which is why when you are trying to listen to u Boob videos by adding another generation for playback thru your very flawed PC speakers you end up with such blah , blah evaluations..
Wow have my TT going now , what a relief after( evaluating another pre) 3 weeks of pure digital , wow space and dimensionality to kill , MUSIC .....
Digital the perfect lithograph ...
I'm looking for a system that is faithful to its input, not one that is polite , the problem is not only bad recordings , its the issue of system distortion when reproducing regenerations of said bad recording. The more neutral and accurate the system is the more it will differentiate recording anomolies. Which is why when you are trying to listen to u Boob videos by adding another generation for playback thru your very flawed PC speakers you end up with such blah , blah evaluations..
Wow have my TT going now , what a relief after( evaluating another pre) 3 weeks of pure digital , wow space and dimensionality to kill , MUSIC .....
Digital the perfect lithograph ...
The thing is, that it is more complex than how you present it. Live sound, what you hear around you all the time, as you are doing other things, is the gauge for how the human hearing works - the ear/brain mechanism is marvellous at what is does, if one gives it a decent chance to work well, by providing the "right input" - shades of Short Circuit here ... .
Vinyl when it is working well provides exactly the right input for the filtering process in your head to work well, you get MUSIC, as you say - but digital frequently screws up by adding in nasty low level artifacts, which overloads your brain's ability to sort the wheat from the chaff - you give up on it, or get sick of it, as you've done. The BIG problem is that people believe that digital is presenting a more accurate representation of what's on the recording - and that's just plain, downright wrong - most of the time.
What a good system does is subjectively separate the event of the music making, from the artifacts of distortion in the recording process - and add almost no more objectionable artifacts in the playback chain. This, to repeat myself for the millionth time, is not trivial to achieve - and money thrown at it, try and solve the problem, almost never helps at all - at the moment!
.Vinyl when it is working well provides exactly the right input for the filtering process in your head to work well, you get MUSIC, as you say - but digital frequently screws up by adding in nasty low level artifacts, which overloads your brain's ability to sort the wheat from the chaff - you give up on it, or get sick of it, as you've done. The BIG problem is that people believe that digital is presenting a more accurate representation of what's on the recording - and that's just plain, downright wrong - most of the time.
What a good system does is subjectively separate the event of the music making, from the artifacts of distortion in the recording process - and add almost no more objectionable artifacts in the playback chain. This, to repeat myself for the millionth time, is not trivial to achieve - and money thrown at it, try and solve the problem, almost never helps at all - at the moment!
Timing was impeccable - I had just come across this thread, Microdiodes in copper conductor, and Bruno was getting stuck into the irrationality of it all - and then I got to this bit ...
So much for "accurate measurements" telling you everything ...
Trouble is, 10 years ago, I listened to the top of the line dCS units playing through Halcro, of a brilliant chamber music CD that I knew extremely well ... and it sounded bloody awful! Zero music, blahh tone, it went on for one grinding minute after another, I was hanging on, hoping it would be over soon ...
So much for "accurate measurements" telling you everything ...
Last edited:
It was sort of a "survey", if we assume 1 in 10 people have ADD and it's linked to identifiable genes then I was wondering if 1 in 10 people have it here as well, or if it's not possible to concentrate on a forum with it.
Yes, I will look in other places as well, no I didn't evaluate diyaudio as an ideal source of information but if you think I did then ok.
Any of you who have read any of my few posts know where I stand, but I wanted to add my two cents to this thread.
I have never purchased nor used high end capacitors even back when my system cost $8,500 USD all in.
The measurements are all that we hear crowd mocks the usage of expensive caps. Fair enough. So I ran a comparison.
Last week I bought 2 X 4.7uF M-caps to put into an OB that I use at my pc. The drivers cost $5 for all 4, and the baffle is cardboard. Not the highest resolution system. The plain caps cost less than one cent, the M-caps were $10 each, double the price of the entire set up. The tweeters are cheap paper cone low-fi junk, less than $1.
They arrived this hour.
I insert one of the M-Caps as the high pass filter for the left channel, and the difference in treble, cymbals and all other high FR artifacts jumps up several notches. I am sitting here panning l-r and the channel with the regular 4.7uF sounds terrible in comparison. The improvement was instantaneous and blatantly obvious. My multimeter measures them at 4.7uF - so the measurement is not the deciding factor. There are no other components in the chain - the XO is just this one cap on each channel. That's it.
I am not here to argue with you measurement obsessives. Life is too short. I have better things to do that argue with engineers, a profession that attracts the ""I am always right"" type of person. Once had one tell me that just as in Asia, one can flag a person to hold them in the USA if they owe you money. He was wrong of course, but he had a PhD in ME and I did not; therefore he is right and others are wrong. Always. Such is the mindset of engineers.
Those of you who are open minded - just spend a few dollars and try the 'Snake Oil' items that these measurement-only crowd mock. If you hear the improvement - great. If you don't - then you saved money. But don't let their attitude dissuade you.
Clearly there are things we can hear that we cannot measurement at this time. Thus it is rational to design a system to the best of book tech, and then proceed with modifications that cannot be measured.
I am willing to let the measurement crowd have their values without resorting to name calling.
All the best to you in audio...
I have never purchased nor used high end capacitors even back when my system cost $8,500 USD all in.
The measurements are all that we hear crowd mocks the usage of expensive caps. Fair enough. So I ran a comparison.
Last week I bought 2 X 4.7uF M-caps to put into an OB that I use at my pc. The drivers cost $5 for all 4, and the baffle is cardboard. Not the highest resolution system. The plain caps cost less than one cent, the M-caps were $10 each, double the price of the entire set up. The tweeters are cheap paper cone low-fi junk, less than $1.
They arrived this hour.
I insert one of the M-Caps as the high pass filter for the left channel, and the difference in treble, cymbals and all other high FR artifacts jumps up several notches. I am sitting here panning l-r and the channel with the regular 4.7uF sounds terrible in comparison. The improvement was instantaneous and blatantly obvious. My multimeter measures them at 4.7uF - so the measurement is not the deciding factor. There are no other components in the chain - the XO is just this one cap on each channel. That's it.
I am not here to argue with you measurement obsessives. Life is too short. I have better things to do that argue with engineers, a profession that attracts the ""I am always right"" type of person. Once had one tell me that just as in Asia, one can flag a person to hold them in the USA if they owe you money. He was wrong of course, but he had a PhD in ME and I did not; therefore he is right and others are wrong. Always. Such is the mindset of engineers.
Those of you who are open minded - just spend a few dollars and try the 'Snake Oil' items that these measurement-only crowd mock. If you hear the improvement - great. If you don't - then you saved money. But don't let their attitude dissuade you.
Clearly there are things we can hear that we cannot measurement at this time. Thus it is rational to design a system to the best of book tech, and then proceed with modifications that cannot be measured.
I am willing to let the measurement crowd have their values without resorting to name calling.
All the best to you in audio...
8 out of 10 I would guess? It's the inaudibility to see the world the usual way. The reason being it is inefficient. My boss says " tell me and I began to understand, show me then I know" . The written words carry great power to most . To me it is a 3 D image of a thing that I can touch , solder, machine, agonies over. With my boss I would say write to him and he has no idea. His ex partner said his strengths are also his weaknesses. Well that is it in a nutshell, our weaknesses are often talents. Remember what Talent means, it was a gold coin. Both my boss and I are visual people. I would call the ears the same thing. He has his degree in industrial design which gave him a job at the worlds top cola brand! We get along well as we don't find the job of the other very interesting. If you like we make pies. His the case and me the filling. Apt that it is Pi.
Capacitor sounds in speakers can be the opposite of money spent. The nasty non polars are quite nice ( melodic ). It is the mid priced caps that disappoint. High voltage caps can be good. The designers are forced to make audio grade if so. Class X2 can work fine. Ducati motor caps also. 250 V and 400 V polyester are worth a try. You seldom need to spend a Dollar. The thing is to have the audio grade as reference. I notice good speaker caps are big. That would not be welcomed in engineering. You can make your own, it is very easy. I stress only for speakers. The cheapest multimeter is good enough for designing the device. Use a 5 % cap as reference. Take a X2 cap apart to show you how. Lead foil was good.
I think I have come up with a piece of logic not said before although Lars of Nordost said something similar. That is frequency range and speed are not the same thing. Usually they are. Example, a 78 might have 32 kHz on the stamper and 7 kHz on the if you like print paper ( Decca FFRR ). One playing later 3 kHz and lots of 5th harmonic added. That might be why 78's seems to have life that they shouldn't have.
MP3 also can be very fast and yet have little detail. I suggest lack of speed is the first victim of hi fi becoming low fi.
I think I have come up with a piece of logic not said before although Lars of Nordost said something similar. That is frequency range and speed are not the same thing. Usually they are. Example, a 78 might have 32 kHz on the stamper and 7 kHz on the if you like print paper ( Decca FFRR ). One playing later 3 kHz and lots of 5th harmonic added. That might be why 78's seems to have life that they shouldn't have.
MP3 also can be very fast and yet have little detail. I suggest lack of speed is the first victim of hi fi becoming low fi.
Err No,
I'm looking for a system that is faithful to its input, not one that is polite , the problem is not only bad recordings , its the issue of system distortion when reproducing regenerations of said bad recording. The more neutral and accurate the system is the more it will differentiate recording anomolies. Which is why when you are trying to listen to u Boob videos by adding another generation for playback thru your very flawed PC speakers you end up with such blah , blah evaluations..
Wow have my TT going now , what a relief after( evaluating another pre) 3 weeks of pure digital , wow space and dimensionality to kill , MUSIC .....
Digital the perfect lithograph ...
Use the turntable to do digital recordings. When it sounds mostly the same tell me what you did ? 10 years later is OK. The errors of vinyl are as real as a concert hall. That's neutrality when they sound the same. My guess is MP3 will in some ways sound closest. That is it preserves the signature. Why other systems corrupt it so much is anyone's guess. Maybe like trying to eat a meal that is too big ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF4_qVgbFU
When the speaker sounds horrid with medium quality caps, say Wima MKP 10, then something is wrong.
But if the speaker is designed well component choices matter.
Some money can be safed when bipolar electrolytics are used in resonance circuits parallel to the speaker, especially when there is a series resistor that will likely have more losses then the electrolytic anyway.
In the midrange i use Mundorf EVO, the standart model.
In the tweeter section i use the best possible parts that fit in the budget.
For example Mundorf EVO-Oil and Audyn True Copper cap 0.1uF ( film and foil P-P ) as bypass. I usually bypass not only the tweeter cap but the resistor and the cap.
I would never use an electroytic in series with the tweeter although i know it is popular in England. Warm ? I would say a bit foggy.
But if the speaker is designed well component choices matter.
Some money can be safed when bipolar electrolytics are used in resonance circuits parallel to the speaker, especially when there is a series resistor that will likely have more losses then the electrolytic anyway.
In the midrange i use Mundorf EVO, the standart model.
In the tweeter section i use the best possible parts that fit in the budget.
For example Mundorf EVO-Oil and Audyn True Copper cap 0.1uF ( film and foil P-P ) as bypass. I usually bypass not only the tweeter cap but the resistor and the cap.
I would never use an electroytic in series with the tweeter although i know it is popular in England. Warm ? I would say a bit foggy.
If it sounds better, then the size does not matter. Choose performance and design around the size, do not assume that smaller is better.
I do not know. I have limited access to parts. Once I have a need for more caps, I will buy some others, listen, and post the results.
Most of my builds are wide-range, single driver, open baffle or no baffle.
Not a lot of call for capacitors.
That was the point. There is no mystery as commercial interests work against run of the mill components working well in speakers. I recently asked why speaker designers use speaker industry parts. Simple answer. The customer expects it and is seldom the killing cost. As said before large high voltage caps should be similar. Small is bad is the assumption.
Speaking or small. I know some speaker designers use the more suspect ceramic caps. Great respect as it shows thinking outside the box. They are a complete no no in low level audio circuits , so folk-law says. I saw some in a preamp. Not COG/NPO, I mean the super small 4u7 etc from EPCOS. Foggy NPO electrolytic's? I agree but sometimes I like that. I wonder if they are as bad as an economical output transformer?
Talking of foggy. In just put a 25 kHz filter on a tweeter that does 50 kHz. regardless of music even 78's it sounds closed in. It is almost a nice thing. I will play as the idea was taken from Beyer DT 990 and 990 S. the S was more expensive and had no filtering. It was not recommended for domestic use. The 990 studio had selected drivers. I am using a resistor capacitor shunt filter. It does occur to me the it might be controlling a resonance due to a shunt effect. I felt it might deal with unresolved digital filtering depending on the CD player quality. Thinking old Marantz that show harshness.
Why bypass the resistors ?
as to bypass caps , i do use , out of repetition as oppose to any sonics gain , i cant say i have heard any benefits bypassing poly caps ...
Did you also swap the caps between channels after this first test and listen again to ensure the difference you observed was not because of some difference between the drivers themselves? Inexpensive drivers can and do vary in performance from one part to the next in the same production run.
Say i have a 4.7 Ohm resistor and a 6.8uF cap before the tweeter.
The tweeter is, say a good 25mm soft dome that goes to 20kHz, -3dB.
When i bypass the resistor plus the cap the response gets a bit lifted over 20kHz making the tweeter " faster ".
Also most wire wound resistors that i prefer in speakers have a certain inductance that is bypassed too.
I know it is a minor detail and sometimes i hear what i want to hear.
An early from of Alzheimers ?
The tweeter is, say a good 25mm soft dome that goes to 20kHz, -3dB.
When i bypass the resistor plus the cap the response gets a bit lifted over 20kHz making the tweeter " faster ".
Also most wire wound resistors that i prefer in speakers have a certain inductance that is bypassed too.
I know it is a minor detail and sometimes i hear what i want to hear.
An early from of Alzheimers ?
Nigel, i do not agree.
Of cause wide bandwidth brings out problems in the treble of the source material.
But bandwidth brings also detail, resolution and " space ".
The probelem is in my view when you have wide bandwidth your system should better be very low distortion too, especially in the treble.
For example i just designed a new line stage for Martina.
Sofar she uses a buffer only that i also made.
With your amplifier design that is not a problem because you opted for a lot of gain.
With a conventional amp with say 26dB of gain a buffer may not be enough when you want to listen loud.
After a lot of permutations i came up with a design ( with the help of Frans de Wit and AS-Audio ) that can be configured as a buffer and a linestage with up to 12dB of gain.
That stage is of extremely low distortion.
Compared to the buffer Martina has it sounds very much more transparent and detailed and curiously much less sharp and vailed in the treble, especially with CD.
Voices sound as good as i heard, really full bodied and with less silbilance then before so it can not be the high bandwidth, it must be the lower distortion.
With vinyl that is another problem.
A Denon DL103 with round needle has up to 1% FIM in the treble so you better roll off your system a bit.
Compare that to the Lyra Atlas that has only 0.1% ( measured by Steroplay, i was surprized too ). This is a world of difference.
Of cause wide bandwidth brings out problems in the treble of the source material.
But bandwidth brings also detail, resolution and " space ".
The probelem is in my view when you have wide bandwidth your system should better be very low distortion too, especially in the treble.
For example i just designed a new line stage for Martina.
Sofar she uses a buffer only that i also made.
With your amplifier design that is not a problem because you opted for a lot of gain.
With a conventional amp with say 26dB of gain a buffer may not be enough when you want to listen loud.
After a lot of permutations i came up with a design ( with the help of Frans de Wit and AS-Audio ) that can be configured as a buffer and a linestage with up to 12dB of gain.
That stage is of extremely low distortion.
Compared to the buffer Martina has it sounds very much more transparent and detailed and curiously much less sharp and vailed in the treble, especially with CD.
Voices sound as good as i heard, really full bodied and with less silbilance then before so it can not be the high bandwidth, it must be the lower distortion.
With vinyl that is another problem.
A Denon DL103 with round needle has up to 1% FIM in the treble so you better roll off your system a bit.
Compare that to the Lyra Atlas that has only 0.1% ( measured by Steroplay, i was surprized too ). This is a world of difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.