I can imagine a "sibilance" knob being a useful addition if due to the nature of the vocalisation and/or recording it's perceived as being OTT whilst being an accurate (better?) reproduction. It seems sibilance and "smearing" are only tenuously related although from my own experience I suspect it is related to timing issues, even IMD could distort the perceived temporal information?
Actually in the recording/mastering phase they do use EQ to remove excess sibilance. With some microphones sibilants can be overbearing.
Let me humbly draw your attention to a more serious, dominant and seemingly incurable disorder called the Manic Pursuit of Speed and Accuracy (MPSA).
The analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversions are pronouncedly high distortion electrical interfaces. The noisy modern CMOS technique produces plenty of random errors and constitutes a generally hostile environment for the audio signal. The necessary correction mechanisms, high sample rates and accurate clocks are harmful medications killing the patient. Rather than devoting all efforts to increase speed and accuracy, it is "better" to keep the operating frequencies and signal amplitudes at a low level.
What is always kept at a low level is the distortion figure of merit in the data sheets and marketing pamphlets which 90% of people read.
The analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversions are pronouncedly high distortion electrical interfaces. The noisy modern CMOS technique produces plenty of random errors and constitutes a generally hostile environment for the audio signal. The necessary correction mechanisms, high sample rates and accurate clocks are harmful medications killing the patient. Rather than devoting all efforts to increase speed and accuracy, it is "better" to keep the operating frequencies and signal amplitudes at a low level.
What is always kept at a low level is the distortion figure of merit in the data sheets and marketing pamphlets which 90% of people read.
Much more than EQ: De-essing - Wikipedia
IMO 100% correct and natural reproduction of sibilance is often mistaken for too bright. It the wild it really can be unpleasantly abrasive, grating and bright. Completely detached focus on the form of speech over of its human content and intent can be very challenging outside of department head meetings.
If a recording is well made with sibilance appropriately controlled, then a question arises as to whether any one thing, any of a set of things, or any combination of things in a reproduction chain can generate/simulate the same or a similar audible effect.
Yes, like my sonamp 260 does, it takes a perfectly clean signal and amplifies all the harsh nasties up top to a grainy sibilant mess. Nice amp other than that......handles sub duties with aplomb (2ohm stable) doesn’t even break a sweat.
'Bipolar input stage opamp' is what I should have said, for clarity. Yep, that's one of them 🙂
I reckon if you switched it to a JFET input stage opamp, your sibilance issues would be significantly reduced. Try a TL072 initially.
Don’t worry about the confidential stamp, these came straight from sonance with permission to share publicly.
I don’t have any but I’m guessing the op amp store? 😀
Thanks Abraxalito......Would the TL072 be a direct swap or are there other things going to need changing to accommodate it?
What of those Burson opamps that are advertised on the banner here? They say it’s a direct replacement for the jrc4558.
Last edited:
That's the rub. It may be that the preference for appropriately controlled sibilance is disguised bias for softness over realism. That doesn't discount reproduction errors causing an overlay of unnatural sibilant artifacts but a system that never 'bites' on speech is arguably pleasantly wrong.
Um, if you buy from a reputable source then you will probably have to pay for shipping. In that case you might want to buy enough assorted stuff to justify the minimum shipping charge. Mouser is a good place for electronics and the have 3-day shipping same price as ground.
A quick look at the schematic you posted shows many cost saving shortcuts in the design. Probably makes sense given whatever they sold for?
Looking at the schematic - its a direct swap. Pin for pin. If its socketed so much the better 🙂
Almost certain to be bipolar input stage too so perhaps not too much of an upgrade. But as they're discrete probably more RF-resistant than the 4558.
The issue is almost certain to be the routing of the common-mode currents. On page4 of your manual I see the 0V connection goes down a wire along with the buffered signals. This is also going to be a problem for the next stage as that thick wire on the schematic will likely be carrying noise currents as well as signal.
