I think the easy way to go about this (with quality) is to use an audio editing software such as samplitude,audacity or LMMS (a linux program now available for windows) cubase or wavelab and use a VST plugin.
Some of them already has the feature's you are looking for already built in.
Recently I had discoverd a stand alone VST host called LIVE PROFESSOR.
What a great program!
In one model I have compessor two amp simulators ,a microphone cabinet simulator,an eq,a reverb ,a tape echo and a full wave rectifier, and all I do is plug my guitar into the sound card(in my case everything runs through the mixer) and play.
I have to tell you that the sound had more had more balls than any amplifier that Jimi could have ever imagined and out of hi-fi speakers no less ,all free.
I found some great sounding realtime eq ,parameteric ,graphic,reverbs you name it it's all out there.
Another solution I have tried is to use winamp with a vst pugin ,this works aswell. However I find it's GUI difficult to work with.
I have found well over 500+ free vst plugins and downloaded everything I could find.
Some work great and some not at all.
Thats alot of stuff to sort through and I haven't got through all of them yet.
I like audacity and use it alot aswell as the above programs.
Calkwalk music creator? great program but difficult to learn and use ,for me anyway.
The only draw back to this method is that you will have to edit each song to your liking, But once that is done you won't have to do anything except the occasional tone control tweak.
I was quite found of the winamp setup with a fully adjustable 4 or 5 stage parametric eq, it worked real time and sounded incredible.
If when you do try out a wave editor like audacity or wavelab check out the data at the waveform level to another poorly mastered cd, kid rocks " bwad to bwad to bang dickey" song.
I love the album but every waveform is flattopped from beginning to end.
If your interested I will try to compile the links.
Just remember the more processor power you have the less latency delay you will get.
I'm running a 2.8ghz p4 and it's okay.
But I have bogged it down and locked it up a few times as I had alot going on and taxed it out.
This won't happen with just one or two things going on unless you have less than a 900mhz p3 or something. jer
Some of them already has the feature's you are looking for already built in.
Recently I had discoverd a stand alone VST host called LIVE PROFESSOR.
What a great program!
In one model I have compessor two amp simulators ,a microphone cabinet simulator,an eq,a reverb ,a tape echo and a full wave rectifier, and all I do is plug my guitar into the sound card(in my case everything runs through the mixer) and play.
I have to tell you that the sound had more had more balls than any amplifier that Jimi could have ever imagined and out of hi-fi speakers no less ,all free.
I found some great sounding realtime eq ,parameteric ,graphic,reverbs you name it it's all out there.
Another solution I have tried is to use winamp with a vst pugin ,this works aswell. However I find it's GUI difficult to work with.
I have found well over 500+ free vst plugins and downloaded everything I could find.
Some work great and some not at all.
Thats alot of stuff to sort through and I haven't got through all of them yet.
I like audacity and use it alot aswell as the above programs.
Calkwalk music creator? great program but difficult to learn and use ,for me anyway.
The only draw back to this method is that you will have to edit each song to your liking, But once that is done you won't have to do anything except the occasional tone control tweak.
I was quite found of the winamp setup with a fully adjustable 4 or 5 stage parametric eq, it worked real time and sounded incredible.
If when you do try out a wave editor like audacity or wavelab check out the data at the waveform level to another poorly mastered cd, kid rocks " bwad to bwad to bang dickey" song.
I love the album but every waveform is flattopped from beginning to end.
If your interested I will try to compile the links.
Just remember the more processor power you have the less latency delay you will get.
I'm running a 2.8ghz p4 and it's okay.
But I have bogged it down and locked it up a few times as I had alot going on and taxed it out.
This won't happen with just one or two things going on unless you have less than a 900mhz p3 or something. jer
At this time, I am using an Asus laptop - UL50VT. I am using the same speakers I have had for over 10 years, with a variety of amps/pre-amps and source devices. I have a backup amp, an Adcom GFA-545 amp I have been using for the past few years. My record player has been out of commission for the past 6 months.
I have heard this sound since I have owned these speakers, depending on what their hooked up to. The adcom doesn't do it, but that also isn't a terribly resolving amp.
I'm not sure I understand what exactly is happening in my setup for sound on the laptop. I have "RealTek high definition audio" drivers installed. I have it set on "immediate mode". It has "SRS" sound enhancements. It doesn't seem to be committing any significant wrong (with the sound quality). I have it at 24-bit/96KHz, must be default, but in testing the different speeds there doesn't seem to be an effect on this order of magnitude.
I think that this is a sound effect that anyone can hear.
Last edited:
I am listening to track 2, George Michael, Faith, "Father Figure", and in the voice there is sibilance. This is with a male voice, which doesn't happen very often. (Add: more-so on "One More Try") (add-add: Symbols on track 6, "Hand to Mouth", very pronounced case of this)
This tripath unit, I have to say, does bells from CD better than I think I have ever heard. The sibilance seems particular to symbols, vocals, mostly high (female) vocals, and violins. The tripath also adds a lot of palpability with all of its treble detail.
I am also breaking this unit in (about 40-50 hours). I hope that's not to much of it, but I hope it is, but I think we're talking about more than just my one scenario in this thread. I may also be breaking myself in listening to this for a week now. I'll lose my ability to tell. I'm melting.
No, I'll be alright.
This tripath unit, I have to say, does bells from CD better than I think I have ever heard. The sibilance seems particular to symbols, vocals, mostly high (female) vocals, and violins. The tripath also adds a lot of palpability with all of its treble detail.
I am also breaking this unit in (about 40-50 hours). I hope that's not to much of it, but I hope it is, but I think we're talking about more than just my one scenario in this thread. I may also be breaking myself in listening to this for a week now. I'll lose my ability to tell. I'm melting.
No, I'll be alright.
Last edited:
I wish I could hear what you are hearing,then maybe I could be more help ,as I do know what you are going through.
Unfortunately It is like asking the blind man whom has never had any sight before " I know your blind but what color do you see?".
But I will find the link to that vst parametric eq that I like so that you can try it using winamp or something.
You can tune it so sharp that all you can hear is just the sibilent frequency's.
It really is smooth and not harsh sounding eq. jer
Unfortunately It is like asking the blind man whom has never had any sight before " I know your blind but what color do you see?".
But I will find the link to that vst parametric eq that I like so that you can try it using winamp or something.
You can tune it so sharp that all you can hear is just the sibilent frequency's.
It really is smooth and not harsh sounding eq. jer
Sorry to the first, but with familiarity it becomes second nature.
The chipamps often have a minimum acceptable gain, for the 3886 it is 10times (+20dB).
But setting the gain to +20dB will give a quite different sound to setting the gain to +30dB. Then take the low gain version of the amp and start removing the decoupling and remove parts of or the whole output Thiele and remove the RF filter and gradually the chipamp will reproduce more and more rubbish.
This does not just apply to chipamps.
The compensation has to be set to suit the build of the amplifier.
Then you will still find that the compensation will need to be altered when the load becomes partially capacitive and changed again when the load becomes partially inductive. It is this changing reactive loading that is fairly difficult to design out of the amplifier. I can't do it, I can't even set the compensation for a resistive load.
Sibilance is often caused by a high frequency resonance or ringing. This shows up as more than 360 degrees of phase shift vs frequency on an FFT plot.
If your amplifier has good damping factor (meaning low output impedance) at high frequencies the midrange or tweeter may not ring. Amplifiers with less damping my allow the ringing.
The damping factor has to do with open loop bandwidth and amount of global feedback among other issues.
This has nothing to do with distortion, "flat frequency response" or any of the usual measurements. Although many amplifiers do specify damping versus frequency.
If your amplifier has good damping factor (meaning low output impedance) at high frequencies the midrange or tweeter may not ring. Amplifiers with less damping my allow the ringing.
The damping factor has to do with open loop bandwidth and amount of global feedback among other issues.
This has nothing to do with distortion, "flat frequency response" or any of the usual measurements. Although many amplifiers do specify damping versus frequency.
Cool, a new "fact". I'd only heard of damping factor being interesting for the bass response. Lot of discussion of that as transistor amps took over from tube amps. My 1961 Dynakit ST70 is specified at Damping Factor 15 no test frequency specified. The 1966 design Dynakit ST120 is specified at DF >40 from 20hz to 20khz. My 1998 Peavey CS800s is specified at DF>1000 @ 100 hz,DF >400 @ 10000 hz all tests stereo on 4 ohm load. Wonder what LM3886 amps do?
I tested the Peavey on my favorite top octave Steinway grand record with both 8' of 10 ga extra-flexible SO wire on screw lugs, versus 25' of 16 ga salvage lawn light zip cord on 1/4 phone plugs. The latter hookup was fuzzier on top octave piano. Obviously the higher resistance wire affects damping factor, even if my speakers are 8 ohm (5.5 ohm minimum 2 khz).
Last edited:
I am somewhat suspicious of damping factor being significant with regard to sibilance, for a number of reasons I won't go into, but the short answer is virtually every amplifier has adequate damping factor that does not vary much between systems (a hint at the reason is below).
However, you could try lowering the damping factor of your amplifier to see if this has an effect.
Since the effective damping factor is not simply the output impedance of the amplifier alone ... for example it includes the resistance of any loudspeaker cables (both ways) amongst other things ... so you could experiment with a known very low resistance cable setup; fat, short, both, however you want to try it ... and see if there is an effect. With a typical modern solid state amplifier, although cable resistance is low, it is none the less many times greater than the amplifier's output impedance, typically reducing the effective damping factor to a few hundred at most; typically it's lower. It's my experience that damping factors above 20 (taking into account all the factors that affect it; which few bother to do) should be fine. Output-tranformer coupled amplifiers (tube or solid state) have higher inherent output impedance, but in that case the external factors have a relatively low impact on the overall figure, so even then it's not particularly different.
Ringing, that I can understand, though. Note that certain loudspeaker cables can contribute to ringing, especially if they have high inductance, so keep that in mind if the above test shows something.
Read carefully, there is another hint at possible causes of ringing in that above paragraph ;-)
If you're using a D/A converter such as in the laptop as source, the filters used can easily contribute to ringing also, and aliasing can move supersonic artifacts down into the audible range.
You might try a cheap-and-dirty experiment with your laptop's music player. Most have some form of equalizer. Try cutting a band in the likely area; I would try 8K first then perhaps 5K or so next to see. The alteration in frequency response will be significant, so try to ignore that and concentrate on the effect on sibilance. Raising a frequency to emphasize a suspect frequency can also help nail the effect.
I would try to disable the SRS enhancement on your laptop. That alone could be the problem, it's a phase-alteration system designed for effects in pop records. Doesn't sound good (or more specifically, only sounds good on table radio-quality systems) and can enhance sibilance as well.
In the recording studio they use both automated "de-essers" and high-Q equalization to try and tame sibilance. The EQ available in your music player probably is not all that sophisticated, but just as an FYI that's how they do it, keeping in mind that in the studio the problem is unlikely to be caused by the hardware, so there's a certain certainty they have to go on as to the cause.
However, you could try lowering the damping factor of your amplifier to see if this has an effect.
Since the effective damping factor is not simply the output impedance of the amplifier alone ... for example it includes the resistance of any loudspeaker cables (both ways) amongst other things ... so you could experiment with a known very low resistance cable setup; fat, short, both, however you want to try it ... and see if there is an effect. With a typical modern solid state amplifier, although cable resistance is low, it is none the less many times greater than the amplifier's output impedance, typically reducing the effective damping factor to a few hundred at most; typically it's lower. It's my experience that damping factors above 20 (taking into account all the factors that affect it; which few bother to do) should be fine. Output-tranformer coupled amplifiers (tube or solid state) have higher inherent output impedance, but in that case the external factors have a relatively low impact on the overall figure, so even then it's not particularly different.
Ringing, that I can understand, though. Note that certain loudspeaker cables can contribute to ringing, especially if they have high inductance, so keep that in mind if the above test shows something.
Read carefully, there is another hint at possible causes of ringing in that above paragraph ;-)
If you're using a D/A converter such as in the laptop as source, the filters used can easily contribute to ringing also, and aliasing can move supersonic artifacts down into the audible range.
You might try a cheap-and-dirty experiment with your laptop's music player. Most have some form of equalizer. Try cutting a band in the likely area; I would try 8K first then perhaps 5K or so next to see. The alteration in frequency response will be significant, so try to ignore that and concentrate on the effect on sibilance. Raising a frequency to emphasize a suspect frequency can also help nail the effect.
I would try to disable the SRS enhancement on your laptop. That alone could be the problem, it's a phase-alteration system designed for effects in pop records. Doesn't sound good (or more specifically, only sounds good on table radio-quality systems) and can enhance sibilance as well.
In the recording studio they use both automated "de-essers" and high-Q equalization to try and tame sibilance. The EQ available in your music player probably is not all that sophisticated, but just as an FYI that's how they do it, keeping in mind that in the studio the problem is unlikely to be caused by the hardware, so there's a certain certainty they have to go on as to the cause.
Last edited:
Really, and the manufacturers spec's range from 2 to more than 1000 at low frequencies and some actually go below 1 at high frequencies!
The way you test for damping factor is to connect an 8 ohm resistors between the two outputs (assuming common ground, if not try two 4 ohm resistors), drive one output with a sine wave generator and measure the output voltage across the other output. It should be zero volts. You can calculate the damping factor by comparing the two voltages. I am unaware of any amplifier that will not have the damping factor drop (or the test voltage rise) with frequency.
Damping? Oh my. I have been concerned about damping for bass before, so I figured 10-foot pieces of 16-gauge might do it, which is what I have been using. I just cut off 6-foot pieces of stranded 12-gauge (my black/red 12-gauge supply) and used that. I have to say that I think it makes a difference, in more ways than one, which I definately didn't expect. I actually think it helps, but I'm going to have to spend some time with it.
So much so, that I think I just had to tighten the connector on the speaker (better).
The SRS thing is a lot of itself. I can't keep up with all that it is doing, but it sounded so flat and lifeless without it, I left it checked. I will leave it unchecked, and get accustomed to that. I think not using the SRS may inprove on this as well.
I'll have to get some listening and experimenting time in. This could be the result of a collection of contributing factors. I also plan to try goofing with software for eq/compression.
So much so, that I think I just had to tighten the connector on the speaker (better).
The SRS thing is a lot of itself. I can't keep up with all that it is doing, but it sounded so flat and lifeless without it, I left it checked. I will leave it unchecked, and get accustomed to that. I think not using the SRS may inprove on this as well.
I'll have to get some listening and experimenting time in. This could be the result of a collection of contributing factors. I also plan to try goofing with software for eq/compression.
I've made some significant changes.
Re: The speakers... Fuselier "Basic Eights". This is not a terribly challenging load, at generally 5 ohms across the range. But it has some of John Fuselier's qualities in it. I think he makes a very nice sounding speaker, and last I knew (a year ago) he was still working on a new one. For "live sounding", he adds a bump in the low bass and the high treble. In this case, I have measured around 3 dB over at 40 Hz, and 10 dB over at 7-8 KHz. One could say this is a very simple 2nd-order butterworth x/o with two drivers and time-alignment naturally good enough that a baffle step was not used (which JF has done a few times).
This process has all been very informing. At this point, it seems like when a speaker is like that, there may be greater demands upon the upstream electronics, because problems there can be more noticeable on the speaker (like, it's just waiting for you to screw up).
I have always felt like this speaker would tell me about upstream electronics really well.
I have made 3 significant changes to the sound, and I am now directing myself to the source - the laptop for further changes.
1) The change from 16-gauge to 12-gauge speaker cable was significant. The bass went from more-to-less taught, and a little warmer. I thought it was getting worse, but I think its getting more true to the speaker. Its more musical, fatter, rounder. Accompanying this, the sibilance is affected for the better. The whole presentation has changed with mitigation to the treble compared to where it was.
2) Turning the SRS enhancement off... I have been using SRS since July (makes 8-9 months now). I had records 6-9 months ago (no laptop in that), and they had their advantages. One of the things i noticed the first time I found the SRS was that without it it was pretty lifeless sounding. I left the SRS on. Now, I'm leaving it off, and turning to other directions. Whatever it does, it is a lot.
3) I changed from 12 feet to 6 feet interconnect between laptop and amp. With SRS, this made little difference. Without SRS this makes a lot of difference. (Or with the new amp) 12 feet was too long, but it didn't make a difference months ago, so I left it.
The differences from the above 3 have me moving on to listening to the overall sound quality differently now. If anything, I'd say I would more-so focus on the regular treble, say 2-4KHz, and the source component - the laptop for its sound quality, because the overall presentation is not what it was. Its major issues are not the same. There is still some of the original sibilance, but now I have to reevaluate it with some listening against other factors. I think this is directing itself to the quality of the sound coming out of the laptop.
And thanks very much for many people's assistance with this.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: The speakers... Fuselier "Basic Eights". This is not a terribly challenging load, at generally 5 ohms across the range. But it has some of John Fuselier's qualities in it. I think he makes a very nice sounding speaker, and last I knew (a year ago) he was still working on a new one. For "live sounding", he adds a bump in the low bass and the high treble. In this case, I have measured around 3 dB over at 40 Hz, and 10 dB over at 7-8 KHz. One could say this is a very simple 2nd-order butterworth x/o with two drivers and time-alignment naturally good enough that a baffle step was not used (which JF has done a few times).
This process has all been very informing. At this point, it seems like when a speaker is like that, there may be greater demands upon the upstream electronics, because problems there can be more noticeable on the speaker (like, it's just waiting for you to screw up).
I have always felt like this speaker would tell me about upstream electronics really well.
I have made 3 significant changes to the sound, and I am now directing myself to the source - the laptop for further changes.
1) The change from 16-gauge to 12-gauge speaker cable was significant. The bass went from more-to-less taught, and a little warmer. I thought it was getting worse, but I think its getting more true to the speaker. Its more musical, fatter, rounder. Accompanying this, the sibilance is affected for the better. The whole presentation has changed with mitigation to the treble compared to where it was.
2) Turning the SRS enhancement off... I have been using SRS since July (makes 8-9 months now). I had records 6-9 months ago (no laptop in that), and they had their advantages. One of the things i noticed the first time I found the SRS was that without it it was pretty lifeless sounding. I left the SRS on. Now, I'm leaving it off, and turning to other directions. Whatever it does, it is a lot.
3) I changed from 12 feet to 6 feet interconnect between laptop and amp. With SRS, this made little difference. Without SRS this makes a lot of difference. (Or with the new amp) 12 feet was too long, but it didn't make a difference months ago, so I left it.
The differences from the above 3 have me moving on to listening to the overall sound quality differently now. If anything, I'd say I would more-so focus on the regular treble, say 2-4KHz, and the source component - the laptop for its sound quality, because the overall presentation is not what it was. Its major issues are not the same. There is still some of the original sibilance, but now I have to reevaluate it with some listening against other factors. I think this is directing itself to the quality of the sound coming out of the laptop.
And thanks very much for many people's assistance with this.
Cheers,
Mark
In my experience sibilance is the result of ultrasonic (including RF) noise getting into your amp and intermodulating with the audio band signal. Laptops audio outputs are particularly bad for this, not only because they generate it within themselves but also because they have cheap switched-mode brick PSUs which feed it to them. Laptop internal DACs are just too noisy with all this to give a decent sound IME. Suggest you try moving to a USB-fed DAC to see if there's any improvement.
Speaking of power supplies...
I have an LCD monitor that makes plenty of RF. Using an outboard wall-wart PSU for the amplifier, the RF on the amp (gain full up) was almost 60 dB 3 feet in front of the speaker. I switched to a PSU with a toroid and a lot of filtering, and that got rid of a hum there. But I still have a laptop wall wart, looks like it makes 19 volts DC, up to around 3.5 amps. I would be curious about RF filtering for the laptop supply.
Do you mean a sound adapter that plugs into a USB port? Wouldn't that get its power from the laptop? I will certainly be curious about having a more discreet DAC operation on the laptop.
I have an LCD monitor that makes plenty of RF. Using an outboard wall-wart PSU for the amplifier, the RF on the amp (gain full up) was almost 60 dB 3 feet in front of the speaker. I switched to a PSU with a toroid and a lot of filtering, and that got rid of a hum there. But I still have a laptop wall wart, looks like it makes 19 volts DC, up to around 3.5 amps. I would be curious about RF filtering for the laptop supply.
Do you mean a sound adapter that plugs into a USB port? Wouldn't that get its power from the laptop? I will certainly be curious about having a more discreet DAC operation on the laptop.
better cable
Cool. I'm glad to see someone else confirm my non-instrumented test that long mid- resistance cables have more distortion on the highs than short low resistance cables.
There must be some reason besides cost that the standard band PA setup has the 1V low energy signals run though a 100' snake up to the stage, and the amps connected to the speakers up there by short cables. I think probably Nutrix speakon connectors and binder terminals with spade lugs or dual banana plugs are both lower resistance than the previous standard of 1/4 phone jacks and plugs.
I think the peak in the mid-highs of your speaker points out why you hear more distortion in the mid-highs (spoken ESS) than my mostly flat speakers put out. Also, 12' rca cables source to amp as you say are not good. I try to keep my RCA cables at 6', even though it means I have to walk about 12' from the record shelf around the Steinway (where the mixer is) to the turntable. The electrons go the short way straight across. If I needed more cable mixer to amp I would have to upgrade from the medium current 33078 op amps I am using to the 4560's that Peavey uses in their mixer which has more output current (and better "damping" I believe even though the measurement is made on amps only).
Have fun.
Cool. I'm glad to see someone else confirm my non-instrumented test that long mid- resistance cables have more distortion on the highs than short low resistance cables.
There must be some reason besides cost that the standard band PA setup has the 1V low energy signals run though a 100' snake up to the stage, and the amps connected to the speakers up there by short cables. I think probably Nutrix speakon connectors and binder terminals with spade lugs or dual banana plugs are both lower resistance than the previous standard of 1/4 phone jacks and plugs.
I think the peak in the mid-highs of your speaker points out why you hear more distortion in the mid-highs (spoken ESS) than my mostly flat speakers put out. Also, 12' rca cables source to amp as you say are not good. I try to keep my RCA cables at 6', even though it means I have to walk about 12' from the record shelf around the Steinway (where the mixer is) to the turntable. The electrons go the short way straight across. If I needed more cable mixer to amp I would have to upgrade from the medium current 33078 op amps I am using to the 4560's that Peavey uses in their mixer which has more output current (and better "damping" I believe even though the measurement is made on amps only).
Have fun.
Last edited:
What does it sound like at different levels ?
Like at your perceived levels of low ,medium too high? jer
Like at your perceived levels of low ,medium too high? jer
My PC is 40' by floor and 50' by romex cable from the hifi. I was getting hash in the disco mixer from the lamp dimmer in the next room, and also from the compact flourescent bulb I had illuminating the record shelf. So I replaced the flourescent lamp with a string of white LED Christmas lights. To eliminate the lamp dimmer hash, I took the power supply out of the disco mixer, putting a wall transformer 8' away. Inside the disco mixer, I put a 20 turn toroid chokes on both + and return lines coming in. It is in a ferrous steel box. It doesn't rattle on the lamp dimmer anymore.
The CS800s amp has a switching power supply, but it costs $1000 retail for a reason. Inside the switching stuff is inside it's own steel box with it's own fan and air flow. Lots of isolation parts in there.
So, you might want to try straight analog music someday. It is all in the details, the disco mixer sounded like **** when I bought it. Now it is very close to the PAS2 tube preamp, with 1/100 of the power draw and better slider pots than I can buy stem pots for the preamp.
What do you run through 50 feet of romex? I think some kind of AC filtering sounds like it may be helpful, but if anything, the next thing I want to hear and check out will be a meanwell supply coming in (for the amp), which should reduce V-jitter to a tenth of what it is right now (antek ps-3n30), we'll see how that goes.
I have my old speaker cables on now, Transparent Wave 100s, which are 12' long and thick, with big spades, and I think this is the best I've done with the speaker cabling at this point (for sound). Overall sibilance is definately less than what it was to start with.
The next thing I want to do is buy a USB-based sound card, and so any (inexpensive) suggestions are appreciated for that.
This SRS thing is just plain obnoxious to have on the machine as well. I don't know if its not doing anything by being unchecked, and I'd rather not be dealing with it. Has anyone ever removed their SRS (and kept the basic realtek driver), or do you just leave it unchecked? At this point, it is more clear that there is more sibilance with SRS turned on, but I also feel like I have work to do (on the sound, a bit muffled) with SRS turned off. I'll have to try a new sound card next. Any suggestions?
Mark
I have my old speaker cables on now, Transparent Wave 100s, which are 12' long and thick, with big spades, and I think this is the best I've done with the speaker cabling at this point (for sound). Overall sibilance is definately less than what it was to start with.
The next thing I want to do is buy a USB-based sound card, and so any (inexpensive) suggestions are appreciated for that.
This SRS thing is just plain obnoxious to have on the machine as well. I don't know if its not doing anything by being unchecked, and I'd rather not be dealing with it. Has anyone ever removed their SRS (and kept the basic realtek driver), or do you just leave it unchecked? At this point, it is more clear that there is more sibilance with SRS turned on, but I also feel like I have work to do (on the sound, a bit muffled) with SRS turned off. I'll have to try a new sound card next. Any suggestions?
Mark
I have four configurations
1. phillips PCS 706
2. echo GINA-24
3.creative X-FI ELITE
4.sony PCM-2600 dat on spdif interface
1. phillips PCS 706
2. echo GINA-24
3.creative X-FI ELITE
4.sony PCM-2600 dat on spdif interface
And how relevant is this theory applied to passive crossovers where there is a large resistor (3-6ohm) in series with the tweeter or midrange? Are those speakers sibilant by default?
Or low feedback/damping factor amps? Would they invite more sibilance?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.