That's a very interesting question.
Would not surprise me a bit if top ends are tipped up by design for various reasons in many cases, including to appeal to aging ears with $$$s to spend. There are ways to produce results like this in a system even if individual components are more "neutral" in nature.
At a recent audio show I attended, I noticed some very expensive and well received setups like this that had that sparkling and detailed hifi kind of sound in spades. Lots of large exotic tube amps even in some of those.
Sound is like ice cream. Not all like the same flavors. How good can vanilla ice cream get? Until it becomes something else perhaps similar but more unique or exotic? That's usually what sells to those seeking a new thrill or something unique or different, so wouldn't surprise me a bit if true for high end audio as well. |
Once again, Here is my favorite resource for understanding what I should hear when listening. I have a framed printed copy hanging in my listening room for reference when needed. Useful in this case to identify how variations at higher frequencies would affect what you might hear. Notice that air, definition, and pierce are three things that a tipped up high end might emphasize, for better or for worse, depending how well done. The key is in the "how well done" part I am willing to bet. Depending on how well done (including distortion levels), it might come across as either lovely or irritating, with a fine line between I would say from my experience. Other than "air", those over 45-50 can probably still hear most of whats going on short of "air" I suppose and be drawn in or repelled accordingly and not have to worry as much at whats going on above 12-14Khz or so. The biggest problems however are most likely in the parts indicated where our ears are most sensitive, like at ~ 10Khz or so (associated with "pierce" and "definition") which comes more into play for everyone. |
E,
Never heard that one before. But maybe if so, it was in response to many speaker/amp combos of the day tilting tne other way? Modern gear is much better overall so maybe carts are just following suit and trying to NOT sound like a lot of digital. |
Albert, You should give a listen to something like These, just to hear something completely different at a minimum. If the highly etched tonality that mbl or GP seem to deliver does not grab you as I seem to recall, these just might. Really good omnis, especially those that employ Walsh drivers, that match your preferences better just might be the alternate ticket you are looking for. |
The Greene article is very good!
It always helps to consider aspects of audio "perspective", ie what is heard differently at different locations relative to the source, both in a recording, to the extent possible based on any recording notes and what you hear relative to listening live at various locations in various kinds of venue, and also in your listening room based on the geometry of your listening location relative to speakers in the room and room acoustics, including effects of various speaker locations.
Of course studio recordings in particular are often a black box in regards to information provided about how recorded, you can only listen and make educated guesses perhaps.
It can take a while to get a handle on it all, but lots of fun for a serious listener along the way and worth the effort! |
Sibilance is a naturally occurring thing and common in many good recordings of various instruments, including human voice. Digital recordings may emphasize it unpleasantly, but the format is not the source. Its usually in the recording just waiting to happen.
Now unwanted sibilance can be produced artificially during playback in some cases. The most common is playing vinyl with a dirty or worn stylus. The dirt deposits and/or stylus wear and/or wear in the groves from prior playing results in sibilance, often heard when a singer pronounces the letter "s" that is a clear form of distortion. I am very sensitive to that and have fought many battles with my vinyl over the years to avoid it. |
Sarcher has a good point and I would agree.
Both my Triangle and Dynaudio monitors are very revealing up top and can go from lovely top end with the right setup to meh easily with the wrong setup around them. It need not cost a fortune, just be done well. I've seen something as simple as rolling a tube in a DAC or the right IC make all the difference.
My larger more full range OHMs are tougher to make sound irritating on the top end, but have outstanding bandwidth and dynamic headroom and pretty much any change of even often debatable significance can be heard with those, more so than the others. |
I wonder how much of the perceived tipped up treble in modern gear is due to digital sources and the way they sound on most commodity digital players, especially via earphones, compared to analog in the past?
Are good modern earphones tipped up? I am not so sure they are. Most modern digital does not sound like analog or even digital from 20-30 years ago. Either medium is capable of being better these days. I'm not so sure there is anything quantitative that can be cited to support the argument that modern gear is tipped up in the treble. Look at the detailed published specifications and response curves readily available on headphone sites for most modern popular earphones/plugs. Most of the good ones show as flat in response as most anything I have ever seen on paper.
Then there is the assertion that use of negative feedback in amplification devices can produce harmonic artifacts that might be perceived as louder or brighter than otherwise. I do not doubt this is the norm with much mass produced SS gear, and probably even some "high end" stuff, but not all. I would say that I think it was way more predominant as a problem of significance for most back in the early days of SS receivers and amps from Japan, 30-40 years ago or so. |
"greatest halls in world are clear and do not image.Why folks freak out over "imaging" is unclear."
Live venues do " image" depending on size,acoustics and where you sit, though granted hearing location of individual instruments is not a big consideration in most cases.
More importantly regarding recordings and playback in our homes/rooms, is the imaging as experienced at a live event is seldom found captured accurately on recordings, though some recordings particularly on certain labels that focus on this like Mapleshade, Dorian, and MErcury Living PResence largely, for example, do attempt this and do a pretty good job.
Recordings are mostly mixed and mastered in studios which is not the same as a live perspective in most cases.
Spatial cues exist in all recordings, live or studio, to various degrees.
Spatial cues in recordings lost during playback might rightly be considered a form of distortion, since you do not hear everything that is in the recording if the spatial cues are not delivered to the ears correctly as part of imaging and soundstage. Its a big factor in suspending disbelief that what you hear is real and not just a recording/reproduction. At least, that is how I look at it. |
" HI-FI is simply an attempt to fool you into thinking you're 'hearing' something live. "
Agree with that. WHy else spend so much dough? But its all an illusion. You either have bought into it or not. That's what most music lovers seek with their home playback gear I think.
Of course many live performances at many venues have a lot of rough edges sonically. That goes with the territory. THere are some excellent venues out there though and I have heard excellent live sound in all kinds of venues recently from large football stadiums, to small nightclubs, larger performance halls to smaller intimate rooms.
I want my recordings to convince me I am at an event similar to the better ones I have witnessed live, even if that might include all the rough edges. IT goes with the turf. As long as its a result of the recording/reproduction and not my gear in use to play it, I am a very happy camper. |
Audiophile would be a much happier bunch if they had control over how things are recorded. But we don't, so better to just forget about it and enjoy the music. Recordings are what they are. I gotta say thought that these days, I find the huge majority of recordings in all genres enjoyable. There are very few that make me wince enough to be unhappy. Thats not to say they are all near perfect....far from it. Each is what it is. Most are average. But average is sounding pretty good to me as a whole these days and that's a good thing. I could not ever have said that prior to my most recent round of system upgrades. But, now that I feel my system is well above average, it is hard for me to relate to those who constantly complain about recording quality. To me its more likely due to unrealistic expectations (audiophiles live by that which is why #s are dwindling and I suppose some esoteric vendors that promise the world thrive) and/or deficiencies during playback. |
"I wonder how many of you can say it sounds great. "
My Monkees best of CD sounds the best it ever has by a huge margin, yes even great! I love it! Same story for most any decent quality CD of pop music from that time frame.
At the same time, these sound nothing like your typical "audiphile" recording, again mostly due to macrodynamics and the way the recording is mixed.
I would not have said that probably at any time prior to my most recent system upgrades/tweaks though. |
Hey, hey, its a Monkee's thread now! |
