I think there's a bit of confusion in the op's last statement that applies to all of us in that the variables introduced by the engineer and the ability of the system overall to reproduce a 'real' image are two very different issues. The cues that convince us of reality are component performance related and the engineer's take on the information is truly the only thing that is subjective in regards to that question. Also, sounding 'real' doesn't care about circuit topology. The tube guys don't have exclusivity on what is pleasing reality and what is not. I have to answer the op's question with a no. Simply because audiophiles' ears are also very discerning and the competitive nature of the industry dictates that without a flat frequency response there is no hope in competing. Unless of course there is some sort of conspiracy going on which is highly unlikely.
Aging and Treble and Income?
I'm in my late 50s; been listening to, and playing, music for most of my life. I still occasionally haunt the salons, but these days not to buy new gear; more just curiosity about developments in our wonderful hobby. These days I just buy music; records, CDs and the odd download.
I was listening to a very expensive system recently, a combination of an excellent digital front end, feeding an exotic tube array of components, and outputting via a beautifully constructed set of English high-end speakers.
A very impressive sound to say the least. Not like real music though: very very good hi-fi, but not real.
One of the obvious oddities was the frequency response above maybe 4k. Just incorrect. Very clear, very emphasised and incisive, no doubt, but not right.
And it occured to me that this isn't unusual. And then a set of questions came to me. For the purposes of this debate I will exclude the 128k iPod generation - their tastes in listening are their own, and as much driven by budget as space constraint as anything else. I prefer to concentrate on the generation that has increased leisure and disposable income. It's a sad fact that this generation is plagued by the inevitability of progressive hearing loss, most often accompanied by diminished ability to hear higher frequencies. But it's this generation that can afford the 'best' equipment.
My question is simply this: is it not possible (or highly likely) that the higher-end industry is driven by the need to appeal to those whose hearing is degrading? In other words, is there a leaning towards the building-in of a compensatory frequency emphasis in much of what is on the shelves? My question is simplistic, and the industry may indeed be governed by the relentless pursuit of accuracy and musicality, but so much that I have hear is, I find, very difficult to listen to as it is so far from what I believe to be reality. Perhaps there has always been an emphasis in making our sytems sound "exciting" as opposed to "honest": I can understand the pleasure in this pursuit, as it's the delight in technology itself and I see nothing very wrong in that. But, all this emphasised treble....I just wonder if anyone out there in cyberspace agrees with me?
I was listening to a very expensive system recently, a combination of an excellent digital front end, feeding an exotic tube array of components, and outputting via a beautifully constructed set of English high-end speakers.
A very impressive sound to say the least. Not like real music though: very very good hi-fi, but not real.
One of the obvious oddities was the frequency response above maybe 4k. Just incorrect. Very clear, very emphasised and incisive, no doubt, but not right.
And it occured to me that this isn't unusual. And then a set of questions came to me. For the purposes of this debate I will exclude the 128k iPod generation - their tastes in listening are their own, and as much driven by budget as space constraint as anything else. I prefer to concentrate on the generation that has increased leisure and disposable income. It's a sad fact that this generation is plagued by the inevitability of progressive hearing loss, most often accompanied by diminished ability to hear higher frequencies. But it's this generation that can afford the 'best' equipment.
My question is simply this: is it not possible (or highly likely) that the higher-end industry is driven by the need to appeal to those whose hearing is degrading? In other words, is there a leaning towards the building-in of a compensatory frequency emphasis in much of what is on the shelves? My question is simplistic, and the industry may indeed be governed by the relentless pursuit of accuracy and musicality, but so much that I have hear is, I find, very difficult to listen to as it is so far from what I believe to be reality. Perhaps there has always been an emphasis in making our sytems sound "exciting" as opposed to "honest": I can understand the pleasure in this pursuit, as it's the delight in technology itself and I see nothing very wrong in that. But, all this emphasised treble....I just wonder if anyone out there in cyberspace agrees with me?
72 responses Add your response
The OP has but an interesting concern at our feet . Are hearing does start to drop off as we age , even if we take good care of are ears , but I think for most of us it is very gradual . I think we spend to much time listening to ones own system . When I hear a system that I think is too bright , is it too bright or just brighter than what my ears / brain are used to ? What made me think of this was when I was listening to a live Jazz band and heard many things that seemed wrong , was this the environment we were in or do we just become to used of one type of sound , a sound that we designed ? |
It wasn't so much that I was a fan. When Columbia Studios had their annual Easter Day family gathering it was on the (now Warner Bros.) backlot and there were lots of activities and things to do. My family even stood in line to have the 3 Stooges autograph some pictures. I never liked Larry after that as he was rude to my mother after signing stuff all day and asked her if she were some kid. Curly spoke right up and made up for it when he saw the hurt on my mothers face. The Monkees were playing at the end of the lot were a stage was set up and had a nice crowd. All the best, Nonoise |
I saw the Monkees play before they hit it big big at a Columbia Studios family Easter day gathering way back when. They sounded good enough from what I can remember. They hit it big soon after and I was a big fan of their TV show. My dad and Davy Jones were on the same bowling team. I wish I still had that picture of Davy Jones sitting on my dad's lap at the bowling lanes with the rest of the team, both grinning and holding bears. Good memories. All the best, Nonoise |
While driving the other night I tuned in to one of those psychedelic radio hour shows and heard a song I hadn't heard before. When the set was finished the dj identified the unknown song as one by The Monkees. It was an excellent song from the era. My sister had one of their albums back in the day. I would agree with those who believe they don't get credit for their music contribution. |
"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. |
I don't care how good or bad the recording is. To me the fun of it all is to reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible. One of my favorite test cd's is the Monkees greatest hits. Very compressed so also very taxing on the gear. I wonder how many of you can say it sounds great. IME, all recordings have the potential to exhibit a satisfying level of reality. How you get there it seems is this site's age old question. Probably every other site's as well. The secret is not in...wires,cables, and MD.., if you get my drift. But that's another thread, already exhausted. |
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. |
" 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. |
Csontos, you nailed the problem for club/rock concert music: the live version is often too loud and usually mixed by guys who lost their own hearing decades ago. This part I can attest to: they start by getting the best, loudest drum sounds they can, then add the best, loudest bass they can. This leaves no space for the rest of the instruments and voices and results in the cacophony that has passed for good live sound for ages. Just my 2 cents' worth... |
"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. |
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. |
manufacturers are sensitive to criticism by reviewers, so they design equipment, with the goal of minimizing "coloration". many current production components lack warmth and seem to be a bit peaky in the treble. i have had arguments with designers at shows, regarding this issue, years ago. however, i realize it is a useless discussion. however giving the consumer as much "resolution" as possible at a price point, seems to be the conventional wisdom. |
Chayro....that is so true.(and hearing the girlfriend saying "I dont like it"). I'm glad u mentioned mixing thru the Auratone's; I had forgotten about that. Also, when I used to listen to music with my engineer friend on his high-end system, he no longer could hear high frequencies...an occupational hazard. |
Lowrider57 - If you've spend a lot of time in the studios then you know that the engineer is usually under pressure by the artist, the producer and the producer's girlfriend to make various alterations to the mix that aren't always positive. Plus, back in the day, the Auratone monitors were often used that had a reduced treble output, usually resulting in tipped up product. |
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. |
" But I definitely agree with you that there is too much close miking and over-emphasis by engineers." There are also a lot of 50+ year old audio engineers who have hearing loss in the upper frequencies. I've been in studios with engineers that have spent years working with rock bands and they are doing a final mix w/o being able to hear the full audio spectrum. It's equal to driving blind. (note that I said in the Rock music world). |
Albert - I hear what you're saying about hall perspective, but sometimes the 10th-row sound doesn't translate that well to recordings. I think when you have a live band to look at, it compensates for the lack of detail, but audio alone appears to require a closer perspective to sound satisfying. At least to me. But I definitely agree with you that there is too much close miking and over-emphasis by engineers. If you don't have it, check out the old Umbrella Direct to Disk of the Toronto Chamber Orchestra. I'm normally not a fan of D2D, but I think they got this one right. http://www.ebay.com/itm/UMBRELLA-Direct-Disc-AUDIOPHILE-LP-Mozart-TORONTO-Chamber-EMB-DD6-Boyd-Neel-/150959116507?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D13535%26meid%3D3917537278889068243%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1080%26rk%3D5%26sd%3D110975976823%26 |
I think the way to judge a speaker, any speaker, is to listen to classical live in a great venue (without amplification of course) and see how close you get. It's amazing how beautiful the top end of the spectrum is with live. Perhaps this changes with how far back you are but even a few rows deep in the audience the presentation is completely out of your face. (I could go crazy here with the idea of "imaging," what image?) Many modern recording place the microphones on stage and sometimes on top of the instrument. Add the EQ of the engineer and top heavy design of some speakers and it's no wonder the presentation in one's living room sounds artificial and bright. Oddly enough the old 1960s RCA and Decca got it right. I won't claim I get real life sound in my living room with these warhorse LPs but they are far more accurate and closer to my experience at the symphony. Now if only New Orleans and other Jazz cities would return to all acoustic live shows rather than "rock and roll" level amplified stage shows. |
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. |
Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread. It's just that as Mapman confirmed and David12 referenced, distortion can skew an otherwise well laid out/engineered listening space whether it's deliberate or not. I really don't think a quality speaker is ever going to be the culprit since they always have a descending response. No matter how good the amp or source, there's always going to be a degree of sibilance which seems to me to be where the the answer lies. Vocal clarity is the toughest to achieve and the effort to do so may be an incidental consequence to the overall response of an amp. On the other hand, there's a marked difference between vinyl/analogue and digital sources. The latter seeming to be tipped up but imo only those that are vinyl conversions. However, I may very well be one of those old farts they're compensating 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! |
The situation in high end audio is similar to exotic cars. Unless your daddy was rich, for most people by the time they're able to afford one of those expensive German or Italian supercars they no longer have the youthful vigor to drive them anywhere near their limits. The modern lifestyle usually means a person's hearing is in decline by the time they reach 30, or even earlier. Driving, headphone listening, airplanes, subways, rock concerts, bars, guns, motorcycles, etc. are all high SPL activities or environments. I believe speaker designers have known for decades that a little bump in the 4-8kHz range translates into added detail. Also most speakers in a home environment suffer from the floor bounce induce lower midrange/upper bass suckout. Couple that with an uptilt in the lower treble and the speaker's in room balance will be noticeably light. On top of all this is the problem of wide dispersion tweeters giving speakers a flat in room power response which, IMO, is wrong, particularly for acoustic oriented music. Here's a link to an essay by Robert Greene where he spells out the problems of tonal balance inherent in modern recordings due to instrument design and recording techniques. |
I'd be willing to bet that it has more to do with the fact that flash sells product and tipped up treble seems like flash at first. Once you own it, it's your problem if it becomes irritating. I'm in my mid-50s and I've come to realize over the years that good sound is MUCH more than just frequency extension. I can't fully explain it but I know what sounds good to me (and what sounds like crap). My Merlin VSMs won't pressurize a room with bass but they are exceptional where it counts. I also know I've got some hearing loss though it hasn't been measured - I especially have problems when background noise is present (nerve deafness?). When things in the house are quiet though, the music really blooms (my wife jokes about needing to run her "small appliances" every time I sit down to listen). P.S. - I think there's a similar problem with mastering engineers on many of today's recordings - they know what sells and they produce it that way. |
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. |
Young people are doing the bulk of the buying. They want it loud and exciting, even grossly exaggerated, on both ends (rap is all about the low end in cars and headphones, rock needs to scream as well as thump). Audiophiles are older and mostly (I think, and I hope) looking for authentic reproduction of sounds that actually can exist, whether acoustic or electric/electronic, in a natural state. Anyway, I'm suggesting that any slant toward the top end may be an effort to create more "sizzle and snap" for the young, not the old. Just a thought. |
It has taken me a long time(I'll be 70 in a few months.)to come to my senses about listening TO my ears, not just through them. An exciting, fairly loud, up front sound used to be my top priority, now it's a relaxing, more somewhat laid back sound. And, yes, I agree with others concerning the treble claims---excessive AND often unrealistic in contrast to live, unamplified sounds. If there's one regret, it's that I wish I had taken better care of my ears regarding listening habits and preferences. I'm afraid that kind of advice falls on a fair number of "deaf ears", as it used to with me. |
