How do I smooth out violins?

Violin sound is actually a square wave....very difficult to reproduce ....you need good equipment to do it right.

For people who have digital control of their systems, if a recording of female voices or violins has to much sibilance if you add a notch filter centered on 3 kHz, down 2-3 db you can eliminate it.  

Depending on your speakers - it may be something as simple as playing with the placement and alignment of your speakers.

At the frequencies in the Violin range, human ears are pretty sensitive to reflected signals. Also, those frequencies "bounce" off of typical common wall surfaces pretty effectively. Furthermore, as some have stated - your speakers (tweaters in particular) may become more "beamy" at the higher frequencies (the way that various frequencies produced by your speakers "spread-out" within your room changes as the primary frequency content of the music shifts from predominantly bass to predominantly treble, and the spread of the tweaters may become narrower when the music shifts to mostly treble [as in massed violins] which would tend to focus more of the sound intensity to wherever the tweaters are aimed.

If your speakers are pointed directly at your ears (height-wise) and/or if they are pointed square or nearly so at any hard walls within your room - you may be hearing the tweaters TOO "directly" and/or reflections interacting with the original signal from the speaker. Changing the "toe-in" and/or tilting the speakers a few degrees may help to reduce this phenomenon (and it costs you NOTHING to try it!) The idea is to align the tweaters so that they are aimed "just a little" off from your listening location and at enough of an angle so that reflections do not bounce in direct opposition or parallel to the source waves from the tweater(s).

Acoustical treatments to the room can also be effective - usually best to have some hardish surfaces in the front part of the room / soft absorbing stuff in the listening area and diffusion behind the speakers.

REMEMBER:  Whether you like it or not - Your listening room accounts for about 30% of the Perceived Acoustic Performance of your system.

I second rok2id4's suggestion about tracking down some good string recordings.  But before you replace any equipment as so many have suggested, try the Schiit Loki:  https://www.schiit.com/products/loki
Only $149, with a 15 day free trial and full refund minus only a 15% restock fee.  So if it doesn't help with your problem, you are out only $22 - way cheaper than replacing a preamp, cd player, cables, or getting a power conditioner.  Doesn't work and you are out $22, you can then then proceed to spend way more on one of the suggested fixes that also may or may not work.  Regarding your speakers, I was a long time owners of the BC-1, for which I believe your speakers are the 4th generation replacement.  While I've not heard the SP1/2e, based on how wonderful the BC-1s sounded, I would really hesitate replacing the SPs.

I switched to a tube preamp using some great NOS tubes that rolled off the highs a bit, but still sound very open (RCA Blackplates). Strings were finally sounding very natural, and it was now easier to tell which cds were poor recordings.

Get better equipment or roll off the highs.

The problem with massed strings (and probably massed brass instruments too) being too overbearing often has little to do with frequency response and a lot to do with distortion. Solid state electronics have less distortion than tubes, but what distortion they do have is percieved by the ear as brightness and harshness and this is why tubes are still around decades on after becoming 'obsolete'. Tube distortion is simply less irritating.
Digital has its own distortions (known as 'aliasing' since the digital industry does not want to admit to having distortion) which is also perceived by the ear/brain system as brightness.
Tube preamps might well have the same bandwidth as a solid state preamp but not sound as bright/harsh simply due to this distortion issue, since the ear converts all forms of distortion into tonality. The reason the higher ordered harmonics (which contribute to brightness) cause this is the ear is keenly sensitive to them as it uses them to sense sound pressure.

Get a better source and add ac filter chokes to your preamp and amp!

I used to have a McIntosh C50 solid state preamp and swapped it out for a C2500 tube preamp, and that change not only smoothed out violins, acoustic sounds (voices, pianos, guitars, etc.) also seemed to sound more "natural" to me.  Then I swapped out the stock tubes for Gold Lions and that further improved the sound.

I notice that in this and related violin forums, nobody mentions the complexities of the human ear. An early very sophisticated attempt to explain vagaries of massed-violins tone is by Mark Dolson in the early 1980s. This paper is not directly useful to improving the sound of your hifi set, but gives you some ideas.  eg, I have many CD on which massed violins sound fine; but I have bought 5 CD of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2, and the violins are bad on all.  Does Rachy score the 1st and 2nd violins in some peculiar way that creates "Dolson Effects"? I can hear massed-violin problems even at high-quality live concerts, the Vienna Philharmonic, eg. Wall & ceiling reflections can damage massed-violins tone—also, like Dolson, published in acoustics journals.  I suggest that female-chorale distortions arise similarly.  Of course, it is highly likely that the situation gets worse via the processing and playback chain.     

You know, distortion affects all signals passing through your system.
The nasties you describe are always present, even on the solo violin you think sounds good.
On some of the signals it is more obvious, that's all.
I read a post where someone suggested that the more diverse your system sounds with different source material the more likely that it is neutral.
I think that he is on to something.
All of the distortions in a given system color the sound. Many together make mush.
I have found that the closer I get toward neutrality (non-distorted sound), the larger difference small changes make.
It is like peeling an onion. I keep chipping away and all of a sudden things really start to come into focus. At first it's a leap of faith and then the closer I get the clearer it becomes.
An analogy is color mixing. Too many and you get muddy brown. Narrow the blend and it becomes clearer and brighter. Distortions are like those colors. The more of them you have the muddier the situation becomes. Peel them away one at a time and only after most are tamed does the picture become clear.
-Mike

I see the weak points in your system as the Marantz CD player and the NAD preamp/tuner. As a Spendor SP1/2E user, let me attest to their ability to render classical music very well indeed. By the way, I became even happier with the Spendors after adding a good subwoofer to supplement the low end. Classical music is much enhanced with Spendors combined with a sub (same with other music). Bottom line: No free lunch. Your loudspeakers deserve much better electronics.

Stringreen - That's actually a very interesting post and it taught me something, BUT the problem in my system is only apparent in orchestral music. Solo violin in that higher frequency range actually sounds exceptionally good in that range, massed violins exceptionally bad.

Bo...violin (string) sounds are actually "sawtoothe" waves.....extremely difficult to reproduce electronically. Its a rising pulse followed by a sharp drop....you need fast equipment to cope. ..here's some info that might be interesting. The hair on a bow has microscopic "thorns" along its length. When the performer draws the bow on the string, these thorns actually pluck the string, but then the pressure of the string on the bow immediately stops the string from vibrating....thus...the sawtoothe waveform.

As I'd mentioned, I was experiencing the same issues with high massed strings in the 1kHz-3kHz region, with my two systems, which have very different component classes and room environments. The only thing they shared is a redbook D source and now passive preamps.

I mentioned getting an Empirical Audio Synchro Mesh reclocker (SPDIF in) and am very pleased with this excellent product, which helped. What has also been interesting is that I hooked up a cheap ($25) linear power supply to the SynchroMesh, taking the place of a switching supply wallwart, and that has really also been positive. Based on that experience, I am currently working on the theory that PART of the problem with higher frequency massed strings is the drawbacks of switched power supplies (SMPS). They s***. I'm now looking at a variety of power improvement products, testing the hypothesis that ac problems are a big issue. In the past, I had noticed positive improvements in this area from shielded power cables, by the way.

So my current assessment of the high strings issue in digital playback is that it has a complex set of origins:

1) Faulty recordings;
2) Redbook CD is either the cause or is particularly sensitive in this sound area to system problems.
3) Jitter - no doubt that this is a contributing factor;
4) Dirty power. I'm continuing to work on this. New fuses are ordered and I'm going to get audiophile receptacles. I am almost convinced this is another major contributing factor.

Re-reading this thread, one thing that struck me about Bojack's system is his patently inferior pre-amp. My personal suggestion for you Bojack is to try out a passive preamp. Very good units (Goldpoint, the Lightspeed Attenuator, etc) are well within your budget.

I'll update this as I learn more about the ac issues.

Interesting.
I play the violin everyday. So does my son.
Reference real sound, and proceed from there.
Massed violins are hard to reproduce. The information is very complex and the ear is very sensitive.
I believe that there is no cutting corners for accurate reproduction. You can mask an error in the playback chain and make it more tolerable by adding more distortion but the original distortion and the added distortion can't be corrected once there. Stacking the distortions is like trying to correct for too much salt by adding more oregano to your soup.
Unfortunately, distortion creeps in everywhere. It must be minimized.
There is no free lunch. Cables ring, digital jitters, amps feedback, speakers make a mess, etc.
The only way I have improved playback is by minimizing distortion, not masking it.
It is not an art. It is science. Go from there.
This lesson repeats itself over and over again.
We are not monkeys typing Shakespeare, we have reason.
There are many ways to mess it up, only one way to get it right. Limit distortion!
-Mike

1)tube buffer
2)acoustic treatments
3)tape a square of toiler paper over the tweeter

The tube buffer/treatment combo certainly helped tame the violins through my system

Sai, thanks for the youtube link, Sai, as in Sai Babba? Emoting from Nirvana?

Or you could just spend a million bucks and get yourself some proper equipment (facetious)

Suggested recording for test: RCA Living Stereo (SACD) Heifetz/Munch Beethoven Violin Concerto, or the Sibelius Violin Concerto also played by Heifetz.

Suggested recording for test: RCA Living Stereo (SACD) Heifetz/Munch Beethoven Violin Concerto, or the Sibelius Violin Concerto also played by Heifetz.

Is this violin sound good enough for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-kQPEj7znE
This was recorded with a Sony HD recorder direct from speaker.

Second what Al said again. Jitter can be introduced during the recording process and cannot be removed if in teh recording. Other things can factor in as well of course as has been outlined. A good reference recording is definitely step 1!

Jult, Well said. However, we can't do anything about how a performance is miked and mixed. It is what it is by the time it gets to us. Redbook limitations may be partially addressed by upsampling and purchase of DSD/SACDs. The system limitations is where we have the ability to significantly impact the end result, where those system limitations exist. At the end of the day, nothing we do can mitigate a recording that flips back and forth between 5th row center and dress circle perspecives, or mikes a Bach Partita from 6 inches, so that everytime the violinist moves the violin jumps from center to right, right to left, center to left, etc. (I prefer the Ehnes Bach partitas and sonatas, partially because he stands still during most of the recordings.)

01-09-13: Jult52
I think the bottom line is that this issue - which I think is a significant one since it involves the principal frequency range for melodic presentations by the principal orchestral instrument in classical music - is a result of a confluence of sound engineering problems, format issues (redbook) and stereo system deficiencies.

Very well said, IMO, as are the other recent responses in the thread.

Although it is probably clear to everyone, to be sure I just want to point out that a reclocker is not something that would be applicable to a one-box CD player such as the OP's Marantz CD5004.

And I note that in John Atkinson's measurements of the player he states that:

The CD5004 offered superb rejection of word-clock jitter, with the odd harmonics of the LSB-level, 229.6875Hz squarewave lying at the residual level, and only pairs of sidebands at ±60 and ±120Hz visible to the sides of the 11.205kHz tone in the narrowband spectrum of the Marantz's output while it played the Miller/Dunn J-Test signal (fig.7). I haven't given a numeric figure for the player's jitter level, as it was below the Miller Analyzer's resolution limit....

The Marantz CD5004's measured performance indicates that its intrinsic resolution is better than is needed by the CD medium. That it can offer this level of performance for just $350 is astonishing.

Of course, given that the sonic quality of a one-box CD player may be limited by a great many factors in addition to internal jitter, this certainly does not exclude the possibility that the player Frogman suggested may significantly ameliorate the problem. Although I still suggest that step 1 should be an assessment of a high quality reference recording, that can be counted on to not be a contributor to the symptom that is being addressed.

Regards,
-- Al

Jult,

Great minds think alike! :-)

Looking forward to hearing your results.

Mapman - I'd highlighted my issues with string orchestra treble earlier and am planning on going with the SynchroMesh. I will report back in a couple of months.

I think the bottom line is that this issue - which I think is a significant one since it involves the principal frequency range for melodic presentations by the principal orchestral instrument in classical music - is a result of a confluence of sound engineering problems, format issues (redbook) and stereo system deficiencies.

There is no magic bullet.

Zd542, I think you have made things clear enough, and I agree. I look at it as preparing a meal. Yes, you will want to pick out the best main ingredients that you can afford and locate to cook with. These represent the system components. Then you will want to use spices (cables) to season to personal taste. In this analogy, all meals are seasoned as far as I know, since there are no systems out there that do NOT use cables.

THis would be an interesting trial application for Steve at Empirical Audio's affordable reclocker gadget. That should help assure being in a good place from a jitter perspective I would expect. HE offers a free trial period. I would be interested to know if it helps.

Synchro Mesh

the funny thing is in my case that violins sounds the best with low budged amplifier Technics a700mk2 connected to Dynaudio contour s1.4 and bryston dac.No magic wires at all,just simple ones.Overall sound is massive and very powerfull

Bojack, you want this! ;-)

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/cd-sacd-players-ah-njoe-tjoeb-4000-cd-player-2013-01-09-digital-02790

(No affiliation with seller)

This post is to hopefully clarify my other post where I mentioned Cardas and Audioquest cables. By some of the responses by other posters, I don't feel I did a very good job at getting my point across. Here's something I should have said: In my opinion, you need to get your system sounding good, BEFORE you buy cables. If you've done a good job buying components you like, matched them to each other properly and to the room, It should sound good, even if you have basic, entry level cables, connecting everything. The problems start to arise when you are not happy with your system and you buy cables to fix it.

I'm not at all saying that cables don't make a difference or that you shouldn't use them to tune your system to your liking. Absolutely. Buy whichever cables you like. Its your money and your system and there's nothing wrong with picking cables that sound good to you. It would be foolish not to.

I hope I was able to clarify my comments. Sorry if I confused anyone.

I find this whole discussion fascinating. I think many good points have been raised (by many posters).

I never find live strings harsh sounding even if I sit onstage with the players, so in my opinion the problem lies with the playback system and the distortions that it adds, that overlay (and color) the sound of the recording.

CD (it's 16 bit/44.1kHz resolution) does overlay string sound with a layer of digital grunge. SACD on the other hand, sounds noticeably cleaner and that's what why I prefer it for my most critical (string) listening.

With that said there are other (equally important) sources of distortion in your playback system that also overlay string sound with harsh sounding distortions (and many of these issues can be addressed).

Let me start by saying that your speakers are blameless. They were designed to reproduce orchestral strings and can do this well but only if fed a clean, undistorted signal.

Your overall system seems unbalanced.

The pre-amp and source are not in the same class of fidelity as your speakers and that's why the speakers are not reaching their full potential.

I like previous suggestions to upgrade the source and preamp.

For source I would recommend upgrading to one of the Marantz SACD models like the SA-8004 (or one of the Marantz Reference models).

Not only do these play the superior SACD format but the higher end Marantz models feature improved power supplies and critical components that raise the level of CD playback over the Marantz budget CD players. The Spendor SP1/2's deserve a better sounding source.

There have been many great pre-amp suggestions in previous posts. I would only add that I would be looking at a tubed, Class-A unit.

Speaking of Class-A...switching from Class AB to Class A amplification made a world of difference in my system in getting orchestral strings to sound right. The lack of crossover distortion and high order harmonics in a well implemented Class-A design results in much smoother and more realistic sounding strings.

Reference Stereophile's measurements of your amp's distortion spectrum (revealing extensive high order harmonic distortion, which result in a gritty quality over-laying orchestral string tone).

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mccormack-power-drive-dna-1-power-amplifier-1992-measurements-part-2

There are many different ways (at the source and pre-amp level) that you can address string tone in your system and a few smart upgrades will make a world of difference.

That's actually a fairer deal than what I offered, but there's always Juan Uribe!

How about Hamels for Kemp?? ;)

Hi John! I'm doin' just fine, thanks...And after all the dough they spent, Dem Bums had better do fine too. It's been far too long since they've looked like championship material. How 'bout if you and I negotiate a trade right now here on Audiogon? You give me and the Dodgers Cole Hamels and I'll give you and the Phils Aaron Harang (LOL)

Otherwise, I sincerely hope you're feeling fit and all is well with your family too...And here's to looking forward to a stellar season for the both of us.

Hey Jeff, how are you doing my friend? It looks like there are better days ahead for your beloved Dodgers. I wish I could say the same for my Phillies. LOL. :)

"...in reality, I think everyone uses cables somewhat to 'tune in' a collection of equipment to suit their personal musical tastes...In the end, I feel that many of us generally arrive at the same destination, though we take many different paths to get there. Since there is no one single cable that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral, I feel that such an animal, a "perfectly neutral cable", does not exist. Therefore we are all tuning to some extent."

I am in complete in agreement with you, John.

FYI, here is a review from 1990 of the Chesky CD I recommended earlier for use as a reference recording, by Robert Hesson of Stereophile.

Regards,
-- Al

I once emailed Cardas regarding my harsh and forward sounding system and they recommended one of their cables that would make my system more laid-back. The reply was signed by George. (I assume G. Cardas).
I'll bet he is very familiar with these situations.

Zd542, while I don't disagree with you in theory regarding cables, in reality, I think everyone uses cables somewhat to 'tune in' a collection of equipment to suit their personal musical tastes. Many times I will see folks who swear by cables that many others will call 'bright' sounding, inevitably, these folks usually are running gear that many view as 'dark' sounding. Then there are others who swear by 'dark' sounding cables as the truth, when I look at their list of gear I see many 'bright' sounding pieces listed.

In the end, I feel that many of us generally arrive at the same destination, though we take many different paths to get there. Since there is no one single cable that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral, I feel that such an animal, a "perfectly neutral cable", does not exist. Therefore we are all tuning to some extent.

Zd, I think we are on the same page. I really don't like the change this buy that approach to spending other people's money. Luck is a poor plan A for making improvements in one's system. In the case of the AQ 4, I had direct experience with the cable and didn't like it. Inexpensive cables like anticable and signal cable were way better, so its not likely that loosing the AQ 4 would be a waste of money.

Brownsfan,

I wasn't trying to single you out in any way. I didn't go back and reread every single comment, but I thought I saw several poster recommend Cardas; that's why I used it. Also, if you take another look at my post, you'll see that I didn't say that either cable was good or bad. I only meant to imply that using cables to fix this, or any other problem, is generally speaking, not a good way to fix things you don't like in a system. Once in a while, you may get lucky, but more often as not you won't really fix anything with cables.

As to me having the AQ4 in my system, it was a few years ago, but I have. I didn't think it was as bad as you say but overall I agree with you. I didn't like them either. That said, I still don't think its the source of the problem. I apologize for any confusion in my post.

I have first hand experience switching from AQ to Cardas in many systems and am sharing my experience/opinion with the OP.Ultimately, this hobby is about our own expeiences and sharing with others what we have encountered. Not sure, why George Cardas would laugh at an person asking if his cables will calm down a bright system. I have talked with Mr. Cardas in shows and he has always been cardial. Has he laughed at you in the past?

Along the lines of Brownsfan's comments on cable, which I suspect is fair comment. For a relative few bucks, you could buy Canare 11s4 speaker wire and Blue Jeans interconnect and for the near future eliminate cable issues as being a source of problems. These are excellent, if not benchmark, for cost effective quality. Neutral. And electrically speaking well spec'd cables. When you get the rest of your system down to 'excellent' then you can spend some money on trying to find something better. FWIW.

Zd,
I agree with your post but my comments about replacing the AQ4 speaker cables was based on having used them for several years. Have you used them in your system? They are extremely grainy, and really don't do strings any favors. Another person suggested replacing them with Cardas. I can't answer for why they made that recommendation. I can say that AQ 4 is the worst wire I have ever had in my system. Chances are pretty good that replacing AQ 4 with Cardas, or for that matter something else selected at random would be an improvement. Its really not good wire.

Bojack,

A tube preamp may or may not rectify - lol - your situation. Multiple posts address the essential importance of the source material.

It would be interesting to document the sonic characteristics of your listening environment...audio-related anomalies can often be sourced, hehe, there.

Enjoy,

Sam

FWIW, since you seem to be dedicated to buying a tubed pre-amp I will restrain my self from comments on most other things, and comment on that issue.

1) Be sure your selection is electrially matched to perform best with your amp, i.e. correct impedence values in both units.

2) Be sure that the unit you buy will give you long range satisfaction even if it proves not to be the solution to the problem you are presently experiencing. If it does, your in hog heven, if not you can go to the next possible solution, not backward.

If your budget allows, consider the Joule Electra LA100 III pre-amp. One is presently on the AG. (That is what I would do anyway.)

BTW, my most successful, initial departure from the classic upper midrange brightness issue was the purchase of a high end tubed pre-amp, and subsequently a tubed CDP, if for no other reason, that I could change tonal issues by just changing tubes. The next step was fine tuning set up issues, and very belatedly finding the right speakers (for me and my room) and the amplification for them. Took me many years and a lot of experiments. No quick fixes that I ever found.

A last, but long, comment. All of the recomendations about recordings being critical are right on point as I initially implied, however a couple of things to think about.

1) Most recordings are made with a prospective user in mind, i.e. deaf, dumb, and blind, a beginning audiophile with a mid-fi solid state system, an advanced audiophile (many who post here), and the SOTA folk who seem to listen mostly to sound effects, valuing such things as depth of image (specificity, transparency, resolution) VERY highly.

2) Consider, for example, that the recording recommended by Al, great as it probably is, may not help you tune your system. It will undoubted sound good, and unless you have heard it over a reference system, you really don't know what its true potential is. But, just taking those specific old recordings you have at hand, you can play them on your 'new' system and judge your progress in tuning out the upper mid-range brightness. My favorite reference disc is "Depth of Image" on OPUS 3. A simple miked recording of various music with a description of what one SHOULD hear on each cut. I heard this on a reference system. WOW! So it became my guide and helped immensely.

Good luck..........

I've said from the beginning in my first post that if the problem is equipment related that I would look first to the preamp. I stand by this recommendation. I think that its worth stating again, though, that you need to look for the RIGHT preamp, not a tube preamp. If the right preamp just happens to be tube based, that's the one I would get.

If you start with the intent to FIX a problem by throwing things like tubes, cables, AC products, etc.. into the equation, you will fail. Any time you don't use products as they were intended to be used, in context, you can't possibly expect them to do good in your system other than by luck or accident. Heres an example. A lot of people mention that you should switch from AQ to Cardas cables. Why? I have absolutely no idea. The right way to correct the problem you are having with regards to getting stringed instruments right has nothing to do with cables. In this case, cables can't fix the problem. If cables can't fix the problem, the only other thing you can try to do with them is cover the problem up. By installing Cardas cables in your system, you can hope that the cables will work in a selective fashion, targeting a frequency range that just happens to be a problem area in your system, and smooth the problem over for you; by design. Anyone who thinks something like that can work needs to give Cardas a call and run the idea by them. In all likelihood, they would tell you (while laughing), that would be a bad idea and that they design their cables to have a frequency response that is as flat as possible; just like everyone else does. I'm not saying here that cables don't sound different from each other; they do. The point I'm trying to make is that if you use cables to transfer the audio signal from component to component, you will probably be happy with them. If you get them for some other reason, you won't be happy.

Rok2id,
If you notice, there`re acutually a number of posts here advising the OP to be systematic in approaching this issue.As has been say repeatedly, be sure it is`nt a 'recording issue' before changing and swapping components blindly.Take one sensible step at a time.

Learsfool,
Your "rant" is fully understood,it is a shame these 'sound' engineers won`t rely more on their ears and simply listen.
Regards,

Gentlemen, my two cents on this. Pretty much I agree with Frogman and Al. While they are correct that some digital recordings have gotten better, and there are even a few older ones that sound fine, it is a very sad fact that most of them are extremely over-miked and over-mixed, and just REALLY suck in general. I have plenty of first-hand experience of this, watching so-called "sound engineers" with absolutely no clue what they are doing. It is truly painful, and even infuriating. Almost no one seems to know how mikes should really be set up any more - they figure it's digital now, it's easy, it's just pushing buttons. Use as many mikes as possible, wherever we want, and then mix it to sound however the hell we want later. It is truly appalling for us musicians. They have especially lost the art, though, of doing sound at live concerts, but that's a whole other rant, though it is very much related to the non-thinking, non-listening approach that most of them have ever since digital recording was possible.

Sorry, but I happened to have an especially bad experience at tonight's show with the idiots who are the "sound guys". OK, I'm done ranting now.

A suggestion...to not assume all tube preamps will resolve your issue. Some tube preamps are not that "tubey". In my experience, certain units from Audio Research and Counterpoint sound very revealing. They will probably still be an upgrade from NAD, but may not be what you are targeting - which sounds like more of the CJ, Quicksilver type of sound. Also, replacing your Audioquest with Cardas may help too.