My battle with sibilance.

Mijostyn, you cannot assess whether any speaker has a deliberate gundry dip incorporated into the crossover simply by measuring the response of the speaker, because there are natural dips that occur in association with a crossover from one Driver to another. So you can not know whether that is an incidental artifact of the crossover or a deliberate dip. Further, the very benefit of a loudness control is that by turning the control one way or the other you are adjusting the level of the compensation for the Fletcher Munson curve. Because the degree of loss of sensitivity to bass and treble frequencies relative to midrange varies with sound pressure levels, the adjustability of a loudness control affords much more flexibility  than incorporating a fixed Gundry dip into the crossover network. Did you actually inquire whether  Wilson incorporates a gundry  dip into their crossover networks?

Mc low gain  is always much longer settling time. even just changing the stylus only.

and the cable burn in etc is much more difficult due to low gain. also if it's hot sounding.. check the capacitance and loading make sure it's in range. nothing to it really.. patience. 

@lewm , the dip is there. Now, you could argue as to whether or not it was intentional. Would Wilson do something that was not intentional? 
Most loudness controls I am familiar with are just on/off switches with only one curve. It would be very complicated and expensive to rig an analog variable control. My TacT is the only unit I know of that has dynamic loudness compensation. It hops from one curved to the next with output level. It happens automatically. I love it. But, no other digital preamp with the power do do this has the programming. I suspect (but do not know for a fact) that Bozevick had a patent or copywrite on this programming. Others will institute it in time. 
By the way, there is no one Fletchur-Munson curve. It is a continuum that is outlined by a set of curves that vary with sound pressure levels. Your ears do not hop from one curve to the next.

Most loudness controls on old school preamplifiers and receivers were continuously variable, sort of like bass and treble attenuators combined into one circuit.  So, for example, if you rotated them to left of center, you got a reduction in compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curve.  If you rotated them to the right of center, you got enhanced compensation.  Center detente could be the off position.  (I am not claiming that every Loudness control operated exactly like this; just giving an example.) This allowed for variable correction based on the SPLs at the listening seat.  You see such controls on Japanese equipment right up to this century.  40-50 years ago they were standard on some Harmon Kardon, Marantz, Fisher, Sherwood, etc. gear.  Would you agree that that would be better than one fixed Gundry dip built into a crossover?  Further, the complex network required in the speaker crossover to effect the Gundry dip would require inductors and capacitors, bound to muddy up the SQ.  Let's see, when you personally measured a Wilson speaker, was it in an anechoic chamber?  Could you rule out room effects to help produce the dip you may have observed?  But easiest of all, ask Wilson. I strongly doubt they would introduce such a complex network into their crossovers; it's tough enough to build a linear and transparent crossover network successfully, especially for the 3-, 4- and 5-way speakers built by Wilson.

    Ok, I dug up the Men From Down Under (Business As Usual, US Columbia print) and washed and vacuumed them throughly, and still they were working...at jackhammering my AT540ml cart in the air on the opening cut.  Not the Men's fault; deformed lip and mold, etc.
   Further tracks in, no vocal sibilance (but very close), the cymbals decay though just blended together. Played @ about 70-80Db.  Fluance RT85 with the upgraded cart, Mani phono pre, Pioneer Elite 803 in 2ch, Vandersteen 2ci, HSU sub.
  Had to quit before taking RickyLee for a spin cause the cat came up from the basement to complain. (anything over -30db amp and he's gone)  And I'm usually more dancing to "Danny's All Star Juke Joint" than critical listening anyway.
  My own recent sibilance annoyance came with Magro Timmons' voice on the highly regarded "Trinity Session"...CD. It's the only example I've noticed on my headphone separate system: Arya, Jot2, Bifrost2, Oppo85. Need to rip it and see if usb input "cures" it.  No cat issues!

Dear @mijostyn @lewm : "" Some speaker manufacturers, to make their speakers sound better at low volumes and reduce sibilance tuned their speakers with a built in Gundry dip. Wilson did this with the Watt/Puppy. ""

Low volumes, Gundry dip and Wilson speakers? well maybe you think you are rigth but unfortunatelly you are wrong and with out evidence about your statement.

First mistake that never existed or exist that ( ? ) Gundry dip :


"" Well, of course having found this, I have to jump in. My father, Dick Gundry, who spent almost all his working life in the BBC and was for many years responsible for maintaining technical standards in BBC Radio (which have sadly gone down since his retirement in about 1971), and who was known behind his back as golden ears, would not have been pleased to have his name attached to a deliberate departure from a flat frequency response in loudspeakers. Has anyone any idea on how this term arose? It must have been much more recent than 1971.

One of my father’s responsibilities back in the late 1950s and early 1960s was the development of stereo techniques in preparation for a means to broadcast it. ...............the uniformity was considered more important than perfect flatness, and thus the speakers may have shown the "Gundry dip". However it would not have been a design aim but a side-effect, and in any case my father would have had no input to the designs...

Kenneth Gundry, San Francisco ""




In 2009/2010 we can read these statements by a true expert:


"" Neither I nor Floyd Toole had never heard about the Gundry dip until about 2 months ago when an audio reviewer used the term in an email to us. Many poorly designed 2-way loudspeakers already have dips in the sound power response in the cross-over range 1-3 kHz where the directivity of the woofer is too high compare to the directivity of the tweeter at those frequencies. As a result, this produces a notch in the sound power response of the loudspeaker, usually followed by a peak. Depending on the bandwidth and depth of the notch, it is the peak that is often heard as sounding objectionable (harshness, hardness or excessive brightness). The extent to which this a problem depends on whether you are sitting on or off axis, and the reflectivity of the room.

To some degree, Harmon/Sean Olive’s research strongly asserts that listeners will universally prefer a flat frequency response under blind listening conditions. That alone is a pretty good reason. ""

S.Olive has several papers in the AES when he made it a lot of speakers research at Harmon, including why we need several subwoofers in a home audio systems but in this research ( white papers ) stated that 2 subs are ok at one seat position.



More information for the ones that really know about:


""" There is much myth, folklore and misunderstanding about this subject.

The ’BBC dip’ is (was) a shallow shelf-down in the acoustic output of some BBC-designed speaker system of the 1960s-1980s in the 1kHz to 4kHz region. The LS3/5a does not have this effect, neither in the 15 ohm nor 11 ohm, both of which are in fact slightly lifted in that region.

According to Harbeth’s founder, who worked at the BBC during the time that this psychoacoustic effect was being explored, the primary benefit this little dip gave was in masking of defects in the early plastic cone drive units available in the 1960’s. A spin-off benefit was that it appeared to move the sound stage backwards away from the studio manager who was sitting rather closer to the speakers in the cramped control room than he would ideally wish for. (See also Designer’s Notebook Chapter 7). The depth of this depression was set by ’over-equalisation’ in the crossover by about 3dB or so, which is an extreme amount for general home listening. We have never applied this selective dip but have taken care to carefully contour the response right across the frequency spectrum for a correctly balanced sound. Although as numbers, 1kHz and 4kHz sound almost adjacent in an audio spectrum of 20Hz to 20kHz, the way we perceive energy changes at 1kHz or 4kHz has a very different psychoacoustic effect: lifting the 1kHz region adds presence (this is used to good effect in the LS3/5a) to the sound, but the 4kHz region adds ’bite’ - a cutting incisiveness which if over-done is very unpleasant and irritating. """"


Wilson speakers?:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-wattpuppy-system-8-loudspeaker-measurem...

John Atkinson has a lot of solid experiences about making " hundred’s " of speaker measurements ( in room and anechoic. ) and you can read in the Watt measurements this JA statement:


" The Wilson speaker’s lateral-dispersion plot (fig.7) indicates a broadly even radiation pattern, with an off-axis notch developing around 4kHz, where the on-axis response has a small peak. In the vertical plane (fig.8), the treble region doesn’t change much for listening axes on or just below the tweeter. However, a large suckout develops at 3.3kHz above the tweeter axis, which I assume is the frequency at which the WATT’s tweeter crosses over to its woofer. ""

Here another Wilson measurements:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-maxx2-loudspeaker-more-measurements

JA: """ but the most obvious difference between the speaker’s balance in the two rooms is that the MAXX 2s produce an impressively flat midrange and treble at Paul’s considerably greater listening distance...."""


Take a look of your " Gundry dip " in this speaker measurements:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaudio-evidence-master-loudspeaker-measurements

D.Wilson before designed the Watt was some years a recording/producer engineer.
The Watt does not came at " random " but because the high knowledge levels of what are the needs for a speaker recording studio monitoring.

I could think that you own the recordings under D.Wilson label. Well the speaker monitoring ( in location ) was the Watt and the WAMM at Wilson Audio. Great recordings and a must to listen it in the rigth room audio system.

mijostyn you have to make more research about. There is a lot of expert information in the internet.

Yes, lewm is rigth just from the begining and as he I never heard before about that Gundry myth. Now I learned why.


R.

@rauliruegas, putting a 2-3 dB notch filter between 3 and 4 kHz is a very common approach to making certain program sources more listenable.
I suggest you take a very sibilant recording and try it. It is rather cool to hear the sibilance disappear (along with a little detail). How it got it's name as the "BBC" or "Gundry" curve doesn't really matter. I use those terms because that is what the industry seems to want to call it. I did not make it up. 

As for Watt/Puppies, measured at one meter with modern computerized equipment they demonstrate a mild dip at those frequencies. I am absolutely sure those measurements were done correctly. The Maxx 2's are a totally different speaker and they were not measured near field individually.  I have heard but have no proof that other manufacturers have done this. That graph, by the way has very poor resolution, is crude and you should note the measurement indicates a +- 2.5 dB variance throughout most of the midrange which the writer is calling "impressively flat." For an uncorrected speaker it is impressively flat but the bass is not good. It is down at 150 Hz, up at 80 Hz and falls off steeply below 50 Hz.
In order to get realistic low bass at reasonable levels the bass has to rise as you go down from 100 Hz. I adjust my system to be up 5 dB at 20 Hz.
The dip at 150 Hz is going to rob the bass of detail and impact. Pipe Organs can go down to 8 Hz. 16 Hz is no problem (but an extremely large pipe) The Maxx's bass response is, at least in part due to room nodes. 

Very occasionally I will use the notch filter. I dislike loosing detail and you can frequently cut the sibilance by just turning down the volume a bit. 

@mijostyn """ : a mild dip at those frequencies. """, yes because it’s where the crossover frequency belongs , JA stated it.


"" . a very common approach to making certain program sources more listenable. ""

approach by whom because we are not talking about recording proccess but in specific about speakers and I took Wilson because you named but the speaker design behavior that you support and through almost any of the several JA speakers measurements just don’t confirm what you said but only confirm that your take does not exist.

""" The Maxx 2’s are a totally different speaker and they were not measured near field individually. """

you just don’t read it, here again. Btw, we are not reviewing the speaker only the " gundry dip ", that’s all:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-maxx2-loudspeaker-measurements

Here a way different speaker that again confirm you have , at least, a misunderstood about:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-25-loudspeaker-measurements


I can show you 10 other different speaker measurements but at this time will be futile.


R.

mijostyn : The posted speakers measurements choosed were " contemporary " . Here an ADS vintage monitor from the late 70's- early 80’s. You can go to the last page ( 8 ) to read some measurements.

http://sportsbil.com/ads/l-2030-brochure.pdf

R.

@rauliruegas , somehow I think we are dealing with a language barrier/misunderstanding problem. 
Speaker measurements vary dramatically. The same speaker will measure very differently in different situations. The only measurement that is really valid is nearfield in an anechoic chamber. Very rarely if ever is this the case with speaker reviews.

Speaker designers can vary the presentation of a speaker in numerous ways by intension  manipulating a lot of factors and sometimes, to get what they are looking for requires a lot of electronics. The crossovers of the Dahlquist DQ 10 and the Apogee Diva's are great examples. What they had in mind is rarely known by the public. Some designers leave it up to the owner by giving them controls to adjust the relative driver volume or in my situation the contribution of one transformer vs the other transformer. Do any of them purposely boost bass and/or treble? You bet!
Most companies only want to sell loudspeakers and they do so but giving the public what they want and many will go for the speaker that is brightest or has the most bass. Companies will generally do anything to sell speakers. Those of us that buy expensive speakers are generally more critical and the companies that make them are more careful to keep the speaker as flat as possible in the average room. Who has an average room? What is an average room? 

Dropping the volume between 3 and 4 kHz is a well known way to diminish sibilance and there are many people who like an easy going loudspeaker that does not make them squint. Boosting bass and treble a little achieves the exact same result which is an easy going loudspeaker that sounds better at the lower volumes most people listen at.
My system is adjusted for playback at 95 dB. At 85 dB without loudness compensation it sounds a bit dull and bass light and people will notice this until I turn the volume up (or kick in the loudness compensation)
 
Because my front end is digital and managed by an advanced processor I can alter the frequency response +- 30 dB at any frequency from 0 Hz to 20 kHz either individually or as a group. Over the years I have experimented with hundreds if not thousands of curves which is why I can look at a frequency response curve and have a good idea what a system will sound like. I adjust my system to get the tonal balance and imaging I like. I have one preset loaded with my favorite curve but with a broad dip centered on the 3 to 4 Hz region for the occasional recording that gets sibilant at the volume I like which is why I and anyone who listens to my system know darn well that this works. 

As for what any speaker manufacturer had in mind? I have no idea. You would have to ask them. 

Dear  @mijostyn : I understand all what you said and yes no one of us can be sure what reviewers or speaker manufactured really do it but at least we can " work " with the " evidence " they show that we have on hand because  like it or not are the only " facts " we have around other than each one of us personal experiences.

You named Wilson and if you or any one else try to find out directly from Wilson the precise frequencies in the crossover of each of their models just you can get it, no information about.

Now, you have not evidence true evidence facts on the sibilance issue, what you posted till today has no evidence shows no single facts.

Yes, you are sharing your experiences and what is functioning for you what meet your MUSIC/sound priorities. That's all.

Fortunatelly I don't have sibilance true problems in my room/system so your " gundry dip " is useless for me.

I wish you really show clear and precise facts not coming for you but from other " sources ". In the mean time as I told you we all should " works " with the facts that comes from manufacturers and reviewers. I'm speaking of facts.

You show through your posts the different problems you have with your room/system and how you are fixing it. Thank's for that. Always is time to learn and I learned through this thread.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@rauliruegas, maybe you missed this but computerized impulse testing of older Watt/Puppies in the near field produced similar curves for each speaker that rose in the treble and bass leaving a depression centered at 4000 Hz. The Watt/Puppy had a reputation for being a very easy to get along with loudspeaker and put Wilson on the map. I suspect this was the reason why. You have not shown me any evidence to the contrary.

There are plenty of recordings with sibilance issues. While it is true that some systems are more resistant to sibilance than others there are some recordings where you just can not get away from it. If there is no circumstance under which you get some sibilance with female voice or violin your system has a problem, probably a curve similar to the Watt/Puppy's! Since I measured the Watt/Puppys even better technology has come along where you measure the speakers with a sine sweep in real time. Lots of fun. You can program the computer to do the sweep but I prefer playing the sweep on a CD leaving the computer totally free to measure. One warning. If you get into this you are going to drive everyone else in the house NUTS. This is best done while you are alone but you might want to do a gummy first that way it will just sound like a new Trent Reznor song:-)

Dear @mijostyn : You are biased on that frequency range were our ears are more sensitive and you said that Wilson on purpose did it " something " in its crossover as other speaker manufacturers and some recordings labels some times but all those just or did not happens in the past or does not happens today. No evidence at all.

After all the information that I read over my research about I don’t need your notch filter. My system handled really good sibilance, not that does not exist but it’s not a true problem.

In today re-issues as the Rickie Lee Jones " It’s like this " you can be aware how the recording engeneer/producer of that Sheridan LP was made it: putting up-front her voice and due the tone of her voice the recording makes a little or to much hot down there. In the first track when you listen the word " shake/shaking " I noted a little sibilance but a very high volume.

Anyway, you can follow with your biased subject, not me because exist hundreds of speakers with a different frequency signature " window ", thousands and thousands of LP/CD recorded in several different ways and with different frequency " window " and each one of us has too ears with different frequency " windows ". That’s all, each one of us try to fix each one of us " problems " in our room/systems. You pointed out several times how you try to fix it: manipulating the system frequency response.

An audio system is a chain of several links and each one has its own every kind of distortion levels that at the end is the system noise floor level and I think you could have a problem down there because your system sibilance " problem " and how you fix it when appears. Higher system noise floor makes sibilance more apparent, yes that noise at the end means distortion levels.

Through the years and with out really looking to improve my system noise floor level I did it when I change my tonearms internal wire cooper by silver wires, when I changed system cables for Analysis Plus silver/cooper, when I take out all the input fuses in the electronics, when I change the power electrical cable for silver cable, when I changed the fancy/boutique speaker crossover capacitors for Wima/Kemet ones, etc, etc.
The noise floor level in my room/system is extremely low and this helps a lot against sibilance goes down too.

R.

Raul, I did not start this thread. I was just responding to the OP trying to shed some light on the situation. I am not sibilance crazy. As far as Rickie Lee Jones goes, who I have seen in person twice "it's Like This" was recorded later in her career when her voice had lowered a bit. Listen to any of her first three albums particularly "Pirates" 

I have no idea what Wilson intended. All I can tell you is what I measured which matches up perfectly with the speaker's reputation. Obviously, you do not trust my measurements which s your prerogative. But, that is your problem not mine. 

I must be a very lucky guy. I hardly ever have to reach for my sibilance preset and I did not have to do near the amount of....stuff to my system to get it to my liking. I see you have this thing for silver wire. Impressive. 

Dear @mijostyn : ""  you do not trust my measurements..."""

No, I trust in your measurements there is nothing to makes me doubt about. It's your conclusion in where I disagree.

""  I must be a very lucky guy. I hardly ever have to reach for my sibilance prese....""

there is no lucky but learned knowledge levels through the years what permit your system to perform the way it does. Yes, sometimes by " accident " we discovered " something that helps the system to improve but still we " learned " with.

"" I did not start this thread. I was just responding to the OP trying to shed some light on the situation. I am not sibilance crazy.  ""

but even that the OP " fixed "/lower the sibilance level in his system you posted that what some were posted on the sibilance issue was more about distortion levels and not true sibilance problem because the OP achieved a lower sibilance level after he made it a check up to the cartridge/tyonearm overall set up and he found out was wrong and from there came those distortions that accentaed the sibilance issue.

R.

Mijo, Have you noticed that you’ve backed off your original claim that Wilson deliberately engineered a “Gundry Dip” into their speaker’s response (without saying which of their many very different speakers you were talking about).  And that along the way you’ve admitted that the only close to meaningful measure of speaker response has to be done in an anechoic chamber, which you probably did not use in making your own private assessment. No one is saying that a given speaker may not have a dip in its midrange response, due to any number of different factors. So we can let the subject die a natural death.

@lewm , Yes, that may have been a bit pretentious. However the response of the speaker being what it was does lead one to wonder. As I said before I doubt Wilson did things by mistake although it might have been an end they were happy with. Just by listening it is going to make a more natural sounding speaker at lower volumes and it may have been by listening that they arrived at this result. Wilson was a young company at the time and certainly did not have the resources they have now. 
As for the anechoic chamber, quite right. You can get a feel for a speaker's behavior doing near field measurements. The largest errors are going to be in the bass. I do believe there are now computer programs that with impulse testing can ignore reflections and give a pretty accurate curve without an anechoic chamber. I certainly do not have one.  

This was not my own idea. I had heard manufacturers did this for two reasons, to lower sibilance and to make the speaker more natural sounding at lower levels. Both are very true and can be easily demonstrated. 

@rauliruegas , Sibilance and distortion are two very different problems with different solutions. Distortion might sort of sound like sibilance but it is not. 

@mijostyn : "  As I said before I doubt Wilson did things by mistake.."

only your doubt because the dip exist by the crossover frequency in that range. Normally the midrange/tweeter crossover goes from 2.5khz to around 4khz. There is no mistakes D. Wilson was an expert for all his audio experiences through his life .

Btw, yes sibilance is not a defined distortion as THD or IMD but at the end several developed system kind of distortions can accentuate the sibiliance issue, this is what happened with the OP that after to fix the cartridge/tonearm  the sibilance sound does not disappears but gone way lower and that's too my first hand experiences about.

R.