[neilvg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenja /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sibilance is definitely caused by the music itself (look at the spectrum analyzer when it appears, there's a massive mountain centered at around 8-10kHz) and to reduce/get rid of sibilance would mean to reduce sounds that are supposed to be there. It doesn't seem like there's much that can be done about it if you want a neutral tonal balance. It doesn't really bother me anyway. If it's to the point that it does bother me, it means I'm listening to loud.

I think your right for the most part - BUT, I will add that while sibilance is a necessary and normal part of a recording, it is the way that the sibilance is handled by a playback system (...and recorded too for that matter) that makes a difference. As I stated earlier, sibilance need NOT, not be euphonic (attn-double negative). Also, what seperates some of the lesser (yet still resolving and dynamic) systems from the top tier group is the way in which they handle these sibilant transients and the like. On my home rig - both headphone and speaker, I have carefully sorted out and found the equipment which created a poor sibilant reproduction. Listen to the way sibilants sound when you say them, or when someone is normally speaking. They shouldn't sound searing or overwhelming (unless recorded this way), they shouldn't be smeared or underpronouced either. Unfortunately, only either very nice systems, or very modest systems (which tend to be euphonic but not much else), really handle siblants acceptably for me - with the higher end ones actually doing it right.

Of course these issues become more of an issue at 'realistic' listening levels. But then again, the level that you listen at comfortably also has to do with the fact that certain offending frequencies will often times be the culprit for finding a lower volume, and not the fact that the entire spectrum was outputting too much energy.

Neil

 

[SeagramSeven]

One thing I feel is important to note;

Many times people will think their gear "sucks" if they hear what seems to be lots of sibilance in the reproduced sound. Often however (if your gear is good), this is actually not the case. Very often mastering engineers will apply a "U" equalizer, boosting(artificially) bass & treble assuming people will like the sound more. Play it back on a K501 it sounds sibilant (because it IS sibilant), play it back on an HD580/6X0 and it sounds better thanks to the rolled off highs.

So not all sibilance is necessarily a flaw of your equipment.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

Seagram, great points and that's one I was getting at. Just because you hear sibilance, it does not mean there is a problem with your headphones, amps or cables (lord...). It just means the music was bad in the first place (or good cus I like intentional sibilance and distortion). Now if your headphones play anything with sibilance, then yes. They are crap.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Excelent treatment of the subject more fully understood now by many readers myself included.
Personally, my choice of music played, which is the genesis of the problem, harkens back to those Classic Rock preformances initially chosen I suppose, for their sentimental value. I find all to many poorly recorded and remastered when reproduced by these high resolution gears we have assemble.
I have evolved towards the more euphoric side of the materials reproduction with the interjection of tube amplification which still provides frequency extention enough, while attuning these nasties of distraction to my enjoyment of the material. I've become more aware of staying away from remasters and live preformances of the Classic Rock preformances in general, although there are exceptions where the networking here and the "Net" is very helpful in that regard.
Showing my age and personal musical maturity I suppose, I've ventured out into the more beautiful and harmonic side of the many music generes for my listening pleasure on these reproduction gears I have assembled.

I'm well aware of others choices of music played and personal preferance in that regard, and now with these posts can more fully appreciate how sibilance can actually be music to others ears. However, for myself and from my point of view, it will be and is something to be eliminated as I have had some success at doing; Allowing for more choices of music I chose to enjoy for reasons other than its recording value when produced.

 

[neilvg]

I also listen to a lot of classic and prog rock from the 70's where the recording quality varies from quite good to quite terrible.

Neil

 

[Thai Fighter]

Sibilance has always been a real pain in the ass for me.
It would always cause almost instant pain - that's why I had to sell my ep-630s, they caused incredible pain :/.

Fortunately I stumbled upon HS820 and HD205 - the pain is now a thing of the past

.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrypt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Edstrelow: Please be kind enough to let me borrow your "reproducing system," as mine is aging and neutered. I'd rather not have to pick up a new one while yours can still give birth.

Sorry, I am having too much fun with my reproducing system to let anyone else get their hands on it.

 

[edstrelow]

Whatever happened to tone controls and high frequency filters?

 

[SeagramSeven]

I have a handful of classical & opera type-tracks and track clips I use to test for sibilance in new & present gear. They have very strong, well recorded high-frequency content, but there is no clipping, ringing, distortion or equalization applied to the sound. Basically as pure of a recording as you will ever find on a CD.

Playing those back at rather high volume, it should come "just to the edge". What I mean by that is, it should be sharp & high as much as it possibly can, without "piercing" your ears and making what would otherwise be termed "sibilance".

I don't have it anymore, but when I had the K1000 it passed this test better than any other. K701/601/501[favorite] pass superbly. HD580/6X0 pass in the sense that they never become sibilant in the test, but to me they fail because they don't come "just to the edge" as they should. (they stay too far into the safety zone).

I no longer have the 701 or 601 either---sold them when I realized the 501 was actually better [more flat, no artificial bass-boost]. Gilmore Lite driving the 501's is my main setup. For most music in the pop/rock/metal genres, I actually find, in high frequency sections, it seems too sibilant. However, this is actually because of artificially boosted high[and low] frequencies in the source material I have found. When using classical tracks, or anything in general that has been recorded in a "pure" way----there is no sibilance whatsoever--only a gloriously transparent wonderous sound.

 

[SeagramSeven]

So the conclusion is simple;

If you listen to well made beautiful music, and want it to sound pristine, go AKG.

If you listen to well made beautiful music, and want it to sound relaxing, go Senn.

If you listen to mutilated, digitally-butchered distorted junk, and want it to sound decent, go Senn.

If you listen to mutilated, digitally-butchered distorted junk, and want to scream "ROCK ON!", go Grado.

And...
If you don't care, go iPod.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

^ good points all, SeagramSeven...

Especially like the description coined "up to the edge" and the fact of your using the referance tracks with which to find it!

Benchmarks and referance points is what is sorely needed to sort out what is actually the cause of these nastys; The recordings, our gears or both in our search for remedy...

 

[The-One]

I had the CX300 for a grand total of 1 week and found it weirdly hurt. The sound was not screechy at all, but it still hurt when playing certain recording, like a buzzing pain. Was that sibilance?

 

[SeagramSeven]

You can only describe something as sibilant if you can hear it. Things that are inaudible can however damage your ears or give you a headache or both.

Say you can only hear up to 15-16khz (common if you are middle-aged).

If a particular track, on your playback gear, produces alot of sound between 17 and 20khz, you may not "hear" any sibilance at all---but after going through 2 or 3 songs, you rip your headphones off in frustration with ear/head pain. The pain may be mild, mild enough where you just call it "uncomfortable". Or it might be moderate to even severe, depending on how loud you made it.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

Great points everyone.

You can have a smooth sounding headphone like the CX300 and be sibilant as heck.

There is a difference between sibilance and treble harshness. You can have an ugly problem with grainy and harsh highs or sharp edged mids and think that is sibilance. That is another problem, but I would not call it sibilance.

 

[vranswer]

Whether it's harsh highs or sibilance, I first 'discovered' it when I bought a pair of Sony EX51s. Prior to that event I would've considered myself a detail-freak, square on team Ety and the like. After maybe 30 minutes with the EX51s the burning "essssses" and drenching wet cymbal crashes had my brain exploding, and made me hear something that can now not be 'unheard'.

Now all such sounds are grating and annoying, and I actually appreciate the "rolled off" highs of, say, Shure E5s for that very reason. Good topic, and helpful info here. I'll be targeting the 5-10kHz slider on my EQ for some of my 'phones that tread close to the edge.