Warmth introduced by kit

[Mr Pig]

Decent recordings, which the majority are now, sound fine.

Fair enough but you said that you used to think most recordings were at least OK... but as your system has become more capable, you have realized how many are really not very good at all. And that "excessive brightness... is everywhere". That gave me the impression that the recordings which sound good on your system are in the minority.

Think about it. Do you really think that loads of classical labels are putting out recordings that are excessively bright? Why would they do that?

To me, a system which is unforgiving of poor recordings is fundamentally bad. I've been there, my system has been like that. I've had times when I failed to play probably half of my records or CDs because they sounded bad, maybe more. Then you get the system sorted and realize that all those bad CDs are actually fine!

 

[Woodface]

Can’t believe someone has just said that another’s system must be fundamentally bad.

 

[marshanp]

I've spent quite a lot of money (by my standards, anyway) making incremental changes over the last few years. Most have improved the sound I hear. On the odd occasion that I have gone backwards, I've realised that's what has happened, and reversed the change. I don't think there is much scope left for improving my system in my room at a price I am willing to pay.

Perhaps I exaggerated the number of indifferent recordings... and in the case of well-loved classical pieces there are always plenty to choose from, anyway. It's when there is only one recording, and that one hard to listen to, that there is a problem. Or when a particular performer is wonderful, but less than wonderfully recorded. Solo piano music is most often what suffers.

Example: Faure Nocturnes played by Sally Pinkas on the Musica Omnia label, recorded in 2014. The best playing you could ever hope to hear - if you can put up with the edge on the right-hand range of the piano's sound. If you play this recording and don't hear it that way, then either your system, your listening room or your hearing is rather different to mine.

Yet the same thing (piano, right hand range) sounds absolutely convincing (and painless) to me on my system in recordings on other labels (BIS, for example, or Harmonia Mundi) whose engineers, it seems to me, are simply better at capturing it. So the system is capable of reproducing well-made recordings in a pleasing way. I don't think I want to compromise that ability in order to make less-good recordings sound tolerable.

<edit> If the problem is to do with my hearing - which, having spent much time and money addressing the system's and the room's shortcomings, I am beginning to think it might be - then I don't think there is much I can do about it, and I'll just have to stick to recordings I can get along with and hope that it doesn't get any worse.

 

[camverton]

As Quad used to say with regard to their electrostatics, the wider you open the window the more you can see; which is not always a good thing. Sometimes a substandard system can mask things that a fine system can reveal.

 

[Mr Pig]

So the system is capable of reproducing well-made recordings in a pleasing way. I don't think I want to compromise that ability in order to make less-good recordings sound tolerable.

You shouldn't have to. A good system can be very revealing without shining too bright a light on poor recordings. It's a fine balance. Maybe fifteen or so years ago, I can't remember the exact time scale but at some point, I started consciously rejecting changes that made more recordings sound bad, even if they improved good ones. Incrementally I've moved towards a system that can can play anything you throw at it. CD is totally there. Vinyl getting there but still a bit of work to do.

The point is that I've still improved the system. It's still better than it was before, really enjoyable and revealing, but not ripping up bad recordings. It can take a lot of effort and attention to detail but you don't have to relegate poor recordings to the scrapheap.

 

[Andrew C!]

Are there any audiologists on here, I wonder? It seems likely to me that the frequency response of our auditory system is not necessarily constant over time. Is that so?

I said this a while ago on a diff thread, and it got laughed at. I’ve had several heating tests over the years, that clearly show my hearing frequency sensitivity has changed over the years. The human brain is fab at compensating, but only so far - consultant ent specialists words, not mine. He showed me his recent hearing test - same audiologist. Peaks and troughs at different frequencies.

 

[marshanp]

You shouldn't have to. A good system can be very revealing without shining too bright a light on poor recordings. It's a fine balance. Maybe fifteen or so years ago, I can't remember the exact time scale but at some point, I started consciously rejecting changes that made more recordings sound bad, even if they improved good ones. Incrementally I've moved towards a system that can can play anything you throw at it. CD is totally there. Vinyl getting there but still a bit of work to do.

The point is that I've still improved the system. It's still better than it was before, really enjoyable and revealing, but not ripping up bad recordings. It can take a lot of effort and attention to detail but you don't have to relegate poor recordings to the scrapheap.

Of course, the fact that you like the way your system sounds does not necessarily mean that others would be equally taken with it...

 

[marshanp]

I said this a while ago on a diff thread, and it got laughed at. I’ve had several heating tests over the years, that clearly show my hearing frequency sensitivity has changed over the years. The human brain is fab at compensating, but only so far - consultant ent specialists words, not mine. He showed me his recent hearing test - same audiologist. Peaks and troughs at different frequencies.

An acquaintance of mine recently retired from a job as Reader in Audiology at a Russell group university. I keep meaning to ask that person about this subject... I really must get round to it.

<thinks> If a test produces a graph which shows what frequencies are exaggerated and to what extent, then a DSP antidote can be applied...

 

[duckworp]

Are there any audiologists on here, I wonder? It seems likely to me that the frequency response of our auditory system is not necessarily constant over time. Is that so?

It could be, for example, that some people (possibly over the course of several years) develop a heightened sensitivity to a specific frequency band - such as the one belonging to the upper part of (say) the flute's register, the sort of thing which often bothers me in recordings. Then any recording which emphasises that part of the spectrum is likely to become problematic. This might explain why some people are bothered by recordings which sound OK to others, or why a system which once sounded "warm" seems to become less so over time.

My daughter is an audiologist. You are likely to be suffering from a condition called hyperacusis. I know because I have it. It is a sensitivity to a particular frequency range or sound. This sensitivity means these sounds are uncomfortable to listen to at volumes over a certain threshold. So for me I first noticed that I could not sit near our piano when played as I found many of the higher notes uncomfortable to listen to, they were just too loud and hurt my ears, similarly clanking plates coming out of the dishwasher. With you it is the flute's upper register. And I note you find some recordings too 'bright' and you mentioned a particular Sally Pinkas piano recording sounding a bit edgy. I'm afraid this is likely your hyperacusis and not the recording nor your system. It means for me I am also sensitive to bright, forward, sounding Hi-Fi systems. I had to sell my Naim kit, and can’t go near Focal speakers. I specifically had to buy kit with a less edgy sound. Finding gear which holds the detail and is still revealing without giving you a harsh edgy sound (to my sensitive ears) was a long process. A lot of speakers in particular seem to be tuned to over-emphasise that top end and, as a lot of ageing ears have high frequency hearing loss many people like it that way, but to my ears and probably yours, these speakers can sound like scraping metal. But there is equipment that does soften those upper tones without giving anything up. So you may find you can listen to these recordings again by switching your amp and/or speakers.

Hyperacusis sometimes, but by no means always, is accompanied by tinnitus and sometimes some hearing loss.

The most important thing, once you have hyperacusis, is to avoid loud noises in the future as the condition is an indication that your hearing will be prone to fast deteriorate if subject to further 'abuse'. So, wear earplugs at concerts (you can buy fabulous ones from ACS that are moulded to fit your ear and simply lower the dB by your required amount without any loss to any particular frequency), and wear ear protection when doing any loud work such as hammering, drilling etc.

Basically if my daughter's diagnosis is correct then your flute/piano issue is a warning sign. Without future protection from loud noises the next stage is further frequency sensitivity to loud noise, with possible accompanying tinnitus, and eventually some hearing loss. But it should not get worse if you look after your ears. So no short sharp noise without ear protection (hammers, shooting etc) and keep 90 decibels and above to short duration music listening or dynamic peaks. Extended listening should be at 85 dB tops. At these levels your hearing should not deteriorate any more than you’d get with normal age-related hearing loss. You’ll never lose that flute and piano sensitivity but at least it’ll stop there.

PROTECT YOUR EARS!

 

[marshanp]

Thank you, duckworp, for such an informative and helpful post. What you describe sounds just like my sometimes uncomfortable response to particular recordings. It is very helpful to have a name for it.

I have moved to omnidirectional speakers, giving up on direct radiating ones, over the last few years. I find them greatly preferable in all respects. One of their advantages is that they widen the range of recordings that I can listen to without discomfort.

Not that my system is a compromised one, suitable only to me. Others like it too. My local dealer heard it last summer when he visited to collect a couple of items that he was taking in trade-in. He was so impressed that a couple of weeks later my then model of Duevel speakers, which he had not previously stocked, appeared in his shop window.

I have since moved up the Duevel range; I think the system has now evolved as far as is useful.

I shall certainly take heed of your advice about loud noises. Thanks again.

 

[Andrew C!]

then a DSP antidote can be applied...

This is how hearing aids work.

 

[marshanp]

Aha! So audiologists are accustomed to producing graphs of the kind I want... I think I'll have to see about getting an audiogram done when the pandemic eases.

 

[Ali T]

Nuraphones do something similar do they not?

Is there an accompanying app that may produce a graph of the results?

 

[evan]

I appreciate that I’m joining this (fascinating) conversation late, but this is the best explanation for why I need to add a TT sometime in the future.

I grew up almost entirely on digital so have no idea of what a good TT sounds like. What I did know, however, was that I was not prepared to pay £30++ to buy records when I either already had them on CD or could stream hi-fi tracks on Tidal. Seems I was wrong.

Thanks @Tony L and others for the discussion.

Agreed. In my experience/opinion, in the UK at least, the notion that CD was thin and bright was largely brought about by the swing to entirely subjectivist auditioning in the 80s with the near absolute market dominance of Linn/Naim. At that point systems were assembled around the very obviously warm, fat and rose-tinted pre-Cirkus LP12, so effectively the rest of the system countered the bloat, being dry, lean and over-damped. Add a nominally flat response CD player to this mix, especially using early CDs which had no ‘small speaker’ EQ or compression added in mastering (at this point CD production was very lazy as the labels needed to get their whole catalogue onto the market fast, so most are actually flat transfers of the master and can sound thin on little speakers with no bass, plus they are way more dynamic than most folk expect - many of us now seek them out as they sound great on a good system) and things did not go well. The result was a sound that stripped paint, especially with the slightly 2d and grainy sound of all but the best CD players of the time. It caught me out, I didn’t buy a CD player until the Rotel RCD 965BX arrived, which would have been early ‘90s I guess.

In any genuinely good system the mastering should be the defining aspect, not the format. I rank my vinyl and CD setup pretty evenly. The balance is very similar and I could so easily tip a dem either way by selecting specific masters of a given title. Some vinyl pressings are better than any CD or download of that title, some CDs are better than even a vinyl first press. The amusing thing is that my vinyl front-end is 1965 high-end aside from the modern cart (TD-124/3009/MP-500) and my CD system very expensive and as good as I’ve heard (Rega Apollo-R into a £2.6k DPA PDM3). Obviously the record deck will never be as quiet as the CD player, but that is insignificant if you are a music lover. The quality and realness of sound that is retrieved is what it is about. There is good reason why I’m happy to pay £30+ a throw for say Blue Note Tone Poets over the dreadful RVG Edition digital on streaming! An absolutely night and day difference! You’d barely recognise it as the same session the CD mastering is so poor.

 

[clivem2]

I reckon I have an element of Hyperacusis too. When a system is a bit too edgy it can hurt my ears...by this I mean it makes we wince and causes pain. This only happens with systems that have a problem but my problem is that I'm hyper-sensitive to this...it's in the female sibilance area in my case. Others say oh that's bright or silibant, I say that hurts, turn it off!

As for DSP to flatten out what we perceive - having the FR flat is good. Compensating for our up and down hearing would not be - as our reference is how we hear instruments - recorded or live should be similar, not "corrected" for our foibles. Correct?

 

[marshanp]

I'm thinking of correction (switchable in and out as needed) to make artistically valuable recordings listenable. After all, I'm the person who invested much time, money and thought into making the reproduction of music in my living room pleasurable. To deny myself that hard-won musical pleasure in order to ensure that my system falls into line with some (essentially arbitrary) definition of what is "correct" would be perverse, wouldn't it? Aiming to have the perceived frequency response reasonably flat, on the other hand, sounds like a worthwhile objective.

I've always had a lot of sympathy for Solipsism as a philosophical point of view...

 

[marshanp]

Nuraphones do something similar do they not?

Is there an accompanying app that may produce a graph of the results?

The only example "graphs" to be seen on the Nuraphone website are pictorial representations without any scales.

To have available the data from which these are plotted could be very useful, but I suspect that such things are considered to be proprietary.

 

[Ali T]

I was under the impression that these measured the frequency response of your hearing and adjusted themselves accordingly?

What I meant was- that being the case- is a graph produced that shows what your individual response is. Such a graph would I assume show up any hyperacuisis.