In perusing the various boards, both here and elsewhere ("we toured the world and elsewhere")one theme that seems to be prevalent is "my system sounds harsh" or "this cd player seems harsh", etc.
Why are complaints of "harshness" so common? Are people selecting the wrong components based on dealer demos where the "brighter" components sound better due to additional detail? Is it caused by a taste for music which is intentionally mixed bright to be heard better on transistor radios? (The radios are gone, but the mixing tradition lives on, doesn't it?) Are they simply listening louder than their systems will tolerate without deteriorating? I think this is pretty common. It costs a lot of money for a system that will deliver audiophile sound at high volume.
in it's simplest form; harshness is when our ears tell us a sound is not natural. typically it is an aspect of the sound that is like finger nails on a chalk board; we kinda tense up until it stops. sometimes it jumps out; somnetimes it is subtle and we may not be conscious of it.
the source of harshness can be as simple as the room; imagine music played in a bathroom; all those hard surfaces may cause un-natural ringing and reflections. noise in the power grid can create a background 'hash' that can cause harshness. bad connections can cause noise. digital conversion from analog causes a degree of harshness since it has jagged edges to the smooth analog waveform. depending on the perfection of the D to A conversion you hear that to some degree. cables and speakers can have non-linerarities which are percieved as harshness.
many times until we hear that same music without the hashness we don't realize how significant it is. many people who have digital music as their reference do not understand what is meant by digital harshness. so harshness is a relative thing.
anyway; our ears are very sensitive to un-natural sounds, it's part of eveolution and how we survived.
Along with power and EMI/RFI issues, speaker room interactions can be the culprit. Personally, I find music to be harsh or fatiguing if the bass isn't right.
I agree....harshness...is mostly a power problem. Troublesome as it takes some experimentation to rid.
I suggest the foundation should always start with dedicated 20amp circuits....and then some good shielded power cords.
One caveat....your equipment especially the front end...cannot be midfi although there are exceptions. There's are plenty of dacs and players for 1K that sound very good.
i think some people prefer a bright sound. just consider all of the current production componsnts and speakers.
manufacturer's design for the maximum resolution. unfortunately many components have imbalances in frequency response.
if you consider that 20 + years ago, harshness was not a problem, evn though the ac and the room may have been a problem, the obvious reason for the current complaints is the pursuit of resolution and the components available to satisfy that demand.
Mrtennis, I bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone with totally analog gear system that complains about harshness.
20 years ago we did not have computer based electronics that cause the hash on the AC line as we do today. Damn near every appliance we use today, to make our lives simpler, have a micro processor built into them.
Most EMI/RFI noise originates with in our own homes.
Harshness can also be caused when the drivers (speakers) are stressed. Insufficient power can create this problem, whether using tube or solid-state amplifiers. One remedy to try is heavy-gauge speaker cable, i.e., 4 gauge, 1600 strand copper (often marketed in raw form as power-cable). This will generally ensure a delivery of power, and a power reserve, for demanding musical passages when the drivers are under high-stress. Installing this type of cable can eliminate the harshness found at high frequencies under most circumstances.
02-22-09: Commcat Harshness can also be caused when the drivers (speakers) are stressed. Insufficient power can create this problem, whether using tube or solid-state amplifiers. One remedy to try is heavy-gauge speaker cable, i.e., 4 gauge, 1600 strand copper (often marketed in raw form as power-cable).
Seriously dude? I ran 8 gauge cable for an oven when remodeling our kitchen a few years ago. That stuff is extremely stiff and difficult to work with. How in the world are you going to connect 4 gauge to your amp and speakers. If you have done it please post your system with pics for the world to see. Now you got me wondering what gauge cable is feeding my house from the transformer. As for harshness, I agree with Mrtennis (can't believe I said that). In a general sense I see the culprit as metal dome tweeters squeezing that last little bit of resolution. I don't listen to super systems so my opinion only relates to real world equipment.
Tim, The 1600 Strand, 4 Gauge, is very flexible. Easy to solder either ring or spade terminals or any other terminal to the wire. Sold by David Levy & Co. in Cerritos, California or PartsExpress.com and others for under $2 per foot. Check under the Power Cable category. Basically the same cable as marketed by many Mega-Buck speaker cable companies for $1500++.
Because so many of the folks that make these complaints are flying blind when it comes to component selection, system synergy, and system set up.
They base their selection on professional reviews, manufacturers puffery, recommendations of dealers and salesmen, and fantasies (thiers and others) of what is possible in thier budget and environment. Often they have no knowledge of creating system synergy with a specific end/goal in mind, little knowledge of what is possible, or not, and know little about proper set up. If you think otherwise, you're not reading a lot of questions posted here. And answers as well!
We live in a society where most so many casual hobbists just want an 'answer to fit' without doing any research and accepts the answer which sounds best to his mind, not his ear. He makes himself a mark.
Synergy, is often created when you join a less than perfect component with another with complementary features. Its the old a 'brightish CDP matched to a rounded/warm pre-amp/amp'. Not a brightish CDP matched to a high resolution SS pre-amp/amp and very 'neutral' high resolution speakers as well. But then you must allow for the fact that I don't believe in 'perfect sound reproduction' nor fairies, so its easy for me to say. It would not be so easy if I had to make a living in this hobby.
And FWIW, I agree with Tvad re digital v analog. I think Mr T wasn't listening much to music in the pre-digital days, and I agree with Mikelevange - harshness, whether from distortions or non linearities, has many many potential sources, which we all hear differently and or value differently.
FWIW - I just felt the urge to rant a bit..........:-)
Commcat, Are you sure you don't mean 14 gauge. I looked at Parts Express and the largest cable I could find was 10 gauge cable. Here's a wire gauge chart from Wikipedia. Not looking for an argument but 4 gauge is huge, hard to believe it's flexible.
While many good points have been made above, my feeling is that you hit upon the most significant reason in your original post. Recordings that are poorly engineered, or intentionally brightened, or both.
Most of my listening (80% vinyl, 20% cd) is to classical music on labels that are either audiophile-oriented, or are otherwise high quality. I hear very little that I would describe as harsh. When I have occasion to put on a popular recording, or many big-label classical releases, my reaction is often (although certainly not always) simply "ouch."
Commcat, Well I'll be damned. But why scrimp? Might as well go for the 1 gauge. I'm going to stop in at one of the local car audio places this week to see how thick that stuff is.
In my opinion, in the majority of cases these days, the cause of harshness is the loudspeaker drivers and crossovers. Especially, when used with tube amplifiers.
Drivers exhibit rising impedance as frequency increases as a function of the voice coil inductance. This impedance rise will obviously be at its maximum right below the frequency where a driver is crossed over. At any rate, tube (and, solid state, according to Ralph Karsten) amplifiers prefer higher impedances. What this means is that they put more power into those higher impedances, resulting in increased (and, out of balance with the rest of the musical spectrum) volumes in those regions.
Given that the preponderance of loudspeakers these days are using a crossover between the midwoofer/midrange driver and tweeter in the presence range (upper midrange/lower treble), usually falling somewhere between 1500 Hz and 3000 Hz, which is precisely where the lion's share of complaints of brightness and harshness are centered, it all seems pretty elementary to me.
The classic way around this is a Zobel (resitor - capacitor in parallel with the respective driver) network in the loudspeaker crossover, which flattens the impedance rise due to voice coil inductance. However, in my opinion, the Zobel causes at least as many problems than it solves ala robbing music of immediacy and drama, in addition to making the loudspeaker that much more difficult for the partnering tube amplifier to drive. At any rate, since most current loudspeakers do not implement the Zobel (or, at least, in this manner), here we are with this issue being exhibited in the majority of high-end audio systems of the current times.
I do think today's higher resolution equipment plays a large role in the epidemic of harshness. I don't recall hearing this kind of harshness in systems years ago. Higher resolution is quite often obtained by boosting upper mid and high frequencies, this acerbates harshness in recordings.
I've also found rather mundane parts quality in a lot of equipment. Upgrading capacitors and resistors can result in even higher resolution and much greater refinement.
I find too many recordings are excessively bright, again a problem with boosting upper mid and high frequencies.
All of this resolution does require careful system matching, getting the highest resolution and refinement is a delicate balancing act, easily the most difficult thing I've encountered in audio.
you are dead wrong. from 1966 to 1973 i had an analog stereo system consisting of the following components:
sracked quad esls quad 15 watt monos mcintosh c22 thorens 124 t/t, ortofon arm and cartridge
i listened to plenty of music. you are presumptuous to tell me what i did during the 60's, 70's 80's. you have no clue.
the complaints of harshness are probably greater during the last 10 years than during the years, 1960's through the 1980's.
ignorance and poor choice of components is not the reason for complaints of harshness. people are more educated now than they were 30 years ago. the problem is the componets in production available today, compared to what was available during the 60's, and 70's.
i believe the 60's and 70's , with a preponderance of tube amps and preamps were characterized by wwhat would be considered subtraction in the treble and a bump in the bass--hardly a recipe for harshness. today, many components are peaky in the treble.
Mr T, Sorry, I should have used the word 'components', not 'music'. And you are right! I haven't the slightest clue what you were doing then, or now for that matter.
But, if you are relying on your personal components, as described, for support for your statement, consider that the introduction of SS components occurred over a decade before the introduction of digital components and pretty much dominated the market until tube components were 'resurected' by Bill Johnson. There was some serious dreck in those years. And there was no shortage of speakers being brought to the market to 'match'. I can still remember my abandoning my Altec 19's, my Rogers LS3/5a, etc for some of the phase correct, full range, flat FR 'audiophile' darlings. All before I got my first CDP, the acquisition of which only enhanced my growing disenchantment with 'Audio' further.
Today I think that the average audiophile on a budget CAN put together an excellent system which exceeds in most all aspects that was available or possible at anytime prior to the introduction of CDP's (1983 as I recall).
"Lower resolution"! You are about to be drummed out of the corp! Tar, feathers, rail and a couple of drummers please!
How about real resolution, not just an enhanced sense of resolution by the manipulating rise/fall times, increaed HF response, etc, which is so often peddled as 'high' resolution.
As a pratical matter I think a lot of the harshness of which folks complain is just the result of equipment designed to 'sound like' they have the ultimate resolution just by enhancing existing information. They become additive, certainly not neutral, and by doing so, especially when piggybacked with other similar components and speakers they become subtractive (harsh).
I always chuckle when I read in a review or some user indorsement for example, someone saying he was able to hear detail in a recording that he had never heard before. My typical initial reaction is that this occurred because he had never listened as closely before, or that his previous equipment was seriously defective, or, rarely perhaps, that he has seriously critical listening skills and not only hears these things but knows to what they can be attributed.
Recordings come in all kinds of formats, with inherrent problems, but to come up with a system that allowed you to hear all of them (recordings) without any sounding harsh you would lose what the good/great ones add to our hobby interest, if not the music itself.
Yes, there is plenty of 'enhanced' resolution out there. Earlier increases in my system's resolution were often accompanied by increased low level detail (the black background thing) accompanied by increasing levels of 'harshness'. Eventually, I got sick and tired of this kind of resolution and decided to go in the refinement direction. In my system this has been marked by more neutral tonality, increased harmonic development and the sense of real performers in room soundstaging,imaging). 'Real resolution' requires much time and effort.
Just found this thread - lots of interesting opinions here, and here are mine, for what they are worth. I think the OP is quite close to the answers. Certainly many recordings, especially those of the last 25 years or so since the advent of digital recording, are mixed horribly, sounding nothing like the original space in which they were recorded, and the vast majority of the time being much brighter and harsher. The digital/analog thing does have much to do with it - not only in the playback, but even more importantly in the original recording/mixing process. The distortions inherent in the analog medium, though they are greater, are much less musically objectionable than those inherent in the digital medium, which occur at higher frequencies. This very much contributes to the "harshness" many complain of. No one's system, no matter how good it is, can "fix" a poor recording/mixing job. I would argue that there is a good reason many people believe that the best sounding orchestral recordings, for one example, were those made in the 50's and early 60's with just a couple of mikes hung either far out into the hall or far above the orchestra, in the case of Mercury. There is very little mixing on these recordings in comparison to what happens today.
Another factor is the equipment - certainly transistors are normally much brighter sounding than tubes, though some of today's tube amp makers are going for a brighter, more powerful, transistor-like sound. Some of these sound harsh to my ears, unlike the older tube amps I have heard. I also personally prefer the sound of the low wattage amp/high efficiency speaker combo to the reverse, though the reverse is much more common now.
It also has to do with the individual's musical tastes - those who listen almost exclusively to electronically produced music are not the ones generally complaining of harshness, in my experience. Rock concerts today are performed at insane volumes, with especially the bass greatly distorted by gigantic subwoofers, and many young people today think that all music is supposed to sound like that, and build systems to suit that taste. Many such people simply play their systems too loudly most of the time, trying to recreate this over-amplified sound. Most movie theaters do the same thing.
The greatly compressed MP3 files also are much brighter and harsher than other formats, and many young people are becoming used to this sound as well.
Power supply has a little bit to do with it as well, though I personally think this is the least of the reasons. In a recent experiment at home in my system, a power conditioner made only a very slight improvement to my CD player, and sounded absolutely awful with my vinyl set-up.
Please bear in mind that the above comments are generalizations, there are always exceptions. There are many different tastes out there, and there is equipment out there to realize pretty much anyone's personal taste. For those of you that love to listen to metal with a 500 watt amp and very low efficiency speakers as loud as you can crank it, more power to you! The most important thing is that we all enjoy what we are hearing.
I have some HEXFRED bridge rectifiers going in my Cayin phono stage power supply later this week. Bypassing electrolytics with film bypass caps next week. I have always heard power supplies are critical to maximizing performance, we shall see.
I would argue that there is a good reason many people believe that the best sounding orchestral recordings, for one example, were those made in the 50's and early 60's with just a couple of mikes hung either far out into the hall or far above the orchestra, in the case of Mercury. There is very little mixing on these recordings in comparison to what happens today.
My understanding is that a major reason for that, apart from general mediocrity and mis-indoctrination of many recording engineers and producers, is the very high cost per hour of employing a symphony orchestra or other large ensemble. It is, unfortunately for we audiophiles, simply a lot cheaper to record one take, using a forest of microphones, and "fix it in the mix," rather than to record with purist microphone techniques, and risk having to do multiple re-takes, or risk having to proceed with a product that has unacceptable musical or technical miscues.
Those who listen almost exclusively to electronically produced music are not the ones generally complaining of harshness, in my experience. Rock concerts today are performed at insane volumes, with especially the bass greatly distorted by gigantic subwoofers, and many young people today think that all music is supposed to sound like that, and build systems to suit that taste. Many such people simply play their systems too loudly most of the time, trying to recreate this over-amplified sound. Most movie theaters do the same thing.
The greatly compressed MP3 files also are much brighter and harsher than other formats, and many young people are becoming used to this sound as well.
Sad but all too true. The quality of reproduction of the music that most people listen to is clearly trending downward, given the ubiquitousness of mp3 players, compressed downloads, etc. Which gives producers and engineers correspondingly less incentive to issue high quality material. The saddest part, as you allude to, is that most young listeners are never exposed to, or given an awareness of, what is possible in high quality music reproduction, and so are not able to decide, on an informed basis, to what degree quality matters to them.
I think its taste. It is so easy to pop in a tube or two and mellow that glare.
Also, people like today's shrill brash ultimately crappy music, which is made with drum machines and electronic samplings and the like. Those who complain might be playing Bach through components designed for crappy disco house music.
Picking up on what Al said. Some complain about the perfection of recorded classical music, how unatural and dehumanizing it is. Its gotten to the point where some are disappointed with live performance because there are mistakes.
Chashmal, I don't think a great deal of this brash sound can be fixed with tubes. I have nearly all tubes in my system, still hear plenty of brashness, harshness and glare from poor recordings.
Its true, too many contemporary recordings sound like crap, a major reason my collection is only 15% contemporary. Too many remasters of old recordings are also bright, glary and hard.
To speak to one of Al's points, correcting mistakes in orchestral recording doesn't generally have anything to do with the number of mikes used. If a note is missed, it cannot be fixed if there is not another take with the correct one. There would be some exceptions, but not many. Almost never is there only one take done of anything, unless it is from a live performance, and even then they usually have what they call a "patch" session, in case there were problems in the same spot of every performance. Recording a symphony orchestra is indeed very expensive, that is why many orchestras have turned to self-produced recordings from live performances, generally sold only in the local area.
Tvad, I do have a TT-PSU that I use with my P5 turntable, perhaps this is why the power conditioner had such a negative effect on the sound??
Assuming everything is in good working order to start, then most often either because downstream electronics cannot reproduce the sharp transients found in many digital sources cleanly and/or amplifiers are not properly matched to drive a particular set of speakers properly and/or speakers not matched to room.
Noise/distortion present or introduced into the line level signal can exacerbate the problem certainly as well.
Also I believe it is seldom due to the recording other than that some digital recordings are hard for systems to reproduce cleanly again due to the sharp transients present. That is more of a problem with the challenges of playback than it is with the recording itself.
A few strategically placed tubes can definitely help I have learned of late. They seem to act as natural and highly effective high pass filters that definitely take the edge off things in avery natural sounding way.
Oh, and lets not forget about jitter in digital playback systems, though I think this is less of a real problem in general with newer equipement these days than it used to be.
I think that pretty much covers it....
Lots of causes resulting in lots of cases as the poster observes.....
Hi Tvad, I did not plug the TT-PSU into the conditioner when I tried it, just the other electronics. It still had a very negative effect on the sound when the turntable was the source. I had read that these type of products generally have a better effect on digital sources than analog, and on video sources than audio, for that matter, and my experiment confirmed this for me. When the CD player was the source, the effect was only very slightly positive - slightly better bass, actually, which was a little surprising to me, and a slightly cleaner overall sound. With the turntable as the source, though, it was a drastic difference for the worse. The soundstage was greatly shrunken, and dynamics were compressed quite a bit, especially on the soft end - the softs were nowhere near as soft with the conditioner as they are without it. This was again a surprise, I would have thought it would be the other way around. Loud dynamics were also slightly compressed. The timbres of acoustic instruments and vocals were also not produced as accurately with the conditioner - it seemed to remove overtones is how I would describe it - the timbres were not as rich and complex as they should have been, and are without the conditioner. It also certainly removed much of the ambient noise of the original recording space. I realize that there are many others who have experienced a positive difference with power conditioners on vinyl - my brother is one, actually. He was present when I tried it and was particularly disappointed in the outcome in my system, since it works great in his. His set-up is quite a bit different from mine, though.
To get back more on topic here, I guess my point is that since these type of products will not make a positive difference in all kinds of systems, then one cannot consider them the most important fix for harshness, as some in this thread have suggested. They certainly won't "fix" a bad recording job, or "fix" overly bright equipment. IMO these things are much greater causes of "harshness" than electronic noise, though this is indeed a cause in many cases as well. I do find it interesting that most people I know with low powered amps and high effeciency speakers seem to complain much less about electronic noise in their systems anyway, and almost none of them (again, that I know) use power conditioners. I have to wonder if that has something to do with it. Maybe not - anyone else reading this have any thoughts on that?
I did not plug the TT-PSU into the conditioner when I tried it, just the other electronics. It still had a very negative effect on the sound when the turntable was the source.
Learsfool -- It seems to me that the resulting isolation between the ac grounds of the turntable and the preamp could be the reason for the negative effects you noted. That could very conceivably result in voltage differentials between the grounds of the two components, which could cause noise currents to flow between them in the ground wire of the phono cable (which has a substantial impedance at ultrasonic frequencies due to its inductance), from where they might couple into the lines carrying the signals from the cartridge, and cause intermodulation products or other effects within the audible spectrum.
I'm always leery about doing anything that would tend to isolate the ac grounds of components that are connected together with signal interconnects. Clearly it can be helpful in some systems, such as in cases where people have separate dedicated ac lines for the digital and the analog parts of the system, but it can also lead to problems with ground loops, voltage offsets between component chassis, and spurious noise currents flowing in interconnect shields or ground connections.
Thanks for the good clarifications, also, on multi-miking, re-takes, etc.
Learsfool, and then maybe its just that particular conditioner you tried. I've had a variety of conditioners in my system, a few did some of the things you speak of, others work wonderfully.
At the risk of sounding like Mr T, when we are referring to harshness, what assumptions are we working on, i.e. the extent of the complaints that folks are making about the degree of the complainers experience of harshness?
For example, in my responses I assumed a gross complaint, one that was a harshness readily apparent and objectionable on casual listening by an average neophyte, as opposed to a minimal harshness (aka edge) observed after careful listening by an experienced audiophile with good listening skills. These are two different things, are they not?
Tvad, for example, or Learsfool, are positioned to benefit from all levels of real improvement to their systems, but would a possessor of very modest equipment, and listening skills, benefit substantially from using, universally, things the same things?
I'm referring to fundamental improvements. When many folks complain, for example, that his new speakers sound 'harsh' to him, folks don't seem to often ask how the 'harshness' presents itself and to what degree. We simply tell him to buy some 'warm' wires, buy some tubes, ad infinitum, ad naseum.
not all distortion is unpleasant, especially if it emphasizes frequencies in the upper bass area. you are right to consider distortion, such as phase distortion as a factor in the experience of harshness.
the term "analytical" could be applied to a presentation that is balanced in frequency response but is "over articulated". in such a case, the upper mids and lower treble could be perceived as harsh.
i would term "analytical" as overly focused, like looking at a finger under a high powered microscope.
perhaps there is another way of describing analytical. in any case, its experience is unpleasant and harsh.
Hi Al - that is an interesting explanation, though I am not sure how the cause you describe would result in the effects I heard. I would think the cause you are describing would result in much more audible distortions, but perhaps not. The effects I experienced were more like a removal of too much information, if that makes sense. Perhaps the next time my brother comes up, I will experiment with plugging the TT-PSU into the conditioner as well, and see if that makes any difference. He doesn't have a separate power supply to his turntable.
As for the harshness definitions, I would not equate harshness solely with distortion. As Mr. T says, distortion is not necessarily unpleasant. Acousticians use the term distortion to describe many different types of phenomena, some of which are positive effects. I would also agree with his second definition, though this is certainly subjective, as he says. Many CD players I have heard have this "overly analytical" quality - to take an orchestral example, one may be able to clearly pick out every instrument on the stage, but the sense of how the combination of all of them sound out in the hall is completely lost. Losing the forest for the trees, so to speak. When the ambient noise, especially the warmth, of the original concert hall is taken away or lost in this fashion, the resulting sonority is certainly colder and could often be described as harsh.
Conventional box speaker owners should check out diffractionbegone.com. Many times it's not the equipment or speaker high frequency drivers that are responsible for this. It is what happens to sound waveforms, the vehicle of the information your system is working in earnest to deliver, once they depart your speakers. The integrity to those waveforms is inexpensive to preserve and very worthwhile in any case.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
