My battle with sibilance.


At the minimum sibilance is annoying to me. Its only present on a small percentage of my records. However today I wanted to see if I could improve it. The song in question is Men at Work's "Down Under". The cartridge is an Ortofon Cadenza Bronze retipped by Soundsmith. I went through a lot of the protocols for abating annoying sibilance.
1.My anti skate was not optimally set so I thought and I adjusted to less using a dead spot on a test record. I know some people don't agree with this. I tried Soundsmiths method but until I see a video I won't understand it.
2. I adjusted my VTA to at least 20 degrees. I realized it was off. It was set at 12-15 degrees. I know the Shibata stylus is sensitive to VTA.
3. I checked the VTF and it was set at the manufacturers suggestion at 2.5 grams. Which is dead in the middle of 2.3 to 2.7. I adjusted to 2.62. A lot of people think the higher range is optimum.
3. I made sure my stylus was absolutely clean.
Guess what? After all this, the sibilance was less but still there. As a check I listened to the song in streaming and it was in the recording!!! However not as bad as my record before my TT adjustments. So I'm happy now my TT might sound better on other recordings. Anyway I hope my fellow members here have had some success on sibilance and maybe some will benefit from what I did.

blueranger
@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:-)