|
|
Post by briank on Feb 4, 2013 8:13:03 GMT -5
Weird23, most of your gear is listed in your signature except for cables? Doesn't sound like Emotiva cables, so what cables are you using?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 4, 2013 9:19:45 GMT -5
Sounds very good. I don't really hear any "excessive" sibilance in that recording. Sounds like what I would expect to hear if Norah was singing those lyrics live. Most excessive sibilance issues I've heard in the past were from hot tweeters or silver coated speaker cables. I never noticed any sibilance issues when I previously owned the XPA-5. This may be more of an opinion issue as to what sounds like excessive or un-natural sibilance. Maybe the slight Butler tube distortion was masking it previously??? Kinda what I was thinking... |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 4, 2013 10:06:44 GMT -5
I think in the case of the Norah Jones track, the sss's have something to do with her being closely miked, as well as it being more of an intimate recording - just her and the piano. Perhaps normally an engineer would have filtered out what they felt was an excessive sibilance but for the sake of the atmosphere they let it go through without alteration.
I tried singing along with this track (yeah I know, stop laughing) and found that the sss's sounded exaggerated from my own mouth and I had to consciously back off if I wanted to make it sound smoother. So in the case of this recording, I'm thinking if you were listening to Ms. Jones close up that this is really what you would hear. If you add additional instruments into the mix and move yourself farther away then the sss's would be less prominent.
|
|
|
|
Post by weird23 on Feb 4, 2013 10:52:09 GMT -5
Weird23, most of your gear is listed in your signature except for cables? Doesn't sound like Emotiva cables, so what cables are you using? The power cables and balanced interconnects are Oyaide, the speaker cables are BJC Canare 4S11. |
|
|
|
Post by weird23 on Feb 4, 2013 10:55:48 GMT -5
Sounds very good. I don't really hear any "excessive" sibilance in that recording. Sounds like what I would expect to hear if Norah was singing those lyrics live. Most excessive sibilance issues I've heard in the past were from hot tweeters or silver coated speaker cables. I never noticed any sibilance issues when I previously owned the XPA-5. This may be more of an opinion issue as to what sounds like excessive or un-natural sibilance. Maybe the slight Butler tube distortion was masking it previously??? Thanks, your speakers sound really good as well. They look very similar to the Salk Song Towers. Do you know if they sound similar? I think it's just the source material as well as I stated previously. I don't listen to much of that style of music but when I do the singers usually sound like that. A movie that has tons of sibilance is Angels and Demons. At least it did when I was using the Paradigm Sigs, haven't watched it with the Dyn's. |
|
|
|
Post by edoggrc51 on Feb 4, 2013 11:29:38 GMT -5
I tried singing along with this track (yeah I know, stop laughing) and found that the sss's sounded exaggerated from my own mouth Please post a YOUTUBE video of this. For comparisons sake of course. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 4, 2013 12:02:40 GMT -5
I tried singing along with this track (yeah I know, stop laughing) and found that the sss's sounded exaggerated from my own mouth Please post a YOUTUBE video of this. For comparisons sake of course. ;D Well at the risk of its going viral and tying up everyone's bandwidth, possibly leading to global system crashes, I will politely decline. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 4, 2013 14:21:53 GMT -5
This product is widely used in recording and it is call an aural exciter. I puts that breathy, intelligibility into vocals and is used by most studios at mix down. You might be hearing that.... It is used by virtually all studios......... www.aphex.com/aphex-products/exciter/ |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 4, 2013 14:54:20 GMT -5
I think what people mean by sibilance tends to vary by context. As far as I know the actual term simply refers to the "ssssss" sound in general, while what recording engineers and audiophiles usually mean is more specifically *excess* sibilance. In the recording, you can get this with certain microphones, or with certain people who tend to sing too close to the microphone, or just with the voices of certain singers (you can also get it by overloading tape) - and you can reduce it by using a windscreen, or by filtering it out afterwards. To me, in audiophile conversations, it is always implied that what we're talking about is when the sibilance that is naturally in a recording is exaggerated. Of course, we're now back to the question of how we know what belongs there to begin with, and what doesn't. Some amplifiers, and quite a few speakers, do emphasize certain frequencies - which makes them more likely to exaggerate sibilance (if there's any there to begin with). Now, a lot of tube equipment tends to "blur" high frequencies. I've never seen it fully defined and measured, but it sounds to me more like a phase or time domain issue than one of frequency response. (The high frequencies are there in more or less the right quantity, but they seem smoothed out - much as all the colors are there in proper quantities in a blurred photograph, but they sort of, well, blur together.) This effect, when applied to a recording, tends to make "harsh sibilants" seem less harsh; it also tends to make cymbals sound less like metal and more like a leaky steam pipe instead of metal on metal. Arguably, many less-than-stellar recordings sound better with this sort of modification, and it tends to also make certain headphones sound better as well. Most tube amplifiers have this character to some degree or other, and it is one I identify with "tube sound". Getting back to the Butler amps, however, it should be obvious where I'm going with this. According to Butler's website they deliberately run their driver triodes "near saturation" - with the obvious *intent* of generating characteristic distortion. (Anyone who knows about tube design is well aware that the way to avoid distortion is to *avoid* running a tube too close to saturation. The only reason to run a tube *near* saturation is to generate distortion in controlled quantities.) They reference the Hamm white paper as their inspiration, and the main conclusion of that paper is that tubes "sound better" "because they have better sounding overload characteristics". (The paper specifically claims that tubes sound better than transistors WHEN YOU DRIVE THEM BOTH INTO OVERLOAD. In other words, they're saying that overloaded tubes sound better than overloaded transistors. If you're not planning to overload anything, this is irrelevant.) To me, the obvious conclusion overall is that Butler amps are *NOT* designed to be accurate. Quite the opposite; they are designed to add what Butler (and their fans) consider to be "good" or "euphonic" coloration to the sound - specifically by using tube drivers, and then running them into the lower edge of overload distortion. Part of this coloration appears to add a gentle "de-essing function" at higher volume levels - which are where human hearing tends to be most sensitive to harsh sibilants - and probably does indeed make certain recordings sound smoother or mellower. Now, as Big Dan said, if this is the sound you want, then you should go for it.... but even Butler isn't claiming that it is accurate or uncolored. We all need to remember that "the most accurate sound" and "the sound you like" may not be the same; however, nobody is well served when we confuse the two. We here at Emotiva design our amps to be *accurate*. It's up to you to decide if that's what you want. OK folks maybe I have a semantic misunderstanding of the word sibilance. When I play that track on good speakers, my ERM-1 and Airmotiv4's, I clearly hear the "essy" sound in her voice. I'm not in this case talking about the recording process but the natural "essyness" of her sexy voice. In "The Nearness of You" I clearly hear her little extra S sound more than most vocalist. I hear it in "ex cite s" "thrill s" "nearne ss" and " sweet" etc. I thought that was what folks were talking about and thought her slightly excessive essyness was exaggerated by the amp. If I'm on the wrong track here please let me know. Can someone here who hears the sibilance they refer to that they attribute to the XPA-5 please give a few examples with track and time listings so we can check it out. BTW, I'm an old fart and grew up with the music of many famous old farts like Hoagy Carmichael, who wrote and sang (on TV --- black and white) The Nearness of You. He also wrote Georgia on my Mind, Stardust and many more. Norah's version is one of the finest covers I have ever heard. Imagine her late at night in a classy hotel bar over in the corner on the piano (those were the good old days). This track might sound boring to the young set but it is a magnificent version. Norah is so talented, I wish she would do an album of the old favorites like Willy Nelson did years ago. She is in the class of the best female jazz performers ever IMO. (sorry, couldn't find the original of The Nearness of You) |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 4, 2013 15:18:04 GMT -5
BTW, the aural exciter is primarily used to mimic or enhance the characteristics of microphones such as a legendary Neumann U87Ai )which is considered to be the finest vocal mic in the world). www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_descriptionThis mike reproduces every nuance of the human voice - perhaps to a fault. This, in part is what the exciter does.. |
|
|
|
Post by edoggrc51 on Feb 4, 2013 15:33:07 GMT -5
We all need to remember that "the most accurate sound" and "the sound you like" may not be the same; however, nobody is well served when we confuse the two. Very true. I've especially run into this while demo'ing my sub system. I get a lot of, "well i was expecting more" comments. I then defeat the EQ (which gives me a huge mid-bass bump) turn up the subs about 6db's and re-play the scene. Then my guests usually get all excited. Like you said, sometimes being accurate isnt always what people like/want. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 4, 2013 15:47:11 GMT -5
We all need to remember that "the most accurate sound" and "the sound you like" may not be the same; however, nobody is well served when we confuse the two. Very true. I've especially run into this while demo'ing my sub system. I get a lot of, "well i was expecting more" comments. I then defeat the EQ (which gives me a huge mid-bass bump) turn up the subs about 6db's and re-play the scene. Then my guests usually get all excited. Like you said, sometimes being accurate isnt always what people like. Yup, it's all about excess. That's why the audience cheers the singers on American Idol or these other talent shows who warble their voices up and down two octaves within a measure and hold out a note as loud as they can for as long as they can. Never mind that they're out of tune or sound plain dreadful but hey, they sure are excessive! And if you're singing the National Anthem then all the better. |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 4, 2013 17:07:19 GMT -5
I always like reading about this. And the way folks THINK a live setting should sound like on a recording.
Well it is two different animals.
If you want to hear the true nuts and bolts of a band go to a rehearsal.
Not a concert in a great room designed for acoustics but just a few musicians in a room with there instruments.
It may not be what you think it should be.
And may disappoint as well.
If listing to just a piano or acoustic guitar with a singer in front of you may not be what you think it is either.
Try and see. Find a band near your house. Just a bar band ask if you could come to see a practice and see what you hear.
I'm sure some will be good and some not so good.
But all the Hi end amps cable's Cd's MP3's or LP's will not sound like it.
This is really just a exercise in futility. Real is Real that's all it is too it.
They also tend to sound a lot better with 50,000 watts pushing Bass and kick drums though huge subs.
But again that is what is made out of the raw sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 4, 2013 17:16:05 GMT -5
I always like reading about this. And the way folks THINK a live setting should sound like on a recording. Well it is two different animals. If you want to hear the true nuts and bolts of a band go to a rehearsal. Not a concert in a great room designed for acoustics but just a few musicians in a room with there instruments. It may not be what you think it should be. And may disappoint as well. If listing to just a piano or acoustic guitar with a singer in front of you may not be what you think it is either. Try and see. Find a band near your house. Just a bar band ask if you could come to see a practice and see what you hear. I'm sure some will be good and some not so good. But all the Hi end amps cable's Cd's MP3's or LP's will not sound like it. This is really just a exercise in futility. Real is Real that's all it is too it. They also tend to sound a lot better with 50,000 watts pushing Bass and kick drums though huge subs. But again that is what is made out of the raw sound. Well how about not only doing that but then making suggestions about the kind of cables they should be using? Or suggesting the guitarist use a different amp? ;D No different from video - what you see on a TV screen is only a representation of the real thing and you're only seeing what the engineer and other production people wanted you to see and it has its limitations. Why should audio be any different? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 21:03:46 GMT -5
Keith, thanks for an excellent post in explaining sibilance (reply #128). This does confirm that my opinion of sibilance as many times due to an an exaggeration of the SSS sound in recorded vocals is in fact relevant. I'm aware that recording studios do attempt to eliminate sibilance that they feel might sound excessive with pop filters or other methods. However, my hunch is that the perception of hearing excessive sibilance in a source is not due to their XPA-5 amp or other Emo amps. Perhaps there might be a slight chance that a SS amp could affect sibilance but I believe that would be to such a small amount as to not be heard at any consistently audible level.
I thank Emo and Big Dan for allowing Keith's frequent posts explaining many technical aspects of Emo products. These are some of the most informative posts I have read in the 43 years I have been a member of the Emotiva Lounge.
|
|
|
|
Post by villock on Feb 4, 2013 21:08:48 GMT -5
Keith, thanks for an excellent post in explaining sibilance (reply #128). This does confirm that my opinion of sibilance as many times due to an an exaggeration of the SSS sound in recorded vocals is in fact relevant. I'm aware that recording studios do attempt to eliminate sibilance that they feel might sound excessive with pop filters or other methods. However, my hunch is that the perception of hearing excessive sibilance in a source is not due to their XPA-5 amp or other Emo amps. Perhaps there might be a slight chance that a SS amp could affect sibilance but I believe that would be to such a small amount as to not be heard at any consistently audible level. I thank Emo and Big Dan for allowing Keith's frequent posts explaining many technical aspects of Emo products. These are some of the most informative posts I have read in the 43 years I have been a member of the Emotiva Lounge. Yea even though Keith is talking way over my head most of the time, his posts are really easy to read and try to understand. And I love this thread. I was almost convinced that my sibilance problem was my XPA-2 but after reading Big Dan's, monku's, Chuckie's and Keith's posts (and others) I think it may be something in my speakers that is the cause of my sibilance. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Feb 4, 2013 21:16:22 GMT -5
We all need to remember that "the most accurate sound" and "the sound you like" may not be the same; however, nobody is well served when we confuse the two. Kinda goes hand in hand with what I said in a different thread... ;D |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Feb 4, 2013 21:18:05 GMT -5
I always like reading about this. And the way folks THINK a live setting should sound like on a recording. Well it is two different animals. If you want to hear the true nuts and bolts of a band go to a rehearsal. Not a concert in a great room designed for acoustics but just a few musicians in a room with there instruments. It may not be what you think it should be. And may disappoint as well. If listing to just a piano or acoustic guitar with a singer in front of you may not be what you think it is either. Try and see. Find a band near your house. Just a bar band ask if you could come to see a practice and see what you hear. I'm sure some will be good and some not so good. But all the Hi end amps cable's Cd's MP3's or LP's will not sound like it. This is really just a exercise in futility. Real is Real that's all it is too it. They also tend to sound a lot better with 50,000 watts pushing Bass and kick drums though huge subs. But again that is what is made out of the raw sound. I will agree with you for "pop-music" but disagree with with you on classical music. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 4, 2013 22:27:08 GMT -5
The question to me is quite simple, is the XPA-5 adding sibilance that is not present in the source or is it simply amplifying the sibiliance that is present in the source. Conversely is the Butler removing the sibiliance that is in the source or is it not adding it. Since the REM DVD A definitely has sibiliance in the source then there is only one conclusion possible, the XPA-5 is not adding sibilance and the Butler is removing/reducing it.
Personally I'd prefer to hear what is there in the source, not have it removed. Logically if the Butler is removing/reducing sibilance then it must be removing/reducing other information with similar sonic profiles.
It occurs to me that this may make a good subject for the Emozine, XPA's should be readily availabe and they will have a Butler shortly.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by briank on Feb 4, 2013 23:14:03 GMT -5
I once dated a girl with sibilance.  |
|
