Sibilance....Is there a cure?

[swampdog]

Hi, Since changing my speakers I have noticed that natural sibilance on vocals is much more noticable than before and has become quite annoying..would a change in interconnects help? Any ideas would be most welcome from you guys.....:doh:

[hifi_dave]

This question crops up quite regularly and you can probably find a thread or two on AOS to answer the question. However...

'Sibilance' is a natural occurrence with the human voice but can be made more apparent by the recording, the equipment or a combination. Certain people, also are aggravated by 'sibilance' and they listen out for it and it becomes more and more annoying.

In your case, the new speakers are either showing up the 'sibilance' or making a meal of it, as some designs do.

What is your system and are there any particular recordings giving you grief ?

[roob]

I had the same problem when I had a pair of PMC FB1+, I tried swapping my ss amp out for a valve amp but it was still there, I then put my old Snell Js back in the system and it was gone. There is no cure other than getting rid and buying something else.

[greenhomeelectronics]

I have found that metal dome tweeters are often the culprit. Changing to soft dome or changing speakers all together is possibly the best option.
Dave

[swampdog]

This question crops up quite regularly and you can probably find a thread or two on AOS to answer the question. However...

'Sibilance' is a natural occurrence with the human voice but can be made more apparent by the recording, the equipment or a combination. Certain people, also are aggravated by 'sibilance' and they listen out for it and it becomes more and more annoying.

In your case, the new speakers are either showing up the 'sibilance' or making a meal of it, as some designs do.

What is your system and are there any particular recordings giving you grief ?

Hi, Many thanks for your reply...The speakers in question are Nola Viper 1A`s..I have only had them a week or so and apart from the hightened sibilance I have detected they are superb...The cd`s that seem to be the worst is any by Tony Joe White...If the only option is to change the Nola`s to cure the problem then I will have to live with it and stop playing the worst offenders, The Nola`s are brilliant in every other respect. Many other cd`s are ok, it seems that close miked recordings are the worst..anyway, cheers for your help, much appreciated......

[hifi_dave]

OK, laugh if you want but go out and get yourself a Staedtler Lumocolor highlighter in dark green and do the edges of your Tony Joe White CD. Then report back.

I bought a 'best of' Tony Joe White a few weeks back and carried out the green pen operation. Much better..:trust:

[Haselsh1]

Hi-Fi Dave, are you sure you're not Peter Belt in disguise...?

[nat8808]

You could do what most studio owners of Yamaha NS10s used to do - stick a bit of tissue paper over the tweeter as a high frequency filter..

Or you could possibly fiddle around and add components to the terminals of the tweeter to soften higher frequencies - ask someone here about it. Or get an EQ box of somekind that you switch in for this one CD.

If it's only really on one CD that suggests to me poor mastering, perhaps monitored on something with poor treble response and so pushed up to compensate ..

Metal dome tweeters aren't always the culprit as my B&W Matrix 805s never do that but moving from a speaker with a big treble roll off to ones that stay flat will emphasise treble that your previous system was ignoring to a certain extent.

Although people often talk about the importance of accuracy, music pleasure is more derived from choosing a sound you like so perhaps the Nolas aren't your cup of tea overall.

[Stratmangler]

You could use EAC to copy and burn a couple of backup discs..
Treat one of the discs with the highlighter.

You've then got two identical discs to start with, and you can compare between treated and untreated.

[hifi_dave]

Hi-Fi Dave, are you sure you're not Peter Belt in disguise...?

If I was, I'd be charging 50 quid for the pen..:eyebrows:

[Haselsh1]

If I was, I'd be charging 50 quid for the pen..:eyebrows:

Excellent retort and how very true...!

[swampdog]

OK, laugh if you want but go out and get yourself a Staedtler Lumocolor highlighter in dark green and do the edges of your Tony Joe White CD. Then report back.

I bought a 'best of' Tony Joe White a few weeks back and carried out the green pen operation. Much better..:trust:

Thanks for the tip hifi Dave, I will certainly try it out and let you know the outcome...cheers

[RobHolt]

If the problem has arisen since changing the speakers, something is happening with the response around or above the crossover point.
Likely the tweeter is either peaky or has rising response. Many speakers today do - it makes them sound artificially detailed and lively, but there is always a payback.
You likely find the problem more on less than great recordings.

If the speaker has a front cover, one old trick is to take a piece of thin paper tissue (such as bog roll or Kleenex) and place a piece around the size of 50p coin onto the rear of the cloth and directly in front of the tweeter.

Another is to apply some EQ at the top and you can do this very cleanly in the digital domain.

Less likely is a phase issue at the crossover point which can produce scratchy 'swishy' sounding sibilance.

[hifi_dave]

I find that the trend now is for speakers to be bright and hard. Detail and information maybe but often they are unpleasant and uninvolving to listen to.

I'm not suggesting the Nola's are like this, I'm simply pointing out a (to me) unnerving modern fad..:steam:

[technobear]

Sounds like the Nola's might need a tweeter damping resistor. A 47 ohm Mills wirewound will do the trick. It goes in parallel with the tweeter (i.e. across the tweeter's own terminals).

The CD pen doesn't have to be green. Black works just as well. The Staedtler ones are good. The Auric Illuminator kit comes with a Staedtler Lumocolor which you can get here:

http://www.greatart.co.uk/STAEDTLERPERMANENTMARKER350-fibre-tips-felt-tips.htm

Auric Illuminator is great for reducing sibilance, harshness, digitalitis, etc. Highly recommended.

[Yoga]

In my understanding, a CD is 1's and 0's burned onto a reflective surface, forming dips/pits which are read by the laser/sensor; i.e. dip or no dip = 1 or 0.

http://www.copy-cd.biz/imagescontent/cd-macro.jpg

The data contained within the disc is pure; is does not contain editable information/characteristics such as sibilance.

A thin layer of ink over the surface does not turn 1's to 0's, and visa-versa. Even if it did, it would cause problems. Interpreted characteristics are not contained within this information, this is the job of the DAC or whatever is processing the data. The laser will read the exact same information, ink or no ink.

From a scientific standpoint, could someone explain how drawing on CD's changes the data being read, especially considering its an interpreted characteristic?

Am I missing something? :¬)

To clarify, I'm not being arsy here, just explaining my current understanding and asking for additional information!

[Alex_UK]

Ross - the idea isn't that you colour the CD in (although I may try that just for fun!) but that you colour the outside and inside edges (clear plastic, before you butcher it) and the green then absorbs any stray light from the red laser. Now I've written it like that, it sounds even more wanky than it did before, but hopefully you get the idea?

[technobear]

Yes, it's all about reducing stray light and helping the laser to focus more rapidly and accurately so that jitter (timing error) is minimised, electrical noise from the laser servo is minimised and there is less noise in the analogue signal that comes from the photosensor and has to be interpreted as a digital signal.

[Yoga]

Ross - the idea isn't that you colour the CD in (although I may try that just for fun!) but that you colour the outside and inside edges (clear plastic, before you butcher it) and the green then absorbs any stray light from the red laser. Now I've written it like that, it sounds even more wanky than it did before, but hopefully you get the idea?

Haha! That does help, thanks. It makes more sense in the context of light spillage/reduction.


Yes, it's all about reducing stray light and helping the laser to focus more rapidly and accurately so that jitter (timing error) is minimised, electrical noise from the laser servo is minimised and there is less noise in the analogue signal that comes from the photosensor and has to be interpreted as a digital signal.

Ah yes of course, the laser itself will read analogue. I was under the assumption that lasers (especially in quality Hi Fi equipment) would not need such tricks in order to keep light pollution/refraction down. Makes sense.

Cheers guys :cool:

[The Grand Wazoo]

Now, I don't want to piss on anyone's cornflakes here but this has been bugging me for many, many years.

I don't doubt that this has an effect but I just don't agree that the explanation is correct - it doesn't work for me.


Give us a few minutes to get my thoughts down.............I'll be back.............

[Alex_UK]

Now, I don't want to piss on anyone's cornflakes here but this has been bugging me for many, many years.

I don't doubt that this has an effect but I just don't agree that the explanation is correct - it doesn't work for me.


Give us a few minutes to get my thoughts down.............I'll be back.............

:popcorn:

[Yoga]

I'll be back.............

http://clayjeffreys.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ill-be-back-769930.png

Couldn't resist :¬)

[The Grand Wazoo]

Right then, here we go!
Let's pretend that I'm a laser and I want to fire my dinky little red beam at a clear plastic disc with a bumpy silver layer embedded in it spinning above my head at a very high speed.

I have to make sure that I'm able to measure two things:


the existence of, and
the distance between the bumps.


The first bit is simple - all I have to do is fill out a series of tick boxes. If there's a bump, then I tick a box. If not, then I put a cross in the box.
The second bit is a little harder because I have to say when the bump occurred with reference to all the other bumps.

Right, that's the job description sorted. What tools have I got to carry out this job then?

Well, don't forget that I'm a laser and I've got the ability to shine a shiny red beam of light upwards - pretty nifty, eh?

The second weapon in my armoury is a sexy lens to focus my shiny red light tightly onto a spot on the whizzy silver spinning disc above my head.

My third tool is a good pair of gloves to catch my shiny red beam of light when it bounces off things - this is called an opto-electrical device and it is able to detect changes in light caused by the differences in the reflectivity of the surface it bounces off. Blimey! that's handy - maybe it'll help me fill out this tick box in the right order.

Now then, this old beam of red light I've got 'ere. I shoot it off up at the spinning disc and it shines through the see-through layer and hits the shiny, bumpy layer, then bounces back.

But it doesn't all bounce back into my gloves.

Some of it is refracted off the surface of the disc, which is slightly reflective. But that's OK, because my super red beam is powerful - there's lots of red light to go around!

Right then, most of my light hits the shiny layer of the disc.
........but it's bumpy and the bumps have corners.
So some of my light bounces off to all sorts of funny unpredictable angles all over the place.
FLASH! ........it's gone & there's no way that it's going to come and land neatly in my gloves (which are pretty small really, compared to the size of the disc).
Some of it will, of course, eventually find it's way into my gloves, after bouncing about off the disc layer and out of the disc, hitting the bottom of the player tray & bouncing back into the disc again (probably several times before it gets back to my safe hands). Trouble is, that just messes up all my other measurements - by this time, its not really looking like either a tick or a cross so it doesn't answer either of my two questions (remember them - is there a bump and if there is a bump, then where is it?). So I need to forget about it and concentrate on the bits of light that do answer my questions.

Now, some of the light I fired off earlier is going to bounce off the corner of one of them ol' bumps & shoot almost parallel to the surface of the disc. Oh shit, quick it's going to escape! Hurry up & catch it, cos it might be able to tell me whether to put a tick or a cross in this 'ere box. Oh wow, that's lucky, you've put something there to catch it.
You've caught it?
What with the ink from that pen? That's a little odd. Oh well, never mind, as long as you've caught the light, I'll be able to fill out my little box here. Brilliant! Pass it here then.
What's that you say?
You can't pass it here?
That's OK, just tell me if it was a tick or a cross, so I can put it in my box. It was a while back now, but I can kind of remember when I shot that bit off.
Eh what's that? - You don't know if it was a tick or a cross? It flushed the evidence away before you could get to it?

So tell me, why the hell are you bothering me with this when it was going to go out of the disc of it's own accord and most of it was never going to get back into the disc again, never mind into my hands?
And anyway, the light leaking out of the edge of the disc is a tiny, miniscule, infinitesimal amount in comparison to what falls out of the bottom of the disc ALL THE TIME



............so have I got it wrong?
Do I completely miss the point or is there something else at work here?

[nat8808]

I'm afraid you have got it wrong in terms of how CDs work... I'll see if I can annotate an edited version of your post and still make sense:

* Nah, can't do it! Too much story telling to edit and correct - It'll get too messy *


Right then, here we go!

I have to make sure that I'm able to measure two things:


the existence of, and
the distance between the bumps.


The first bit is simple - all I have to do is fill out a series of tick boxes. If there's a bump, then I tick a box. If not, then I put a cross in the box.
The second bit is a little harder because I have to say when the bump occurred with reference to all the other bumps.

Right, that's the job description sorted. What tools have I got to carry out this job then?

Well, don't forget that I'm a laser and I've got the ability to shine a shiny red beam of light upwards - pretty nifty, eh?

The second weapon in my armoury is a sexy lens to focus my shiny red light tightly onto a spot on the whizzy silver spinning disc above my head.

My third tool is a good pair of gloves to catch my shiny red beam of light when it bounces off things - this is called an opto-electrical device and it is able to detect changes in light caused by the differences in the reflectivity of the surface it bounces off. Blimey! that's handy - maybe it'll help me fill out this tick box in the right order.

Now then, this old beam of red light I've got 'ere. I shoot it off up at the spinning disc and it shines through the see-through layer and hits the shiny, bumpy layer, then bounces back.

But it doesn't all bounce back into my gloves.

Some of it is refracted off the surface of the disc, which is slightly reflective. But that's OK, because my super red beam is powerful - there's lots of red light to go around!

Right then, most of my light hits the shiny layer of the disc.
........but it's bumpy and the bumps have corners.
So some of my light bounces off to all sorts of funny unpredictable angles all over the place.
FLASH! ........it's gone & there's no way that it's going to come and land neatly in my gloves (which are pretty small really, compared to the size of the disc).
Some of it will, of course, eventually find it's way into my gloves, after bouncing about off the disc layer and out of the disc, hitting the bottom of the player tray & bouncing back into the disc again (probably several times before it gets back to my safe hands). Trouble is, that just messes up all my other measurements - by this time, its not really looking like either a tick or a cross so it doesn't answer either of my two questions (remember them - is there a bump and if there is a bump, then where is it?). So I need to forget about it and concentrate on the bits of light that do answer my questions.

Now, some of the light I fired off earlier is going to bounce off the corner of one of them ol' bumps & shoot almost parallel to the surface of the disc. Oh shit, quick it's going to escape! Hurry up & catch it, cos it might be able to tell me whether to put a tick or a cross in this 'ere box. Oh wow, that's lucky, you've put something there to catch it.
You've caught it?
What with the ink from that pen? That's a little odd. Oh well, never mind, as long as you've caught the light, I'll be able to fill out my little box here. Brilliant! Pass it here then.
What's that you say?
You can't pass it here?
That's OK, just tell me if it was a tick or a cross, so I can put it in my box. It was a while back now, but I can kind of remember when I shot that bit off.
Eh what's that? - You don't know if it was a tick or a cross? It flushed the evidence away before you could get to it?

So tell me, why the hell are you bothering me with this when it was going to go out of the disc of it's own accord and most of it was never going to get back into the disc again, never mind into my hands?
And anyway, the light leaking out of the edge of the disc is a tiny, miniscule, infinitesimal amount in comparison to what falls out of the bottom of the disc ALL THE TIME



............so have I got it wrong?
Do I completely miss the point or is there something else at work here?

[nat8808]

Ok..

A couple of points to correct:

- To start, nothing is being measured, there is no "yard stick" to compare against, no reference to check if something is a 1 or 0.

The 1s and 0s are gleaned later from an analogue signal coming from the optical sensor picking up the reflected laser beams.

If this analogue signal (just wanted to re-enforce that point!) is not clear enough to the circuitry analysing it, it is hard to make out whether a 1 or 0 should be interpretted.. e.g it could be like gauging the difference between 0.49 and 0.51, rounding up or down to a 1 or 0.

- Secondly, the laser light is hitting the optical sensor constantly. It is NOT the case that when there is a bump (or not), the light gets scattered and misses the sensor. I just saw this explaination on a "How Things Work" website and it's wrong - probably used to simplify things, much like you find science in secondary school is wrong once you get to uni because it was simplified - go to physics websites or forums for a truer explaination or a 1st year physics degree text book.

Unfortunately those two points ruin the story of your post.

I'll try to explain how it works:

For our purposes, the CD consists of (in the order a laser will 'see' it) a layer of polycarbonate and a reflective information layer.

The polycarbonate layer is chosen for its particular optical density, 'refractive index', so that a certain percentage of the laser beam (50% ?) will be reflected back off the CD surface and not even reach the data layer. The same as when seeing your feint reflection in a clear window.

The reflective data layer is, well, reflective.. and contains little bumps corresponding to the data (they are made, pressed, as pits on the top side but the laser sees the the bottom of them which are bumps). Each bump is to a height 1/4 of the wavelength of the laser light.

Remember that laser light is both highly monochromatic and phase coherent, meaning that all the photons are of the same wavelength and that the phase between to two photons will remain the same as long as they travel the same path.


What happens when the laser light hits the CD is that one part of the beam is reflected straight off the polycarbonate layer into the optical sensor, constantly - this is regarded as the 'reference beam'. The other part will travel through the polycarbonate, hit the reflective layer and reflect back onto the optical sensor. Because of the two different distances travelled by both parts of the beam, when they meet again at the sensor, there will be a phase difference that will add or subtract from each other varying the intensity of light picked up by the sensor.

In an ideal world, where there is no data, the phase difference between the two beams will be none at all and the optical sensor will get the full blast of the beam, registering a maximum.

However, when a data 'bump' is hit by the reading beam, that beam travels 1/2 a wavelength shorter distance (the height of the bump, twice) than if there were no data and so when it recombines with the reference beam it will be 180' (degrees) out of phase as compared to before i.e the intensity hits a minimum, perhaps of zero.

What the optical sensor then sees is a difference in intensity of light as the two beams switch from either adding or subtracting from each other as the bumps are hit. In ideal world, the differences would be clear between the two states. It sends an analogue signal to the receiver chip portraying the intensities.


In the real world, the thickness of the polycarbonate layer is changing slightly all the time so the two beams won't be precisely in phase when they meet when there is no data - the sensor will be giving out a kind of pulsing signal as the thickness changes but hopefully you could still see definate high and low values of intensity.

In the real world the data layer won't have completely uniform height or, more to the point, may not be exacly 1/4 wavelength of the laser light and so the phase difference between the reading beam and the reference won't be exactly 180'. Combined with the above this will lessen the differences between the 1 and 0 readings further.

In the real world there will be lots of scratches all over the surface of the CD, some large, some tiny. These will not only change the phase difference of the two beams due to the differing polycarbonate thickness as above, but can potentially scatter a large portion of both beams all over the place! If this scattered light is bounced around the internal boundaries (like a prism) of the CD or off components of the mechanism and then ends up hitting the optical sensor then it will effectively be creating a random element to the sensor's output, adding or subtracting to an already compromised signal. The stray beam could be strong enough or switch the reading from minimum to a maximum (or vice versa if it's out of phase with the true beams).

Couple this with potential electrical noise on the sensor's output, it wouldn't be surprising to find sometimes the receiver chip can't decipher whether the analogue signal represents a 1 or 0.. This kicks in interpolation where the chip 'guesses' what it thinks has been missed. In older chips it used to draw a straight line between points although I think better algorythms were invented and more powerful receiver chips can do more at guessing these days.


Back to the pen..

Now, I don't personally know how much any of the above effects effect the signal from the optical sensor or which has the greater result..

But it does give reason as to why adding marker pen to the edges of CD could make a difference, simply by absorbing scattered light that's bouncing around the internal surfaces of the CD. A good transport/CD player will always have good light absorbancy in the tray area too.

I can imagine that interpolating parts of a waveform will have more effect on higher frequencies as, in proportion, the fudged bit will be a larger part of the cycle. Squaring off waveforms also gives out more harmonics too. But again, if it actually makes an audible difference I have no idea and even less with regard to sibilance..

[The Grand Wazoo]

OK, thanks for that. Now I know how a CD laser reads a CD.

What I still don't understand is how Chris' (Technobear) explanation which is the one that's usually given can be so.


Technobear: Yes, it's all about reducing stray light and helping the laser to focus more rapidly and accurately so that jitter (timing error) is minimised, electrical noise from the laser servo is minimised and there is less noise in the analogue signal that comes from the photosensor and has to be interpreted as a digital signal.

What's it got to do with focussing more rapidly & accurately? The lens does the focussing. Surely what's going on at the photo-sensor matters not a bit to the lens?
Does all this stray light bouncing around somehow corrupt the output of the laser? I'd be rather surprised if some extra diffused light was able to divert or weaken the beam of a laser - after all, lasers are able to shine uninterrupted everywhere else outside a CD drawer.

[Tea24]

Blimey!:scratch: I think we should rename AOS Art of Laser Beams:).

But actually what I haven't got is which side of the disc one marks - the playing side presumably? and how large a line does one do?

[The Grand Wazoo]

The edges. The rim - inside & out

[DSJR]

And here's me thinking, perhaps wrongly, that our ears work "digitally..." :lolsign:

On older players, and some new ones it seems, green pens do seem to make a difference, imagined or not. Try with an open heart and chuck the pen away if you cannot hear anything...

Sibilance on "HiFi" equipment can be a problem, but in fact, modern metal dome tweeters used correctly and properly within their bandwidth can sound as sweet and delicate as you need - witness the current range from an infamous manufacturer based in Haywards Heath for example, using research carried out by the BBC as the basis for their excellent designs...... It's crude crossovers making these tweeters work too low that can cause harshness.

Close micing of vocallists and microphones with tizzy treble can be an issue on some recordings though, but most of the severest problems in domestic audio are speakers designed to impress, rather than inform and entertain, the treble fizzed up a bit to give a false sense of "Deeeeetaaaaaaaiiiiiil" IMO.

Let's see how long the OP stays with his new impressive speakers. Perhaps he could listen to them in other rooms and with other equipment to see if this cures his sibilance issues?

[Yoga]

Awesome description, nat, thanks.

[technobear]

Nat's description nails what is happening in the amplitude domain (is it a 1 or a 0) but skips the timing issue. The timing of the 1's and 0's as they enter the DAC is quite critical for a smooth analogue-sounding performance.

The laser light is focussed by a lens. This lens is moved by a servo - constantly. Discs are rarely perfectly centred and rarely perfectly flat. The servo is controlled by the signal coming from the photosensor - the same one that we are trying to divine 1's and 0's from - and any noise in that signal will make it harder for the servo to do its job.

Application of a polish like Auric Illuminator can significantly increase the smoothness of the disc surface by filling in micro-scratches and generally smoothing the surface. This is what any polish does but this one is formulated to have the same refractive index as the polycarbonate.

The black pen goes around the outer rim and around the inner rim and can also go all over the centre area inside the raised ring. On the label side you could colour in the entire surface but I always do just the centre area.

It doesn't necessarily matter how good your CD player is. I have had Auric Illuminator and the black pen separately demonstrated on a 10 grand Esoteric and the difference was plainly audible so even the most over-engineered mechs still need all the help they can get.

[swampdog]

I find that the trend now is for speakers to be bright and hard. Detail and information maybe but often they are unpleasant and uninvolving to listen to.

I'm not suggesting the Nola's are like this, I'm simply pointing out a (to me) unnerving modern fad..:steam:

Hi, The Nola`s are far from bright and hard, quite the opposite infact, they are some of the most natural , live sounding speakers I have heard in many a year, you may be right in saying it may be me that is listening for the sibilance too much, I dont know.....:eek:

[swampdog]

Sounds like the Nola's might need a tweeter damping resistor. A 47 ohm Mills wirewound will do the trick. It goes in parallel with the tweeter (i.e. across the tweeter's own terminals).

The CD pen doesn't have to be green. Black works just as well. The Staedtler ones are good. The Auric Illuminator kit comes with a Staedtler Lumocolor which you can get here:

http://www.greatart.co.uk/STAEDTLERPERMANENTMARKER350-fibre-tips-felt-tips.htm

Auric Illuminator is great for reducing sibilance, harshness, digitalitis, etc. Highly recommended.

Cheers for the tip Chris, I will try it out......

[swampdog]

I must take this opportunity to thank all of you that has posted replies to my question....cheers Lads......

[DSJR]

Hi, The Nola`s are far from bright and hard, quite the opposite infact, they are some of the most natural , live sounding speakers I have heard in many a year, you may be right in saying it may be me that is listening for the sibilance too much, I dont know.....:eek:

Could be - been there and done it myself in the past..

I should remind everyone that live instruments up close - trumpet, sax, oboe and clarinet for example, can HURT in sonic intensity. Violins can rasp too, especially as I understand that modern ones use different strings to earlier times. Sometimes, what we think of as a system fault (especially where CD's are concerned..) isn't really the system at all.

I remember my earliest exposure to Quad ESL57's, finding string tone a little "nasal" and "dry" in sound - then I went to some concerts at the festival Hall and the RAH. Soon put me straight I can tell you :) My Isobariks at the time may have been all "leading edge and detail" compared to my recently sold Spendor BC1's, but the former were totally hopeless at natural timbre in any shape or form, despite the dynamic superiority, much of which being "hyping" of the response to favour one thing over another..

[bogle111]

No one has mentioned the green or black "tyres" that were on sale in the '80's for the same reasons. I still have and use now.

I admit to being usually dismissive of most tweeks, but these and the green pen worked for me, to some larger and lesser degree, dependant on CD.

[Marco]

Hi Peter,

Welcome to AoS :)

Could you please pop into the Welcome area and say hello, by telling us about your system and what music you like? This is the required procedure for all new members joining our community.

Cheers! :cool:

Marco.

[Spur07]

in my limited experience i'd say siblance is probably due to a combination of the CD recording and system set up.

I've got albums that exhibit pronounced siblance in comparison to others - Matthew Good, Avalanche is a case in point. On the other hand I recently changed speakers and the effect is now virtually gone.

[Reid Malenfant]

The black pen goes around the outer rim and around the inner rim and can also go all over the centre area inside the raised ring. On the label side you could colour in the entire surface but I always do just the centre area.

It doesn't necessarily matter how good your CD player is. I have had Auric Illuminator and the black pen separately demonstrated on a 10 grand Esoteric and the difference was plainly audible so even the most over-engineered mechs still need all the help they can get.
I bought a set of 10 of those series of pens with chisel tips you linked to 3509 Black.. Might as well give it another spin as i did a few years ago to some effect i seem to remember.

At least if i do each disc before spinning & leave to dry i'll get to know what i haven't listened to in a while :lol:

[hifi_dave]

I do it on every CD I buy. I always listen first and then apply the ink. I've never yet found a CD which didn't sound better and especially in the area concerned in this thread. Sibilance is definitely less 'splashy' after the pen.

[Slippershod]

there's no chance this works on vinyl lps is there :) ?

after just having my ears unnecessarily syringed by female sibilance on a new lp version of 'cosmic peekaboo' by the Free Design, I'd try anything.

[Reid Malenfant]

I do it on every CD I buy. I always listen first and then apply the ink. I've never yet found a CD which didn't sound better and especially in the area concerned in this thread. Sibilance is definitely less 'splashy' after the pen.
Well these pens turned up a bit earlier so i'll give them a try later on :) The good thing is i happen to have a few CDs that i know very well that i happen to have two originals of, so i can compare the results much more easily.

This should be interesting as the last time i tried this i was using a Yamaha CDX-810 back in the day :lol:

[WAD62]

Well these pens turned up a bit earlier so i'll give them a try later on :) The good thing is i happen to have a few CDs that i know very well that i happen to have two originals of, so i can compare the results much more easily.

This should be interesting as the last time i tried this i was using a Yamaha CDX-810 back in the day :lol:

Does this mean I should put my FLAC files in a green/black folder ;)

[Reid Malenfant]

Noooo, just get some green tinted shades to wear when listening :eyebrows:

[WAD62]

Noooo, just get some green tinted shades to wear when listening :eyebrows:

...on top of the rose tinted ones? :lol:

[DSJR]

You got it :lol:

[roob]

Today I tried the green pen on a cd I find particularly sibilant, made bugger all difference to my ears.

[WAD62]

In a more serious vein, I presume that the pen malarkey is to do with dampening reflected light inside a cd transport, or something to that effect...please correct me if I'm off the mark.

So in theory a perfect FLAC rip of that CD should not be subject to the same playback issues.

I've got all my stuff on CD and FLAC, going through the same DAC etc...one slight problem, I just can't think of any with sibilance problems to compare :scratch:

[Reid Malenfant]

In a more serious vein, I presume that the pen malarkey is to do with dampening reflected light inside a cd transport, or something to that effect...please correct me if I'm off the mark.

So in theory a perfect FLAC rip of that CD should not be subject to the same playback issues.

I've got all my stuff on CD and FLAC, going through the same DAC etc...one slight problem, I just can't think of any with sibilance problems to compare :scratch:
Quite correct. The thing is your "perfect FLAC rip" will be nothing of the sort unless the CD was treated prior to being ripped, assuming it's not all hokum of course :eyebrows:

This is what i aim to find out as i have a few CDs where i have two or more originals.

[Butuz]

assuming it's not all hokum of course :eyebrows:

This is what i aim to find out as i have a few CDs where i have two or more originals.

Thats a big assumption from what I can see. Looking forward to your listening results!!!

Butuz

[swampdog]

Today I tried the green pen on a cd I find particularly sibilant, made bugger all difference to my ears.
Yup, I tried it too...guess what...made no difference whatsoever....oh well, back to th drawing board!!.....:doh:

[swampdog]

Hi, Since changing my speakers I have noticed that natural sibilance on vocals is much more noticable than before and has become quite annoying..would a change in interconnects help? Any ideas would be most welcome from you guys.....:doh:

Thanks for all the advice from you guys...:) I have now sorted the problem out regarding the sibilence..I re-positioned the speakers and changed the interconnects to a pure copper pair and hey presto!...it worked, sibilence is now at acceptable levels and fatigue free....:eek: Now I can start to enjoy the Nola`s ...cheers