|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
198.144.145.15
Am I the only one who finds the violins in recordings of symphony orchestras almost always too bright, or is this topic not much discussed in polite audiophile society?
Even recordings which have been, quite rightly, recommended on this forum, have at times unbearably bright high violins. For example, the Mahler 4 by Ivan Fischer and the Budapest Festival Orchestra is an excellent performance, but at about 1:30 into Mvt I, with the descending scale to the cadence, the fiddles are already screeching, at least to my ears. At 2:30 there is a shorter but still edgy blast from the upper strings, though this recording is one of the better ones in this regard.
Some may say that this brightness doesn't occur so much on vinyl, but I have committed to digital because an even worse problem for me is the very slight, but always there, flutter on any analogue piano recording.
There are several reasons which I think conspire to create overly bright violins, but if I am the only one who finds it troublesome I won't go into them now.
Follow Ups:
George, consider risking a trip to tweaker's asylum in search of a brightness remedy, or two or three.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Tweaker456
"Polite audiophile society" Paleese, tell me where that exists??
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
I do know a few people who think violins sound unbearably bright, even in a live unamplified setting...... My suggestion is that if you have the opportunity to take in a symphony performance in the flesh (you'll have to wait a while due to the stupid COVID 19... ), preferably in a hall that doesn't have amplified sound reinforcement (unfortunately, many halls do).I just think you should test your tolerance for strings in a live setting, only because if it's too bright in the ideal setting, you could otherwise be chasing for the impossible.
By the way, the best string sound online I've come across are 4K YouTube videos of live performances.... Only because there is minimal processing and the audio resolution enables enough HF extension to do justice for orchestral strings..... Link is one such example. (There are a lot of videos with doctored audio, but there are also a good number of videos with undoctored audio.) Just be sure you set the playback resolution to "2160p"... Otherwise you won't get full audio resolution. (Not all PCs/internet connections will pass through this bandwidth without interrupted video. If this happens, "1440p" will work, but some resolution will be lost.)
Edits: 06/30/20
Thanks for tipping me to the higher resolution possible on YouTube.
That Borodin is a good sounding recording. In changing resolutions and comparing, I think the higher resolution is smoother, but not necessarily lower in HF content.
What would you, and others, think of the sound on the two videos below? Same piece, same violinist. Perhaps best to compare at 720, as that is the highest one of the videos allows.
Two points to quickly compare for violin brightness are ca 42 seconds in, where the whole section steams away, and ca 2:55 where the soloist enters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFl9xuYP5T8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXo8KnfPCXM
If violins are too bright, there is an issue in your system that tubes can't fix, they'll just cover it up. Or, as someone says in another asylum today, they'll take you to heaven, which is not where music is played. Unless you're into harps. Tubes can be great in the right gear, but if they're just there to "fix" violins....
I do agree..... If the source or recording doesn't get the violins right, no downstream application (tubes) will fix it.
Sorry, you were talking about vinyl, not tubes. But solid state need not be too bright...
I usually attribute excessively bright violins to the recording or to the speakers. One test for speakers is a good recording of the first movement of Rachmaninov's Symphony no. 2.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Nothing sounds good, and grainy strings seem more grainy. Bass, as mentioned below, is thin and no tonal/timbral sophistication.
I'd also try preparing to listen to music in the same way one prepares for sleep, don't sit down to listen after engaging in physical or mental activities that get the adrenaline pumping and/or the mind racing.
Slow down for an hour or so if possible and unplug.
. . . when you go to concerts, do you also find the tone of the violins to be too bright and/or edgy?
Who's going to be the first to suggest that George6 change his interconnect cables?
There's a reason for so many types and brands of audio equipment, especially speakers,sounding so different, being commercially viable.
That goes equally for recording and mastering producers and engineers and the equipment they prefer.
The Tango: A kind of Naval Engagement but without the Seamen
What was different about this older system? The bass response didn't extend as far as I've gotten on my subsequent systems. I've found (on my own systems anyway) that the deeper my bass response goes, the less I tend to hear excessive brightness in the treble. (And of course this assumes that the frequency response is even throughout the spectrum.) Maybe this is counterintuitive, but that's my own personal anecdote!
BTW, I do have a system in my computer room which does not have deep bass, but I tend to not play that system as loudly (see oldmkvi's post below), and I'm not expecting as much from it. OTOH, the sensation of loudness I get from a recording depends very much on the bass response, and if the bass is there in sufficient quantity, it may cause me to turn down the overall volume level, which would simultaneously reduce the relative amount of treble in the overall balance, thereby reducing the brightness. A lot of this stuff is very subjective. Just offering a possibility here.
As far as headphones are concerned, I don't encounter the brightness problem - at least on the two pairs that I have - even though the bass experienced though them is less. . . shall we say. . . physical than the bass on my main system. ;-)
One last thing: I have that Fischer recording of the Mahler 4th, and do not find it bright (excessively or otherwise). Some of this may have to do with the fact that I listen to that recording in MCh - that's another thing that could make a difference: you have the surround going, and the LF and RF speakers aren't being asked to carry quite so much of the sonic burden of the recording, so they might have an easier time of it. ;-)
. . .and then we get too much treble. Some people think a sub-woofer addition can help any system.
Thanks for the comments and suggestions.
Am using Dirac, which gives a 2dB downward slope above 1000Hz. The Magnepan 3.7i speakers have a 1.5 ohm resistor in the ribbon tweeter path, and a 1.2 ohm in the mid-range path, as the MR has a quasi ribbon tweeter section which goes quite high.
Have also experimented with specific frequency EQs in the affected range. When there is bass on a recording it comes through cleanly and powerfully -on many jazz recordings I find the bass too heavy. The whole room is carpeted, with damping applied at first reflection points, plus difussion behind the speakers.
I think this is a problem with the violins and the way they are recorded.
Dr. Chaos mentioned that they are recorded from above; I have read comments by a recording engineer saying that this is the only way to record them, because the F holes point up, unlike the lower strings (ignoring the violas as they don't play very high). If this is gospel, no wonder they are bright! And if mastering engineers have the same aesthetic, they will boost the highs; or maybe some do so as a leftover habit from the days of mastering for LP, or to make sure the sound is bright enough in a car.
Telarc used to use four evenly spaced omnis across the front of the stage, and in general I have found their orchestral recordings the least offensive in the high frequencies. The SF symphony also uses four omnis, but raised to 9' above the orchestra, plus spot mics.
The main problem, I suspect, is the violins. The steel E string (the highest) did not become available until ca 1907, so the majority of the symphonic repertoire was written for and originally heard on gut strings, which are much less brilliant. The concertmaster of a large symphony told me about 20 years ago that he wished there could be a return to gut, but that there was a culture among violinists of getting more and more power and brilliance from their instruments.
Then there is the question of the number of violins. Bruckner referred in his scores to the practice of the Wiener Philharmoniker, including a string orchestra of ca. 12-12-10-8-8. Only 12 first violins, compared to the 18 that is common today. And these additional strings have not been balanced by additional brass and woodwinds.
Have found this vln brightness listening through headphones, and on speakers I try to limit the loudness to occasional peaks of 80dBA.
Perhaps John Marks, who is knowledgeable on both recording and violinists, will have something to say on this.
So we hear differently. I see the 1:30 and 2:30 violin sound you've mentioned within normal recording variations, as least, they don't bother me.
While they don't bother me, I don't consider that is a top recording. I found Haitink's has a better string sound and I can hear more details in the performance.
I see audio listening a compromised but already very satisfying thing. Recording and mastering always re-shape the original sound but I found the engineers usually have sharp ears and most of them do know their job. The better I tune my system, the more I hear from the recordings. I use Pass amps with McIntosh speakers which has 23 tweeters on one side, the violin sound is pretty good to me, most of the time.
. . . you're hearing excessive brightness on many recordings whereas it seems most of the rest of us here are not.
Your comment about the number of microphones and their distance from the orchestra seems very relevant to me. Recording engineers have the means to place microphones in more ideal locations (where I could never be seated as a listener!) - and I appreciate that! As a young listener, I grew up on the close-in, minimally-microphoned Mercury Living Presence recordings, and I suppose that's shaped my expectations of music. Unless I'm sitting in rows 5-7, I tend to be disappointed with the sound of live concerts!
Also, I don't agree with your point about violins swamping the rest of the instruments in modern orchestras: the other instruments have also acquired more capability in volume projection over the years, so that, IMHO, they're the ones who often swamp the strings (especially in repertoire like the Bruckner symphonies!). Also, acoustically, when you go from your example of 12 violins to 18 violins, you're not increasing the total violin volume nearly as much as most people think you might be. Have you ever seen one of those concerts where an organization's youth orchestra sits and plays side by side with the main (adult) orchestra for a concert? Is the volume twice as loud? Certainly not in my experience - what I found instead was that the overall tone quality improved (despite the more ratty instruments which the kids tended to have!).
Excessive tonal brightness is a very interesting subject, and there seem to be so many factors which contribute to our individual perceptions of it. ;-)
In their CD rips, so many of these sound terribly bright and to me unlistenable, despite their wonderful imaging and soundstage.
I do treasure the SACD reissue of Starker's Bach cello suites, which is a 3-channel recording that gives a very realistic picture of a cellist!
I still treasure them all today myself! Of course, the recordings did improve over time, with the pinnacle IMHO being the recordings done on 35mm magnetic film.
Regarding Starker's Bach Cello Suites, there's a remastering done by Thomas Fine (the son of Robert and Wilma, as I'm sure you know) for Analog Productions, which I believe is only available on 45 rpm vinyl so far. PS Audio's Copper magazine (or ezine!) had an interview with him about this remastering near the end of 2019 IIRC. But, as you say, the three-channel SACD's (which I also have myself) give a very realistic sound picture, with the three channels giving an extra dimensionality to the experience. You might also find this promo video ("unboxing the vinyl") from Acoustic Sounds interesting:
View YouTube Video
Chris, thanks for sharing the promo video. I don't buy vinyl anymore, but I wish Analogue would issue an SACD stemming from the master tapes they used to make these LPs!
I think we have quite a bit more choice in general. ;-)
And of course, one doesn't have to rely exclusively on a single platform - recently, I've been joking (in a couple of posts anyway) over at Vinyl Asylum about adding vinyl back to my system. Very, very unlikely - but I can't say with 100% certainty that it will NEVER happen! (But if it does, you'll know I've really gone off the rails!) ;-)
"The concertmaster of a large symphony told me about 20 years ago that he wished there could be a return to gut, but that there was a culture among violinists of getting more and more power and brilliance from their instruments."
And they took their great old instruments apart to lengthen the necks. Much of this was done to satisfy the growing size of the concert halls.
The original instrument movement has returned to gut and, generally, to smaller halls.
Whether a recording sounds too bright can certainly result from the choice of equipment and mic placement in the hall and any EQ that might have been applied later on. However, it can also be caused by our amplification equipment, speakers and their placement, and acoustical characteristics of the listening room. A lot of folks have bare floors directly in front of their speakers and window walls without curtains. You think that MIGHT cause some brightness?
I heard that Fischer Mahler 4 a long time ago on a library SACD that someone had damaged. So I never got to hear the whole performance. But my recollection of it, along with the other Fischer Mahler discs, is that you get a mid-hall perspective in MCh mode that is not at all bright.
Some people are surprised when they see my system by how much I have my FL and FR speakers towed in. The direct sound crosses in front of the listener, rather than at the listener's seating position - this was at the direct suggestion of the speaker manufacturer ("Big B" Brian Cheney, who used to post here before he died a few years ago).
BTW, I have a couple of inches of bare floor in front of my speakers (before my rug starts), and no curtains anywhere in my house. (We're of the wooden blind persuasion around here.)
Chris, When you take off your socks do you count your tows?
On one post a few years ago, I was talking about the canons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. One wag here replied that he didn't realize that Tchaikovsky had written so much religious music! ;-)
Actually, my speakers are so heavy that that have to be towed to their new positions. Yeah! That's it. . . yeah! ;-)
Yes, this is so system-dependent. I tried that arrangement using a laser pointed to make sure I got it right, but I didn't like the results. The charts of speaker directionality in Stereophile reviews indicate how much of a difference toe-in might make.
I have a well damped, small room. I started with my speakers facing directly forward while playing a mono source (female opera singer), then toed them inwards in small increments until I had a solid center image. That gave me the best imaging with stereo material. Audyssey compensates for my speakers' tendency towards brightness in certain materials, as does my choice of electronics.
/
Microphones are placed usually well above the orchestra---violins are too bright in that direction over some frequencies. It's a location not heard by human ears.
needs some equalization.
I think you are on to something. I have always thought that the microphones used in many orchestral recordings are overly sensitive to a violin section playing above the stave. Remember that they are positioned very much closer to the instruments, generally, than we are at a live performance.
Some labels have been better in that regard, though they may have other issues. On vinyl I can think of Philips and DG in particular and to some extent they have carried that balance over to digital. Sometimes I think that EMI/Warner is a major offender. I've never been a big fan of highly touted in these parts Channel Classics recordings so I won't comment on the Fischer/Mahler.
Down below you will see my unfavorable comment on the V. Petrenko Rimsky-Korsakov/Stravinsky recording as being terribly over bright. In contrast I have recently been listening to the Shostakovich/Nelsons/Boston recordings and I think the fiddles there have been tamed. They are DG recordings and I think they are really special.
Piano can sound great on vinyl and with no discernible flutter, but you need a heavy platter with/and a great deal of flywheel to smooth out the rotation. Standard industry measurements have little meaning when it comes to flutter.
Do you find the same brightness by wearing a headphone plugged into your cell phone and listen to the same recording from YouTube?
This has been an interesting and rewarding discussion: my reaction to loud violins in their high register may well be idiosyncratic, perhaps like an allergy — once exposed and sensitized to the allergen, you remain always on the outlook for a repeat performance.
A deeper bias could also be at work: I prefer violas to violins, trombones to trumpets, contralto to coloratura, and, in general, male voices to female.
To address Chris' question, symphony violins at a concert can be overwhelming, depending on the acoustics and where I am seated. On stage with the orchestra at a rehearsal, they are bright. String quartets tend to emphasize the first violin, no matter how unimportant the part may be in some sections of the piece, even if marked PP. Recording engineers seem to go along with this.
When the youth orchestra joined the adult orchestra, producing an improved tone quality, it could be the result of the same type of "ear averaging" that occurs when we listen to multiple violins, all slightly out of tune. We hear a single pitch, the amalgam of them all.
That Mahler 4th on YouTube linked by alc777, played straight from my computer to a cheap Yamaha integrated to Pioneer A. Jones speakers, does not sound strident at all. The Starker cello sounds great on the same desktop system - rich in harmonics and nuance.
I wonder if anyone finds the trumpets on this Sinatra item maybe a bit bright? His own label, Reprise, and almost everything it put out is like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU5J6gaW0k8&list=PLc4NxDAjUWeCiX5BQ4qYc0sMGez1jzdOz
But the strings at the bridge (1:00) are silky smooth...-.
(If I'd posted this to the Planar Asylum, I would be advised to change all my interconnects _and_ my power cord!)
not a good transfer though, both ends of the frequency range seems got cut off quiet a bit, the mastering removed most of the spacial information so the sound if very flat to me.
The Deucalion Projects sounds sharp to me, most of them. Videos from Bnf also tend to have highs emphasis to my ears. In general, I'd say French labels have high percentage of highs emphasis and German labels tend to have lows emphasis. I guess this probably has something to do with the language used.
That Haitink performance is excellent - thanks for bringing it to my attention.
My system seems to be accurate (the power amp is made in Taiwan), and I think I have discovered why I hear violins as sometimes bright.
When a violinist wants to play loudly, they move their bow toward the bridge. This increases the upper partials (harmonics)loudness in relation to the loudness of the fundamental (the note they are playing), giving a brighter sound.
This can be seen in the Haitink video at exactly the point where I found the strings to bright in the Fischer, at the descending scale passage that moves from violins to celli. If you play this in slow motion you can easily see the violinist of the left move the bow towards the bridge as she plays the passage.
Follow-up to my post with the link to the Haitink Mahler 4:
If you watch the violinist playing _before_ the descending scale you can see how close to the fingerboard the bow is, which gives a warmer sound, and then how she moves the bow towards the bridge to increase the loudness and, inevitably, the upper partials. When the whole violin section does this, it can get strident.
Some audio systems will reproduce these overtones more accurately than others. YouTube does not seem to have the necessary resolution.
We all hear differently, and the same person can hear the same thing at different times and notice new things. Critical listening involves experience and/or training (as in the Harman course) and may not be a good thing if you just want to enjoy the music.
Don't know why I didn't think of the relationship between bow position and overtones earlier; probably need to add some dynamic EQ to the chain.
. . . maybe the various recordings (as heard over your system) are reproducing the live sound fairly faithfully?
Just a couple of riffs on the topic:
1. Sometimes recordings were purposely made with too much treble energy. Many years ago I was in the cutting room at Decca and the engineer told me that "we always go for a strong treble cut". Of course many vintage Decca recordings are held up as models. It is worth appreciating that typical home cartridges of the 1950s and early 1960s had responses that rolled off pretty swiftly over 10kHz (as did the microphones). A "strong treble cut" may have made sense in that environment. Personally I now find some of my classic Decca widebands a touch too bright played with a modern cartridge. A touch that I can live with given their other magic.
2. Up until recent years I have always found CD players/ DACS unable to properly resolve the sound of mass violins. Solo violin, fine, many violins with all those overtones more difficult. Some could well hear this as excess brightness.
3. Check the treble responses of a selection of speakers tested in Stereophile over the past years. Surprising how many exhibit a treble rise often <5dB or more above the midrange (if that is used as the datum). This is apparently because having an accentuated treble impresses more in a showroom.
4. Most tweeters sound horrid to start with ;-). I remember Billy Woodman of ATC reported as saying that he hated all tweeters. Took him years to develop his own. My personal dislike of a class of speakers are those with a ribbon tweeter/conventional mid/bass where, in the main, the two just do not blend with the tweeter remaining exposed as a separate entity.
5.Most speakers are not made for listening to classical music. it is a minority interest and therefore need not bother the designer of typical speakers overmuch. Too much treble? Gives a nice sting to the sound of that Fender Telecaster and increases excitement. Sells more.
Me cynical?
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Not at all. Your points neatly summarize many of the problems associated with listening to recorded classical music.
As to your first point about cartridges from the 50's and 60's having rolled off high-frequency response, I agree, although some cartridges had some pretty noticeable peaks above 10kHz too.
Regarding the sound of massed violins on CD's, I've always felt that that was more a product of the prevailing primitive multi-microphoning done by the major companies of that time. In addition, many of the CD reissues early on were cavalierly managed in the rush to get titles out into the market. My opinion is that, even from the very beginning, there were SOME recordings on CD (and CD players) which dealt well with massed violins - so the negative perceptions had to be caused by other things. (Although I have to say that I've never been very familiar with THAT many CD players on the market at any given time.)
I remember when I was very young in Southern California, stereo was just catching on and my dad was getting his/our very first hi-fi system, he wanted to consult with my piano teacher, who had a big JBL speaker in his mono system. My teacher said that he liked JBL's because they had a "hard, quick, fast" sound, and, sure enough, we ended up with a pair of JBL's ourselves. Later on, when I was reading the hi-fi "pundits" of the day, I discovered that they considered the JBL (or "West Coast") sound more suitable for rock and pop, while classical music would be better served by a more covered (or less "in your face") "East Sound" sound, exemplified by speakers such as those from Acoustic Research. Since the JBL's were my "imprint" speakers, I somehow have always preferred that type of sound, even for classical music, and today, my current speakers have ribbon tweeters and ribbon midranges together with conventional 12" woofers (which BTW crossover at an unusually low Frequency - between 200 and 300 Hz).
As I mentioned before, in my case, the main determinant as to whether I perceive an edgy or bright sound from a given recording on a given system is the the presence (or not!) of an extended bass response.
" As I mentioned before, in my case, the main determinant as to whether I perceive an edgy or bright sound from a given recording on a given system is the the presence (or not!) of an extended bass response."
Yes indeed. And the converse can also be true. Improve the treble response and often one perceives improved bass too.
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: