Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Sibilance - S's overstressed

Guys, I have recently noticed some kind of disturbing S's overstressing in vocals of all kind of music I listen too, sometimes more sometimes less. I have heard this phenomena is called Sibilance. It sounds like the singer is kind of wistling while saying words with "s" on them. I like the highs in my system a lot, but this... I don't think I like this. Any idea if this is normal??!!! I also posted this at another message board, and somebody suggested could be my room (walls windows, etc), or interconnects...

My system is:
RB-1080
RC-1070
RCD-1072
Axiom M60TI
Pair of SilverCats interconnects
10G Bi-wire shotgun SignalCable speaker wire
PureAV PF60 power console

People are going to disagree with me but I'd say it might be a combo of your room and the speakers. The metal tweeters and cones don't do much to help. Tell us about the room. ???

Below is a plan of my apt. My system is located in the living room, right hand side wall close to the windows. As you can see, my living room is quite large, in a concrete, high rise building.

i know this is off topic, but if its a highrise apt building.. then where does that door that exits your kitchen lead to..?

i have never seen apts designed like this with two entrances. just curious.

bigjohn

Let's not overlook the source material; there is a lot of popular music mixed for boomboxes that sounds truly awful on high-fidelity equipment.

Did you consider simply turning down the treble a couple of db?

That kitchen door leads to the corridor outside, and yes, there are two exit doors leading to the outside corridor: one from the living room one from the kitchen. The kitchen door is useful to bring in groceries without opening the main door, or to bring trash out, very convenient. 920 square feet for a one bedrom apt. is pretty good!

My Rotel pre amp has three sets for treble - off, 1 and 2 (two is the most treble) I keep it always at off, which leaves the original recording of the source.

i agree, extremely convenient. i have never seen that before. now if you told me your balcony had a water slide down to the pool, i might be asking for rental info..

bigjohn

Couple of apartments I lived in in Dallas had the convenience of two entrances...especially when one was in the corridor and the main entrance was around a corner on the right...

I believe it is also in response to some fire code...but I could be mistaken.

WhatFurrer

Hi Skerdi! I think you should get used to the sibilance. It's in your source material. They record it that way because the majority of people have LOW-FI equipment including hand held CD players. POP & Rock music would sound dull if they didn't pump up the high frequencies. Turning down the treble of HI-FI equipment doesn't cut it much, it's not the frequency covered by the tone control. Get a hold of some vinyl rock or POP Lps and you will hear that there is NO sibilance. OUR CURSE IS HAVING SPEAKERS THAT FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE THE SOURCE MATERIAL...NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS!!!

If I'm off base with my thinking, somebody please tell me because I have the same problem with my Athenas powered by NAD.

P.S. My M50s for my Rotel are on their way!!!!

Funny for the water slide John, but hey, we have a big olympic size pool here located just in fron below my balcony. I am in 18th floor, and apart from the great view, I can see our pool as well.

Hi Rick, I have read your other post at your M50 thread and I know that your Axioms just shipped. Congratulations for the purchase!! Please keep us posted on your experience with them after you get them. I totally understand your point with the modern CD recordings, I agree. I don't have a LP player though, and don't own any records at all.

Does anybody know if my silver interconnects influence this phenomena for worse? I know that many people here think that interconnects/cables don't make any difference, but I have also read many people arguing for the opposite.

Skerdi, as some of the other replies have indicated, this is almost certainly due entirely to the source material. A couple of years ago there was a thread here about how "painfully bright" the M60s were on certain "well-recorded" pop items. Although my own listening is almost entirely classical, curiosity led me to borrow a couple of the CDs from the library and try them on my M22s. My finding was that the recordings were at times "painfully bright", which the M22s were accurately revealing. One of my receivers has variable bass and treble turnover frequencies and a treble cut of about 4-5 dB using the 3KHz setting tamed the problem, although it still didn't make the CDs good. Apparently this may be a boost in the upper midrange around 3-4KHz rather than the treble itself, designed to be more impressive on mediocre equipment.

As far as your Silvercats(and other equipment),this has nothing whatever to do with it; there's some discussion about these things that appears to be operating at a level of comprehension along the lines of silver looking brighter than copper, therefore sounding brighter too. There's no factual basis for such nonsense, of course, and your equipment is transparent. The speakers don't cover up the problems in some recordings and unless the listening room is very dead it won't either. A cut in the upper-midrange such as I described, using an equalizer, would probably help.

I tend to agree about it being the the source material.

The are some fine performances on PBS where I don't notice the problem.

The H2 setting is actually a combination of both bass / treble. 3 DB of each, if I remember correctly. H1 adds 3 DB of treble, while L1 is + 1.5 DB Bass and L2 is + 3 DB of Bass. O is flat.

I don’t know if I agree that it’s “just” the source material. My 80’s tend to bring this ‘S’ out as you describe. I agree that some recordings are most definitely worse, but I notice it on just about everything, if I listen for it. Symbol crashes can sound like one long ‘S’ on some recordings too. Prior to the Rotels, this problem was significantly worse. When I fired the Rotels up, I immediately noticed a change from the long ‘S’, to distinct sounds. Now after having them for a few weeks, I once again can detect the dreaded ‘S’. I’m afraid that if I plugged the speakers back into the HK 7200, I’d probably be disgusted.

Listen to JohnK.
If you prefer lots of pop, you may have the wrong speakers. But you should also keep in mind that there are "ess" sounds in the real world. A speaker that doesn't do "esses" would suck. From my experience, the Axiom tweeter is not inherently sibilant - just loud, clear and accurate.

It's not just the source material. It could be the room. Could be the tweeters. I have brought my M60s and amp into a dealer who had a nice room setup and didn't hear sibilance on material for which I do hear sibilance at home. In the case of this source material, the sibilance was probably cause by my room. The tweeters in Axiom speakers, while perhaps not hurting, certainly do not help. Axiom needs to improve in this area or offer a more expensive line which contains this improvement. Of course, if you always believe it's the source material then you have found your perfect speaker. lol

If it were the tweeters, would you have not heard it at the dealer? I agree with you on material and room setup though.

The 'S' in the sound has not much to do with room acoustic, even though room acoustic plays an important role in sound you hear. I think the tweeter in M60 is a bit harsh, but at its price, M60 has produced pretty darn good sound.

I have a chance to listen to B&W 703 at my friend's house. I must say that the high is very natural and smooth. I play the same CD from Diana Krall and B&W 703 has better sound. Note that a pair of B&W 703 costs $3000 and a pair of M60 is only 900.

I put Musical Fidelity X-10 V3 in between rotel CD player and rotel pre-am and the S's in M60 reduced a bit.

all in all , M60 is good speaker, but i think i will update it soon. Aperion is on my list too, and of course, B&W.

I can't say I have ever noticed this on my M80s.

Here you go guys!!! Now we're talking!!! I guess you said it all, it is not only the original recordings but other factors as well - room acoustics, Axiom's tweeters, etc. Unfortunately there is not much I can do right now:

1. I'll keep my Axioms until I am rich enough to afford some speakers in the range of usd 3000.
2. I cannot do room treatment at my living room since it is a rent apt. building. I don't feel like adding those accoustic panels to reduce sound reflections. As a matter of fact (and with some good luck) I plan on purchasing my home (together with my soon-to-be wife) in a year or year and a half. It is then that I will create my own dream HT room (preferably if I would have a basement in a town home I would be looking for).

I would really welcome anybody who may have some ideas on what to do right now!!

Funny how everyone has an opinion, that is what makes this all fun. Personally, I demoed the 703's against my 60's in my brother in law's recording studio, and the 60's sounded more detailed and natural to me. I would never call them Harsh, Klipsch horn technology maybe, but Axiom, come on....

I have many Diana Krall CD's and DVD's. At one point I thought I was hearing Sibilance in DTS 6.1 mode, but after listening and watching carefully, it turned out being the drummers circular motion on the snare drum. That is how good the Axioms are in accuracy and detail.

my 2 cents.

I'm with you WID on this one, not an issue for me either with my 60's. It is not the speakers, that is for sure.

Randy

60's 150 350 4-Qs8's
Denon 2805
Toshiba DVD (soon to be Panny S97S)
Sanyo Z2 projector
Samsung HD receiver

I'm just jumping in here... been gone a long time.

As far as the apartment layout goes - I lived in a 1930's apartment in Houston that had a very similar layout, and I was told that the kitchen door to the hallway was a "servant's entrance." Don't know the veracity of that claim... but that building was definitely built in what would have been a very well-to-do area in that time. The kitchen also had a cool little mini-door for milk delivery that I thought was very cool.

As far as the sibilance...

I find that DOES have a lot to do with source.

CDs tend to be more sibilant than LPs for me, but I think that has to do more with the target audience of the mastering engineer.... CDs gotta sound great on all kinds of crap, but people who are buying LPs in this day and age are generally "paying more attention." This may have a lot more to do with the LP cult crowd than actualy quality of the medium... but I'm a pragmatist - I like the LP sound, in whatever bias it comes wrapped in.

Also - the performer/recording engineer can have a lot to do with it. I've got a friend in a major label rock band... and I know he just sings WAY too close to the microphone, and it's just really obvious THAT is the recording - the SSS'es are practically set fire!

I think that if you find a wide variety of source material to be too sibilant, or if you hear the sharpness as a mild "echo" - like an mp3 artifact - then it is probably your room or sensitivity to those frequencies. If it's really directional and isolated to a few things... well, that's just the recording (and life).

I hope I helped!

I had been using a "lesser brand" speaker for center for a while until I got an M3 to match the other M3s across the front, and one of the things that got me to go with the M3 was the sibilance I'd experienced with the lesser speaker-it absolutely sounded like fingernails on a blackboard!(ok, it's an exageration! but it was annoying!)

(The test case was the donkey in Shrek; makin' wafflesssss)

The M3s don't have it, and I don't miss it! Regardless of Where it comes from-sibilance is yucky!

Riffman,

This has nothing to do with the tweeter or driver materials in the M60s, M22ti's, etc. As JohnK and others have pointed out, it is room- and source-related.

The M60s, M80s, M22s etc. are very "linear" speakers--a smooth frequency response. If a microphone that has an upper-mid resonance is used for the pop/rock recording (very common; some performers request mikes with mid presence peaks), then the Axioms will reveal that.

An upper-midrange resonance can exist in any speaker, regardless of the tweeter or cone materials. I have some older speakers (I won't mention the brands) with silk-dome and cloth-dome tweeters that have a spiky resonance that makes them unlistenable (for me) with brass instruments, violins, or pop recordings that have any tendency to sibilance.

Regards,

It is great to have your opinion in this thread Alan, thanks a lot!! And it is true, I mostly listen to rock music (power metal more specifically), but I can hear sibilance in other recordings as well, such as Sade, Depeche Mode... I would really appreciate if you have any short-term solution advice for my case. You can find more information on my listening room, equipment, etc in this thread.

Does matter what speakers you use for power metal? JK
I heard some sibilance on my VP150 last night with Leonardo DiCrapio in the film "The Aviator". It was only his voice, off and on throughout the movie, during studio scenes - never outdoors.
This is not a common occurence on the VP150, from my experience. It was the source, plain and simple. Maybe a more constrained tweeter would have helped, but I'd also then be missing stuff I'd like to hear.
In your case, aside from scrapping the metal, maybe resistors on the tweeters would help. 30 day return? Good luck.

Hi Nowave,

Yes, you are right. All the older co-op apartment buildings in New York, including my own, have a servant's entrance. Typically it opens from the kitchen into a back stairwell.

CD is a more linear medium (no roll-off in high-frequency response) so it exposes aberrations in microphones, errors in EQ or engineering. High frequencies on many LPs are usually 3 dB or more suppressed, so they are more forgiving of sibilant recordings.

That said, I have some older pop/rock (and classical) LPs in my collection that are sibilant. If those master tapes to are reissued on CD without being remastered, they can be truly awful.

Overall, analog tape recording and vinyl technology is more forgiving and less revealing of high-frequency screw-ups. There are technical reasons as well. Tapes can saturate with too much high-frequency signal and when the LPs are cut with exaggerated highs, a lot of cartridges wouldn't track the high-frequency grooves without disortion. This increases towards the center of the record, where the hi-frequency groove modulations are closer together ("pinch" distortion), hence the stylus has trouble negotiating the violent twists and turns of the groove. One of the older tests for tracking ability of phono cartridges was to play test LPs of high-energy recordings of triangles, bells, cymbals, etc. and listen for the tell-tale signs of the stylus "mistracking"--nasty sounds indeed.

Regards,

Mark, I noticed that sibilance in the Aviator as well, and my current center channel has the Vifa tweeter (silk, I believe), as do my mains. With various discs, I've experienced occasional sibilance with them as well.

It's just my opinion, but the higher a speaker's quality, the more revealing it is, and the more important becomes the quality of what's on that little disc that goes into your DVD/CD player. The better the speaker, the more it accurately reproduces what's on the disc. As long as there is no mixing and mastering standard to which each disc must be held, some discs are going to sound better than others.

Good to know, Jack. Thanks. I knew it wasn't the speaker.

Thyname,

I have a notion that our listening tastes are similar. Seether, Eve 6 and Revis are in the changer now. I also suspect we are a minority around here, so the replies to this question are going to be very pro axiom, “they’re perfect”, “ it’s your music, not the speakers” kind of replies. This prim Dona attitude used to rub me the wrong way, but I just read, listen and try to learn a thing or two anymore. “they’re detailed, not bright”….lol. that’s a funny one. What the hell’s the diff? that pseudonym ranks up there with “she’s not fat, she’s just big boned”. Axioms are bright, so folks just need to deal with it and call it the way it is. A person either prefers this level of “detail”, or doesn’t. If not, buy something else. But just stop calling the girl big boned, she’s fat. Maybe if someone would let her know she’s fat, she’d get her big ass into the gym and start to feel better about herself and look pretty dam sexy when she’s fitting into a size 6. And maybe, just maybe if the Axiom engineers would actually listen to un-biased opinions of folks not afraid to call the girl fat, they’d do some tweaking and improve an already great speaker. But if everyone continues to say "she’s just big boned, not fat", then there will be no further tweaking to improve their product, and she’ll continue to wear those size 18 trousers and feeling poorly about herself.

Well, the Axioms are perfect speakers crowd can call it whatever they want, no matter to me. I happen to enjoy my system, and have no intentions or desires to buy anything else (and I can afford to do so if I wish). The 80’s are bright, it’s as simple as that, and probably are not the best speaker choice for metal. This is just something that I choice to live with because in addition to the metal that I primarily listen to, I enjoy other genre’s as well. Alison Kraus and the Union Station for example. – a contemporary blue glass. Her vocals and the banjo cords sound absolutely amazing on my system. Instrumental and acoustical recordings also sound amazing. Even Country sounds pretty darn good. And, most of my “metal” recordings sound great too. But the generalized statements that pop and metal are not mastered to the same standards as say…..classical, well I call BS. That’s a cop-out. Metal just has a different tempo with more strings and cymbals. Build a speaker that will make everything sound good. I know it can be done, even if they installed a user adjustable resister in the high frequencies. But, if no-one brings this to the engineer’s attention, then nothing will be done. Stop relying exclusively on graphs and charts and listen to everyone’s opinion. Not all of us metal heads are pot smoking, half deaf, brain dead criminals that are unable to distinguish what sounds good or bad.

The SSSSS is there – end of story. More so with some recordings than others, but it’s still there with most and please stop trying to convince me that it isn’t there. As I mentioned earlier, the Rotels helped, but did not eliminate it. I put an area rug in front of the speakers, and that seamed to help a little. I also placed the 1070 in the L1 position which seamed to help. A little more bass made the SSSSS less pronounced. Didn’t remove it, but with more bass, it’s less noticeable. And when I listen to music other than metal, I run the 1070 flat. But the statements that the speakers have nothing to do with this and it’s strictly related to environment and source material, in my humble opinion, are made from within a whirlwind of BS from people too proud to entertain the notion that the speaker’s performance can be improved. What will the next excuse be, relative humidity?

…..end of rant. Commence the tar and feathering at will. I’m OK with being the metal crowd martyr.

Alan,

Ok, blame it on the source material. I've heard less sibilant yet equally revealing speakers in my home yet there is no explanation for this? I don't think so. Call it colouration if you want.

Does Axiom ever discuss making a softer sounding speaker? Any plans in the works?

Btw, I believe myself and many others are not concerned with purity of sound, rather, good sound. If I want pure sound, I can go see the symphony.

thanks,

Paul

Wow! Sounds like you guys don't like your Axioms anymore (unless you prefer bright, sibilant speakers).
If the tweeter is inherently sibilant, then why doesn't it display that sibilance on every recording?

BigWill, it certainly isn't sibilant on every recording (Luxury Liner by Emmylou Harris for example is magnificent) and I never said it was "inherent".

I've had friends bring their speakers over my house and heard less sibilance on the same recordings. The only different factor here is placement. Call those speakers coloured if you will, I don't care, they were great. I have new speakers on the way (monitors) and guess what, I decided to keep my M60s for now...because I like them very much. They need more smoothness however.

In reply to:

---

Not all of us metal heads are pot smoking, half deaf, brain dead criminals

---

hey, speak for yourself...

wow, that was a "spring out of the seat" kinda post.. just what i needed to lift me thru the afternoon til i get off.. while i do concur that axioms are bright, compared to other speakers i have heard.. i also feel that is directly related to their quality. or, their ability to correctly reproduce what signals are being sent to them. i wouldnt go so far as to say they need to be "tweaked or improved".

and i think you are dead wrong on pop and metal not being "mastered at the same standards".. there not... i can pull out my old motley crue/ratt/poison/cinderella/etc discs, and they sound horrible compared to discs like dire straits/the police/rush/etc.. that were recorded in the same year, with the same avail technology.

so, is it variables of all, yes.. the last thing i wanna do is argue a point that we partly agree on, but i felt the need to mkae a counterpoint. we both dig our systems, so thats all good.. so, lets quit arguing about it and pass the water-bong..

bigjohn

The issue seems to be what you do in the 3khz range. M3s and M40s seem to be "almost" as revealing but also seem to show less sibilance as a result of a dip in the 3khz range.

I suspect that the "less sibilance but equally revealing" speakers would also have a bit of that dip but not sure. Comments ?

bridgman, exactly!.

I didn’t say that, did not even hint that I don’t like my Axioms. Quite the contrary, I love them. I just think they can be improved, and folks need to stop making excuses for deficiencies that can be eliminated. I can blame my table saw for crappy cuts, or, I can clean the blade.

In reply to:

---

Not all of us metal heads are pot smoking, half deaf, brain dead criminals that are unable to distinguish what sounds good or bad.

---

Unfortunately Mike (mdrew) that is what most people think about somebody who listens to metal - I don't know why, but (especially here in USA) when they think of somebody who listens to metal they assume some kind of Ozzy biting bat's head off!!!! I love this music, I am raised with it and have no need to argue that the artist quality and musicianship equals that of any other performers, in classic, country, jazz etc. There is so much to listen to in a metal recording and I am not talking about the "hair" stuff of Motley crue, cinderella, and alike.

As a matter of fact I love my axioms. I chose them first for my music, I knew they were bright, but I kinda liked some brightness in my music, a certain feeling of "punch" that they give to metal. However, sibilance is a different issue and I don't like it.

It's true some recordings sound aweful, such Crystal Eyes's "World of Black and Silver". Some just sound great such as Gaia Epicus' "Symphony of Glory" and latest I got Children of Bodom's "Hatebreeder". I enjoy listening to every detail (except for those god damn S's), and yes, I do like those crisp highs.

And please, do think that you need a good speaker to listen to metal. It is a music, has instruments, melody, not noise, has vocals and band members are really musicians, not crazy people under drug effects. I like to think that nowdays, metal artist posses the best musical creativity of all genres, they are actually composing something....

That was in the 80’s. it isn’t the case now a days. The bulk of my CD collection is relatively new Alt Rock (some consider this metal), and they are all mastered very well. Buy the new Seether or Green Day CD and you’ll agree. I definitely agree with you that older metal recording suck. My all time favorite group (AC/DC) is absolutely painful to listen to on my system. But again, that isn’t the case within the past ten years or so.

It just amazing me that anyone would remotely suggest that there is no room for improvement - with regards to anything. If that were the case, we’d still be using DOS operating systems and Bill Gates would be a janitor. Or, we’d still be decimating our front line troops by sending them to the beach without air support, because well, what we’re doing is good enough.

In reply to:

---

It just amazing me that anyone would remotely suggest that there is no room for improvement - with regards to anything.

---

And it amazes ME that anyone would downplay the quality of the recording. In my opinion, it's 75% of the problem.

It's not about whether someone smokes pot or not, it's about the engineer compressing the hell out of the music so it's as loud as possible, while mixing it hot to sound good on a car deck or boombox that rolls off at 6K.

I'm not saying that Axioms are perfect (what speaker is?) but when they sound great on generally-accepted good-quality recordings and don't sound so great on (generally) lesser recordings.... who you gonna blame?

And, BTW, I agree about Green Day's latest. But you're listing exceptions within the genre.

In reply to:

---

It just amazing me that anyone would remotely suggest that there is no room for improvement - with regards to anything

---

good point..

i was meaning more toward the implicationm that axiom needs some sort of special, fact finding team to resolve the dreaded sssssibilance issue.. i am positive there is a non-stop team of R&D, that does nothing but try and improve the speaker in general.. but, to suggest that they need to specially focus on the sibilance seemed far fetched to me.

but, i do agree, that it makes sense to have a consistent effort to strive toward speaker perfection. no arguments here.

so, from what y'all are saying, i take it the new green day is worth getting..?

bigjohn

mdrew,

She is definitely fat. I also agree that Axiom's speakers tend to be on the hot side of neutral, but I too enjoy the hell out of them. There is no doubt they could be improved in this area. Call them accurate if you want guys, but I have heard more detailed sounding speakers that didn't exhibit sibilance on so many recordings. However, for what that tweeter costs Axiom to have made, it is unbelievably good. But come on, it has it's problems to be sure. I'm not saying she needs a crash diet, just some excercise and watch those carbs.

And then the fun starts... which is the better speaker, the more accurate one which shows off the sibilance more or the less accurate one which hides a bit of the sibilance but sounds pretty darned good ?

M50 posse feel free to jump in at any time

BigJohn, I'm just asking if they have ever thought of a different model. I'm willing to pay for things such as the sibilance to go away more often. By developing such a product, they can keep me as a customer throughout life. I can't believe I'm not alone here.

Instead, the M60s will go up to my attic for a while or perhaps to a friend while I work on soundstage, imaging, and refinement with *other* brands.

Mark,
I could list a dozen other bands/groups if you wish, but I’m thinking it will be a waste of time. And Green Day is considered Alt Rock, which the vast majority of the population would consider metal. So I made no exception there. You, and others, will argue a point to no end and make exceptions to prove your points are valid. I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, or anyone else over opinions.

And I do not, did not downplay recordings, or how they are mastered. Read my post again, slower. Try to read it in its entirety, not just pick out pieces that you wish to disagree with.

Why not just stick to the facts? They are bright. There’s really no way around that. Call them “detailed” if that adjective rolls off your tongue better, makes no difference to me, they both have the same meaning. I’m not complaining about that fact either. However, I think there is room for improvement. That’s what R&D is all about, making things better to stay on top of your game. Axiom would be doing themselves an injustice if they choose to believe that their product can not be improved. And anyone who supports their product is also doing them an injustice by not giving them frank and honest input.

So one more time, just to make it clear….….I like my speakers. Love them actually, and will recommend them over and over again. But I will also be telling people that they may not like them depending on whether they like bright speakers or not. And, if all they listen to is Pop/Metal/Alt Rock, then they probably will not like Axioms. And I will not be telling people they won’t like them because these particular genre’s are recording badly. That is a crock of ……something stinky.

And as a disclaimer, written words of disagreement always sound harsher then they are intended. I mean no offence, if my written tone implies that. I’m more of a technical writer than a letter writer. In other words, I don’t know how to show emotion or friendly disagreement.

>>BigJohn, I'm just asking if they have ever thought of a different model.

M3/M50. Seriously. That little dip does make a difference. If someone is listening more to pop/rock (or any genre often mixed for delivery on lower quality systems) I do suggest they would be happier with M3/M50.

I do not believe that the sibilance is being generated by the speaker but small differences in frequency response do affect how much of the sibilance you hear.

>>I’m more of a technical writer than a letter writer. In other words, I don’t know how to show emotion or friendly disagreement.

Smileys are a good start

Yeah bridgman perhaps the lower M's might be good. I haven't heard them save the 22s. I constantly read reviews of monitors that have the mid bass hump and the graphs to show it. The reviewer sometimes seems puzzled as to why it sounds good. Other reviewers credit the hump.

but...when I throw in a polished and scrubbed old Miles Davis lp or my Dorati, Stravinsky firebird suite 200 gm lp, I'm in love with M60s. On the latter, the dynamics are startling and on the former, well, no such sibilance on a Miles Davis trumpet. It's stuff like that makes me want to keep the M60s. :-)

riffman- the only types of axiom main speakers i have heard are the M60's, M22's, and the discontinued M1's. while i also can hear the ssibilance at times, i truly attribute it to more of the source input, then the speakers. maybe i am wrong in that sense, it wouldnt be the first time. but, i still have no doubt that axioms can be bright/detailed/forward/whatever.. but, i have always attributed that to good speakers. every speaker i have ever heard that is/was considered "top of the line", had that same SSS on the top. and it normally occured with bad or lower quality input material.

it was mentioned that sibilance was heard on the 'Aviator' movie.. i will watch it, and see if i hear it.

and to you and drew, i too mean no offense. i just type and post. so, dont think i am 'picking the scab'.


hows that bridge...

bigjohn

Yes, Green Day's "American Idiot" is a well recorded disc. I don't know how to describe it, but there is this crunchy warmth to the guitars that I can't get enough of.

On another note, I own both Montior Audio GR10s and Axiom M40s--two decidedly different speakers. I am hoping to post my thoughts on both soon, just trying to get more listening in. To me, the MAs are very detailed and revealing. On the other hand, the M40s are detailed, but not to the nth degree. With the M40s, things seem a lot warmer, but I don't feel like I am missing anything in the music. The M40s allow me to crank up the music without worrying about that crispy, biting edge.

By the way, I just saw "The Aviator" a couple of days ago. Which part(s) did you notice the sibilance? I didn't really notice it, but then again, I wasn't listening for it either.

In reply to:

---

They are bright. There’s really no way around that.

---

The problem here is that we're talking about audio preferences. It's not what kind of music people listen to that matters in choosing speakers, it's the kind of speakers they're used to listening to. If you've had accurate speakers all your life, then Axioms will fit right into your tastes. If you've had inaccurate speakers, or are moving up from a bookshelf system or even a boom-box, then, yeah, there's no question the Axioms will sound bright to you.

How you react to that perception of brightness is personal. If you're willing to entertain the notion that the extra brightness is due to the Axioms giving you a truer representation of the signal than your previous speakers -- this is how I see it -- then you might quickly acclimate to the new sound. If you cannot get beyond the change in sound and want to hear things as you're used to hearing them, then no manner of explanation will soothe you. I will add that there is nothing wrong/worse/better about wanting to hear your music a certain way. Again, we're talking about personal preferences here.

I think we've all seen/heard plenty of evidence in support of the fact that M60s are very accurate speakers. Let's define the term accurate in terms of audio reproduction:

Accurate = flat frequency response = reproducing the input signal as closely as possible.

More accurate speakers reproduce their input signals with less deviation from the perfectly flat ideal than less accurate speakers. I, for one, value this quality in a speaker. I want my speakers to tell it to me like it is.


So I guess what I'm saying is I would be more quick to blame the source than the messenger where sibilance is concerned.

In reply to:

---

I mean no offence, if my written tone implies that.

---

None taken Mike.

I don't think our points of view are that far from each other. If you had ever read my "Mother" post, you'll kno that I went through the same "these are bright" feelings for months actually. The conclusion I came to though, is that if my 60s sound bright with many pop/rock/metal recordings, yet sound wonderful with many jazz, classical and some rock recordings that are generally considered "excellent" or "reference" recordings the logical assumption (to me) is that it's more likely that those "reference" recordings are not recorded "dull" and I assume that THEY should be the standards by which I judge these speakers. I've done video productions where I've recorded Cello performances through a higher-end Rode large-diaphragm mic though a very nice (tube!!) mic preamp and straight into a good, pro Tascam DAT recorder. No compression, no EQ. And when I play it back on my M60s, it sounds just like the hall did that evening.....

I've mentioned many times here that I'm surprised/dismayed/disappointed in the general quality of music releases out there in ALL genres. I've spent a good amount of time listening to everything from the Ramones and Dead Kennedys in the early days through the Bad Brains, Red Hot Chili Peppers/Dave Navarro, Filter, Audioslave and NIN nails in more recent years. I have nothing against heavier rock/heavy metal or Alt of any kind... and I have no prejudices against those who listen to music such as this.

But if you ask me which types of music are the best assesment of a speakers accuracy.......

Now, that doesn't mean for a moment that I wouldn't hesitate to maybe recommend a different speaker than the M60 or M22 to someone who listens to a lot of heavier or older stuff.

We're cool, Mike. Like I said, I don't think we're really all that far apart in our opinions. I just lean a little more towards the recording/source quality rather than the speaker itself.

(Semi)official M50 Posse responce:

Not familiar with that term.

Never "heard" of it.

Will have to convene a study group and get back with you.

(Sorry for the delay; too busy listening to music, rather than listening to speakers)











(Heh, heh, heh!)

Ok, cool.

Now, hypothetically speaking, what if it really isn’t the recording, and is the speaker? Say for instance, my M80’s. Just try thinking outside the box for a minute fellas……and bear with me.

Under this hypothetical situation, could it be possible that a different tweeter design, that would re-produce sound with the same frequency response characteristics, but possibly made of a different material, would reproduce those “detailed” sounds me all love, but yet not have exude any sibilance? (I am the comma master btw)

If anyone could spec one out for me, I’ll buy the damn things and experiment. Preferable one that would not require any cabinet modifications, or cost over $100 each, seeing how I’ll have to buy four.

Yes...Being a new owner of M50's, I WOULD NOT say they are particularly bright...(as compared to my Athenas which ARE bright). I listen to Rock and POP.

Athena AS-F2s Driven by NAD C370

I had an Axioms system in my home for a trial period. I experienced some sibilence, mostly with dialogue on the VP150.

However, after a lot of listening time, I arrived at the conclusion that it was the source material to blame. I noticed sibilance on some DVD's; yet other DVD's had no sibilance whatsoever.

Mike, that sort of suggestion has often been made before and isn't really "thinking outside the box", but rather thinking outside of reality. If the "frequency response characteristics" are the same it doesn't matter what materials the engineer has used to obtain them. As Alan has pointed out here, "soft" materials don't mean softer sound, despite frequently heard comments to the contrary. We should stick to the facts that we've learned(at least those of us willing to learn)from audio engineering principles.

Well mdrew, i'm in agreement with you that some Axioms are bright. I said that in my first review of the M60s three years ago, so you are not alone.
I'm in disagreement with your opinion that this is a flaw of sorts that Axiom should 'work on fixing or improving'. The assumption being made there is that Axiom has some knowledge that their product that needs improvement, but that assumption is not valid if you ask the speaker designer what he really thinks about his product. If Ian (and other Axiom designers) feel they have built a perfect speaker with smooth linear response, no one who buys them should be expecting improvements. The idea they are flawed and need to fixed may not be the opinion of the speaker designer. Along this line, i would not expect any 'fixes' anytime soon.
Instead, if one believes the speakers have such a flaw, that consumer should buy other speakers.
I have, yet i still own my Axioms.
I think they are fantastic. Depending on the recording the clarity is superb, but sure, there are other good speakers out there that can do detailed sound w/o being forward but that high level of clarity (the 'brightness') seems to make subtle details stand out more obvious in my mind.

However, consumers should keep in mind that Axiom does sell other speakers that are not as 'bright' as the M22/M60/M80 line. I have the M40s in house and i know that the sound is much more recessed but to me it still has a classic Axiom sound (if i could use such descriptive words). My thoughts on the two can be found here in case anyone wanted a short read.

Axiom makes an excellent speaker at a superb price. There are many other brands out there, many are more expensive. Consumers who feel the Axioms exhibit some problem should just start saving the pennies for one extra year and consider another brand that suits their personal preferences more.
I'm a huge fan of Tannoy and Monitor Audio, coincidentally both British companies. Tannoy can make some colourful speakers (audio wise that is) but i like the sound, so i bought a pair. Hopefully on Sunday i will finally have a chance to A/B the Tannoys with the M60s. I've been curious for some time about the detail that the Tannoys can produce but without the forward tone that the M60 usually has. For kicks i will also test out the M40s and M60s in my upstairs living room which has much harder surfaces and less furniture than our basement room. We shall see if the M60 actually sounds any sharper. Keep in mind that i cannot A/B two rooms unless i can move through space and time instantaneously so any observations in this regard will be purely subjective. The A/B speaker switching thoughts should be somewhat more accurate.
I'll post some thoughts on it since it applies to this topic.
Pictures included.

Mike, as I said before, my equipment has the Vifa tweeter which isn't metal, and I've heard sibilance and harshness, on occasion, from some, but hardly all, sources.

In reply to:

---

Under this hypothetical situation, could it be possible that a different tweeter design, that would re-produce sound with the same frequency response characteristics, but possibly made of a different material, would reproduce those “detailed” sounds me all love, but yet not have exude any sibilance?

---

The frequency response is the sound. What you're asking is impossible. Not all sibilance falls in the same frequency range. A little googling told me that sibilance, especially from vocals, falls in the 2 to 10khz range. So to design a tweeter that de-emphazised sibilance you would need to depress quite a wide range of sound.

I would rather use an EQ that I could turn on and off at will rather than be stuck with a speaker that veiled my highs permanently.

Your Correct! A speaker that subdues sibilant source material would always sound dull and lifeless.

Seeing the freq range that the sibilance falls within, and understanding that all the current Axiom speakers have the same tweeter, could it be infered that the reason that some Axiom speakers seem to exhibit more sibilance is more related to the mids reproduction, to wit; the 5.25" mid?

Alan has pointed out once or twice that the "midrange dip" in the M3 family of speakers is related to weaker off-axis response in that frequency range from the 6-1/2" woofer relative to the 5-1/2".

It might be interesting to do a "sibilance hunt" between the 5.5" mid family (M2,22, 60,80) and the 6.5" mid family (M3, 40, 50) to see how they compare on and off axis. If only we had someone with both speaker families and a bit of time...

Chess ?

Yeah, that's the idea!!

That'll resolve it!

I can only comment on the M3s and M50s and another "lesser brand" speakers, "In my room" so I can't actually say much with any authority. But Chess, on the other hand....

Good Idea!!

Hey Chess!.....You there?

mdrew,

No speaker is perfect; indeed, like that other transducer, the microphone, loudspeakers and microphones are the most imperfect links in the audio recording and reproducing chain. As transducers--the microphone, a converter of acoustical/mechanical energy into an electrical analog waveform that represents the acoustical energy, it is vulnerable to resonances and all kinds of nasty deviations away from linear, flat frequency response.

A loudspeaker, also a transducer--it has to convert the analog electrical voltages back into acoustical pressure that eventually impinges on our eardrums as "sound", or at least that's how our brain interprets those pulses (yet another conversion!).

The domes and cones of dynamic speakers (as well as those membranes and ribbons of other designs) have to rapidly pump back and forth without flexing, overshooting their mark, and without "breaking up" or resonating, an almost impossible task.

It's astonishing how convincingly well-designed speakers do this--reproduce music (and I do include Axioms in this category). However, we are always seeking to improve specific models with endless double-blind and single-blind music listening tests and technical anechoic measurements. Since I joined Axiom four years ago, that's been an ongoing process (and it existed before I came to the company) and particular models have been improved and changed.

Sometimes there is a change in the model number (the M2i, for example) but more often the change is an ongoing one.

I have never stated that any of the Axiom speakers are perfect reproducers, but I will state that my favorites in the Axiom line are among a handful of very revealing, transparent and natural-sounding speakers (given well-recorded source material!) that represent extraordinary value in terms of neutral sonics vs. price. Some of the other brands that I would also cite retail for many multiples of Axiom's prices, and regular visitors to these boards know the brands I've mentioned in the past.

Smart guy that Alan.
If Axiom scrapped the existing model line, some folks would be very disappointed, IMO. Perhaps, to appeal to pop/rock listeners another line (maybe the "Rock Line"?) could be developed? More bass, less tweeter, recessed mids? Slap some rainforest veneers on them and there you go!

Interesting thought John.

First i need some 'sibilant' source material. If anyone has suggestions of better known music and a particular track (or possibly a movie for that matter, our dvd collection is growing) that consistently has the sibilance they find nagging, i can try sitting off axis and do some A/B switching b/w the M40 and M60 to focus on the S sounds.
Keep in mind the M40 does not have a dedicated midrange though so lack of sibilance might be coming from that driver and not the tweeter as so many ppl tend to immediately blame.
It would almost be better if i unhooked all the drivers in each model except for the tweeter and then did some listening for sibilance.

In reply to:

---

If Axiom scrapped the existing model line, some folks would be very disappointed

---

I think so too. The M40s are lovely for their price. The M50s are what i recommended to my brother. Personally i love the midrange clarity that the M60 delivers but if i had started with the M50 as a speaker, i doubt i would have been disappointed. Compared to the cheap crap at the same or higher prices found in box stores, the M40-50 speakers are superior in sound.

In reply to:

---

Since I joined Axiom four years ago, that's been an ongoing process (and it existed before I came to the company) and particular models have been improved and changed.
Sometimes there is a change in the model number (the M2i, for example) but more often the change is an ongoing one.

---

So the next question is, given the fact that the models have had tweaks over the past number of years since their release (not new news), are tweaks still occurring with the present models or has Ian been diverting his attention to other projects?
e.g. obviously the new subwoofers are in the process of first release and tweaking, but how about the models that have been out for several years now and already gone through the process?
I'm doubting the M40s are up for any further tweaking at this point.

Thank you for taking the time to post a response Alan. What I’m asking for may very well be impossibility. I doubt it, but I’ll at least entertain that thought. I may be asking a speaker to do what electronic components need to be doing -as the system in my truck. It automatically changes X-over and tone settings when it recognizes pre-programmed CD’s, or songs. Well, at least the ones that I’ve taken the time to do that with, which isn’t very many, because that’s a complete, bother to me.

Well I think I’m going to flutter on back to NeverLand now. I don’t think I like RealityLand very much. Too much bickering and my CD’s are sibilant bastards.

Chess, The M40's are discontinued.

In reply to:

---

Chess, The M40's are discontinued.

---

Yes they are, hence my comment about having doubts as to any future tweaking of that model.

>>First i need some 'sibilant' source material. If anyone has suggestions of better known music and a particular track (or possibly a movie for that matter, our dvd collection is growing) that consistently has the sibilance they find nagging, i can try sitting off axis and do some A/B switching b/w the M40 and M60 to focus on the S sounds.

Agreed. The challenge will be finding material where the sibilance is "borderline", ie is subtle enough that reasonable people might suspect it to be caused by the speakers rather than the material. Any recording with blatant, hissing sibilance isn't going to be much of a test because everyone will agree that the recording is at fault.

So, folks... we need examples of those recordings where "Axioms show sibilance and Monitor Audios do not show it" (you get the idea).

I think I have the perfect CD for this. My father-in-law recently sent us a CD by a Portland-based band named Pink Martini. The CD is titled Hang on Little Tomato. It is an excellently performed album, and is excellently mastered, as well --- with the exception of a couple vocal tracks which contain minor but noticeable (at least on my M22s) sibilance.

I think it would be a perfect demo disc for this purpose. Plus, if you're looking for new music that is quite infectious, this one fits the bill.

I could burn you a CD and send it to you. Too many projects to take care of right now, but if you PM me your address, I’ll get it to you in week or so.

But I have to ask, what’s the real determining factor that a CD is badly mastered? The reason I ask, is that there are numerous tracks on several of my CDs that have repetitive cymbal taps / crashes, and they all just …kinda sound as if it were one long crash. But the vocals and guitar strings sound very clear and distinct, and there is no hiss between tracks or quite times during the recording. Off the top of my head, Breaking Benjamin has several tracks that have this trait.

Peter, i need music or dvd selections that i already own hence my request for something more common.
I don't think Pink Martini tomatoes are in our repertoire.
Any other thoughts?

I do have one song that is bright to be sure. It is a disc by The Sundays esp. a song called Summertime. The song just rings. But if no one else knows this song, it is not of much use. I can try it anyway and will do so tomorrow after we go look at a house, but if there is a more common disc that ppl know and agree is sibilant, i will give it a listen on the M60 and M40s and see how the Sss come out.

Chess,

OK, I actually plopped my but down in front of my speakers and listened for some ‘more popular’ metal/alt rock CD’s that I think will show you what I have been trying to get at. IE: CD’s mastered well that seam to demonstrate sibilant characteristics of my set up. If you don’t have them, I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for you to find someone who does. All four have / had tracks on top 10 charts recently.

Breaking Benjamin – Saturate. Pretty much the whole darn CD. My ears are pretty fatigued if I listen to this around 90 db’s for very long. (90 db’s is about my norm). I really like this group and am pretty disappointed that I can’t crank it up and enjoy it through my home system. In my truck, it sounds great, and that’s running everything flat.

Seether – Disclaimer II. This CD has some mellow songs with laid back vocals and six string guitar that sounds awesome, and then it has some pretty hard tracks with lots of cymbal, electric guitar, the typical screaming and heavy drum. One song, that is still on the radio (Broken), is a collaboration with Amy Lee (Evanescence lead singer) so I’m certain that it will be easy to get your hands on. Again, similar sibilant traits on some tracks, while some of the slower tracks sound terrific.

Three Days Grace – no CD title. I don’t what the deal is with one but the friggin cymbals drive me nuts. The third track, I Hate Everything About You is a popular track. These guys are pretty new but they’re gunna be main liners before long.

Revis – Places for Breathing. Same as Seether, both hard and mellow tracks. If you can only find one of these four CD’s, this would be it. It has several tracks that will start out slow with guitar solos that I can hear the pick striking the strings and hear finger tips squeaking on the strings, then the track will speed up to heavy guitar and start to sound, well, not so hot. This CD is really popular right now. The first track, Caught in the Rain is up on the charts. Actually, if anyone thinks that alt rock / metal is nothing but noise, I’d highly recommend you get this CD. It might just change your prejudices toward this type of music.

I’d be really interested in your opinion on these, and what it is about the troublesome tracks that make them sound like crap on my system. Maybe they are all simply, recorded badly. Or, I’m even open to the idea that when mastered, the engineer intentionally does manipulate things to make them sound different for a target audience. At this point, I’m open to anything.

On another note, it was mentioned earlier in this string that boom boxes and vehicle systems are not in the same league as High Fidelity home systems. This is not entirely true with regards to vehicle systems (no argument with boom boxes). There are just as many folks who put just as much time, money, research and effort into Hi-FI systems for their vehicles as you all do with your home systems. I went to great pains piecing together a system that was geared toward SQ, and not just SPL. About six months of research and asking hundreds of questions, about 5 grand and a week of work later, I can honestly say it sounds very impressive. I’ve probably got fifty pounds of sound proofing alone, just to get the acoustics right in the vehicle.

posted in audiocircle by a person name 'eric the red':

"The majority of cds sound like crap. A better cdp will make the majority of already crappy cds sound even more like crap. You may hear more inner crappy detail and higher crappy resolution of the already crappy cds with a more expensive cdp, but they will still sound like (you guessed it) crap. Too many poorly recorded cds is the problem. I'll bet those Ellis 1801s will REALLY bring out the flaws in crappy cds compared to the Twins."

However, if you buy a really expensive CDP that uses vacuum tubes, it might sound like God himself has re-mastered your music collection.

Sorry mdrew.
I've been away busy with personal matters. I won't have time to do the listening until a bit later this week (i hope). But i will get around to it.
I'm working on getting a new switcher right now that might also make things a bit easier.

I'll keep you posted.
Just offhand i do not have any of the cds you mentioned, however, my wife is always into new music so i'll ask her if she is familiar with some of the bands and we can do some music purchasing in a day or two. I did go to the Breakin Benjamin website and the sample songs were interesting so that could be the choice. However, if you come across any other music, let me know. Hard rock is not exactly our genre of choice and rather rare considering we probably have pinches of everything else except punk. Virtually every cd of hard rock that we do have sounds harsh on the ears to some extent (just the content i think).

I cant' comment on car stereos much except to say that acoustics are impossible if not because of road noise, because of the inherent interior obstacles in the car.

Riffman, that post was quite humourous.

Amen, Paul. Good to know what Eric thinks about today's recording practices.

No kiddin……I was loosing sleep not knowing Peter’s opinion.

Hey Chess, If you liked BB at all, you’ll like Revis better. You can go to their web sight and download a jingle or two. But the offer still stands, I’ll burn a CD and send it on its merry way to you if you wish.

Thanks for the Revis tip. I've never heard of them before, but I have the first three Cd's that you mentioned (actually seen BB in concert and they sound WAY better on CD) so I'm sure I'll like the new (at least to my ears) Revis group.

The Metallica disc that Ken recommended didn't sound very good on my M60s - nothing but cymbal crashes. It sounds much better on the MAs, but it wasn't sibilant on the M60s. The drummer just needs to lay off those things.

I drank what? Which disc? When did I recommend it?

I recently came up to a description of "something" called Mucical Fidelity X-10V3 Tube Output Buffer. I had no idea what it was before but somebody highly recommended it with my setup. Apparently it would remove sibilance and harshness of CD players in general. I also got a nice explenation of what a buffer can do:

In reply to:

---

A tube buffer (or just a plain old buffer, for that matter), is a component that has a very high input impedance, and a very low output impedance and has the ability to provide a (relatively) large current at its output. This means that where you would have originally connected component A to component B, you place the buffer in between components. As the buffer has a high input impedance (higher than B's input impedance), component A has an easier time driving it (has to provide less current for a given voltage). This can result in less distortion. As the buffer has a low output impedance (relative to A) and can supply a large current (relative to A), It will have an easier time driving B than A would. It basically means that A sees a friendlier load (asking for less), and B sees a friendlier source (willing to give more).

A buffer is not a DAC, and would be connected in the analogue signal path.

The fact that it is a tube buffer (rather than transistor) will likely give the music a characteristically warmer sound. This is (probably) largely due to the distortion characteristics of tubes Vs. transistors.

---

I have seen a few in a 300 dollars range in Audiogon, which is very reasonable.

Anybody any opinion or experience? I would be very interested in getting something inexpensive to "warm" the sound of my system a bit...

Hi Thyname,

I have listened to the X-10 buffer with my m60s. While it did add some richness, it didn't reduce sibilance. The key word here is add. It imparts it's own signature to the sound getting you further from the true source. I'm not tube bashing here as I think there are some very nice sounding tube amplifiers, preamps, and tube output stages in cd players. However in those cases they are engineered with the component. The X-10 seems like a bandaid, look at what is causing the "injury".

Great analogy with injury and bandaid!! I like it!! Did you notice any added warmth to the sound? disappointing to hear about added signature away from the true source!!

There is not much I can do right now at my apartment building, no room acoustic treatment and alike, I am not allowed. And I can't spend too much money with modifying my RCD-1072 either.

I don't know if I would describe it as added warmth, rather a more lush midrange. It brings out or emphasizes the harmonics in the recording as tubes often do.

I believe the M60s, as good as they are, aren't the smoothest speakers out there. A lot of people on this forum have stated that sibilance is in the recording. While I agree with that, I have heard speakers that sound just as detailed as the Axiom's with a smoother, more natural upper midrange through top end. Granted these speakers cost 3-4 times as much!

I listen to a variety of music and consistenty the metal/alternative rock doesn't sound great on the M60s. My shop system does well with this type of music, but can't touch the M60s soundstage, resolution, etc. with the right recording.

If the genre of music you most often play doesn't agree with the speaker's frequency response it may be time to look at another speaker, posibly the 50s?