2. amps-preamps
  3. 1228904952

Smooth treble

What is in fact a "smooth and refined treble"? Is that synonymous with treble roll off? Psycho acoustically an extreme smooth and refined treble can present itself like if there is less high frequency extension paradoxically. This is what one actually hears in the concert hall! In the concert hall one hears less "treble" than in the home (with your super high end rig). How can one get this smooth and refined high frequencies without severe treble roll off?
In my experience the older and more mature an audiophile gets, the more he/she wants a very natural sounding (overly refined) treble (not the bright, brilliant and super transparent treble many people want when they are making the transition from "mid fi" to "high end" audio) . Do you agree with this?

Chris
dazzdax
sns
653 posts
 
Duelund caps in my Merlins. Prior to the Duelunds I perceived increased treble extension as brightness, after the Duelunds I hear it as simply treble extension. I would describe this brightness as a hardness in the treble, now have a silkier, more airy presentation. Furthermore, I've found cap upgrades throughout my system have imparted a much greater level of refinement to the treble (as well as the mids and bass).

Clean AC is also critical to attaining refined treble.

And I agree that as I've gotten older, anomolies in highs bother me more. I hear pressure and discomfort in my ear with any discontinuities in highs.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
the context for "smooth" is touch. such a term does not apply to sound. it is a word along with others that has been applied to a phenomenon to which it is totally inappropriate.

the closest analogy to smooth, as in continuous texture, e.g., glass or wood, is focus.

thus, a somewhat unfocused presentation would be perceived as smooth. it is not necessarily a matter of frequency response. obviously, grain or noise is antithetical to smoothness.

ananalytical presentation would also not be perceived as smooth.
fpeel
446 posts
 

The word "smooth" can be appropriately applied to all the senses and a variety of perceptions as well. There are 15 adjectives for "smooth" listed in my dictionary and a number could apply here. One specifically fits this discussion: "not harsh to the ear, as sound."

So it is a proper descriptive word for highs with a quality that is non-grating and appealing. I also found "free from harshness, sharpness, or bite" to be a good fit.

How about we discuss the meaning of "is" instead?
rleff
1,065 posts
 
chris; are you running your soundlab or a different speaker now?
if still the soundlab are you happy with the high frequency presentation of them?
just wondering
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
7,068 posts
 
In my book 'smooth' is two things- a lack of high frequency emphasis (however we are not talking about anything being rolled off), and a lack of odd-ordered harmonics, which is the source of 'jagged' sound that others here have referred to.

Odd-ordered harmonic content is often described as 'hard', 'brittle', 'harsh', 'clinical', sometimes 'overly detailed' (which is impossible if there is no brightness) and now 'jagged'.

You can have smooth and a lack of detail, but in my book when a change in the system causes smoothness and **increased** detail, then you are on to something. The smoother, the more detailed without losing speed, the closer you will be to the recording itself.
More to discover