So Much "Harshness"


In perusing the various boards, both here and elsewhere ("we toured the world and elsewhere")one theme that seems to be prevalent is "my system sounds harsh" or "this cd player seems harsh", etc.

Why are complaints of "harshness" so common? Are people selecting the wrong components based on dealer demos where the "brighter" components sound better due to additional detail? Is it caused by a taste for music which is intentionally mixed bright to be heard better on transistor radios? (The radios are gone, but the mixing tradition lives on, doesn't it?) Are they simply listening louder than their systems will tolerate without deteriorating? I think this is pretty common. It costs a lot of money for a system that will deliver audiophile sound at high volume.

What do you think?
chayro
When many folks complain, for example, that his new speakers sound 'harsh' to him, folks don't seem to often ask how the 'harshness' presents itself and to what degree.
Newbee (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

A valid point. When it comes to audio, the term "harsh" can have many definitions, and can relate to many aspects of a system's characteristics and its individual elements.

However, it basically comes down to unpleasantness as a result of distortion of some kind.
here's a definition of harshness:

an unbalanced frequency response having a peak of say 3 + db in the range 1000 to 3000 hz.

here's another definition:

an overly focused presentation that is so resolved as to be unforgiving of all but the best recordings.

the first definition is precise, while the second is subjective.

i hope this helps.
MrT, the first definition could be one that causes people to perceive harshness.

The second is not, IMO.

There are more definitions of harshness that could apply depending on each listener's perceptions. For example, you have not touched on distortion, which in itself comes in many forms.
hi tvad:

not all distortion is unpleasant, especially if it emphasizes frequencies in the upper bass area. you are right to consider distortion, such as phase distortion as a factor in the experience of harshness.

the term "analytical" could be applied to a presentation that is balanced in frequency response but is "over articulated". in such a case, the upper mids and lower treble could be perceived as harsh.

i would term "analytical" as overly focused, like looking at a finger under a high powered microscope.

perhaps there is another way of describing analytical. in any case, its experience is unpleasant and harsh.
Hi Al - that is an interesting explanation, though I am not sure how the cause you describe would result in the effects I heard. I would think the cause you are describing would result in much more audible distortions, but perhaps not. The effects I experienced were more like a removal of too much information, if that makes sense. Perhaps the next time my brother comes up, I will experiment with plugging the TT-PSU into the conditioner as well, and see if that makes any difference. He doesn't have a separate power supply to his turntable.

As for the harshness definitions, I would not equate harshness solely with distortion. As Mr. T says, distortion is not necessarily unpleasant. Acousticians use the term distortion to describe many different types of phenomena, some of which are positive effects. I would also agree with his second definition, though this is certainly subjective, as he says. Many CD players I have heard have this "overly analytical" quality - to take an orchestral example, one may be able to clearly pick out every instrument on the stage, but the sense of how the combination of all of them sound out in the hall is completely lost. Losing the forest for the trees, so to speak. When the ambient noise, especially the warmth, of the original concert hall is taken away or lost in this fashion, the resulting sonority is certainly colder and could often be described as harsh.