So Much "Harshness"

Just found this thread - lots of interesting opinions here, and here are mine, for what they are worth. I think the OP is quite close to the answers. Certainly many recordings, especially those of the last 25 years or so since the advent of digital recording, are mixed horribly, sounding nothing like the original space in which they were recorded, and the vast majority of the time being much brighter and harsher. The digital/analog thing does have much to do with it - not only in the playback, but even more importantly in the original recording/mixing process. The distortions inherent in the analog medium, though they are greater, are much less musically objectionable than those inherent in the digital medium, which occur at higher frequencies. This very much contributes to the "harshness" many complain of. No one's system, no matter how good it is, can "fix" a poor recording/mixing job. I would argue that there is a good reason many people believe that the best sounding orchestral recordings, for one example, were those made in the 50's and early 60's with just a couple of mikes hung either far out into the hall or far above the orchestra, in the case of Mercury. There is very little mixing on these recordings in comparison to what happens today.

Another factor is the equipment - certainly transistors are normally much brighter sounding than tubes, though some of today's tube amp makers are going for a brighter, more powerful, transistor-like sound. Some of these sound harsh to my ears, unlike the older tube amps I have heard. I also personally prefer the sound of the low wattage amp/high efficiency speaker combo to the reverse, though the reverse is much more common now.

It also has to do with the individual's musical tastes - those who listen almost exclusively to electronically produced music are not the ones generally complaining of harshness, in my experience. Rock concerts today are performed at insane volumes, with especially the bass greatly distorted by gigantic subwoofers, and many young people today think that all music is supposed to sound like that, and build systems to suit that taste. Many such people simply play their systems too loudly most of the time, trying to recreate this over-amplified sound. Most movie theaters do the same thing.

The greatly compressed MP3 files also are much brighter and harsher than other formats, and many young people are becoming used to this sound as well.

Power supply has a little bit to do with it as well, though I personally think this is the least of the reasons. In a recent experiment at home in my system, a power conditioner made only a very slight improvement to my CD player, and sounded absolutely awful with my vinyl set-up.

Please bear in mind that the above comments are generalizations, there are always exceptions. There are many different tastes out there, and there is equipment out there to realize pretty much anyone's personal taste. For those of you that love to listen to metal with a 500 watt amp and very low efficiency speakers as loud as you can crank it, more power to you! The most important thing is that we all enjoy what we are hearing.

I have some HEXFRED bridge rectifiers going in my Cayin phono stage power supply later this week. Bypassing electrolytics with film bypass caps next week. I have always heard power supplies are critical to maximizing performance, we shall see.

I would argue that there is a good reason many people believe that the best sounding orchestral recordings, for one example, were those made in the 50's and early 60's with just a couple of mikes hung either far out into the hall or far above the orchestra, in the case of Mercury. There is very little mixing on these recordings in comparison to what happens today.

My understanding is that a major reason for that, apart from general mediocrity and mis-indoctrination of many recording engineers and producers, is the very high cost per hour of employing a symphony orchestra or other large ensemble. It is, unfortunately for we audiophiles, simply a lot cheaper to record one take, using a forest of microphones, and "fix it in the mix," rather than to record with purist microphone techniques, and risk having to do multiple re-takes, or risk having to proceed with a product that has unacceptable musical or technical miscues.

Those who listen almost exclusively to electronically produced music are not the ones generally complaining of harshness, in my experience. Rock concerts today are performed at insane volumes, with especially the bass greatly distorted by gigantic subwoofers, and many young people today think that all music is supposed to sound like that, and build systems to suit that taste. Many such people simply play their systems too loudly most of the time, trying to recreate this over-amplified sound. Most movie theaters do the same thing.

The greatly compressed MP3 files also are much brighter and harsher than other formats, and many young people are becoming used to this sound as well.

Sad but all too true. The quality of reproduction of the music that most people listen to is clearly trending downward, given the ubiquitousness of mp3 players, compressed downloads, etc. Which gives producers and engineers correspondingly less incentive to issue high quality material. The saddest part, as you allude to, is that most young listeners are never exposed to, or given an awareness of, what is possible in high quality music reproduction, and so are not able to decide, on an informed basis, to what degree quality matters to them.

Regards,
-- Al

I think its taste. It is so easy to pop in a tube or two and mellow that glare.

Also, people like today's shrill brash ultimately crappy music, which is made with drum machines and electronic samplings and the like. Those who complain might be playing Bach through components designed for crappy disco house music.