Sibilance how do I get rid of it?

Cdc, okay, after you emphatically stated that cleaning the electrical for sonic improvements is a farce, you did state your one reason why.

However, I believe the reason you provided was poor in that 1. it was an abnormal occurance (when something like a light bulb blows) and 2. You spoke only hypothetically even though your light bulb may really have blown. You did not cite one practical experience where cleaning up the electrical would have any positive or negative affects on the sonics of your system.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not too long ago and yet even today, some to many claim that audio cables are all the same and make no sonic difference. Some say that about amplifiers too. All amplifiers simply amplify. With your stance on the above I must assume that you are in these camps as well. So are most electricians.

Your stance reminds me of the scientist proving that a bumble bee cannot fly theory. But that's all it is, a theory. Well, the bumble bees are flying and obviously some to many audio enthusiasts are experiencing greater pleasure with their systems than you are with yours.

As for asking an electrician anything along these lines? Unless it's Glen, I'd rather ask the kid at the drive-thru window at McDonald's.

An electrician is not an electrical engineer. And of course neither am I. But I play one in my house and here on audiogon.

-IMO

I don't get it. 40+ odd posts later, and you guys are still going at it over the AC issue. Don't get me wrong, I do believe, based on experience, that cleaner power can = cleaner transients. And of course, no one can get rid of sibilance embedded in a recording. BUT THIS POOR FELLOW IS LISTENING IN A 26' X 14' UNCARPETED BASEMENT. HE HAS A SEVERE AFFLICTION OF FLUTTER ECHO, A PHENOMENON WHICH ANY PRO SOUND REINFORCEMENT OR STUDIO PROFESSIONAL CAN TELL YOU IS GREATLY EXCITED BY SIBILANTS, MAKING THEM SOUND WILDLY EXAGERATED. Attending to the AC or whatever else is all well and fine, AFTER TAKING CARE OF THE ROOM, FOR THE EMINENTLY SIMPLE REASON THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO FULLY BENEFIT FROM, OR MAYBE EVEN HEAR AT ALL, THESE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN HIS ROOM AS IT IS. Debate it all you like, but that's the honest truth, Ruth. (IMHO, natch! :-)

Way to go Zaikes!!!!

Funny, I've had conversations with others in large and very live rooms before, unfinished homes, empty cafeterias and church bldg's (well near empty) many times bigger than the 24 x 16 room mentioned above. And I've yet to hear anybody's pronunciation of the 's' sound turn to mush simply because of excited reverb, flutter echo, etc..

I don't know about wildly excited but all audio info becomes somewhat 'excited' in a acoustically untreated live room. Not just the portion resulting in sibilance. Our ears easily make the distinction as to which type of room we're in. The original source information does not change one iota. Only the reverb info. But again our ears most always can easily make that distinction between the original source and the ensuing echo.

I'd be curious to know the names of the 'Pro Sound Reinforcers' and 'Studio Professionals' that Zaikesman consulted regarding this matter.

Stenho, the larger the room past a certain point, the more the delayed soundfield is percieved as a pleasant reverb (in circumstances such as a choir in cathedral), or possibly a discrete echo. It's the delay timing and the number of repeats, among other things, that determines how the soundfield will be perceived, so it isn't a necessarily case of the bigger the room, the worse the effect, at least as far as sibilants go. I don't claim to be an expert (although we have already heard in this thread from one who presumably is - Rives), but I am a musician who has played live in many different spaces and logged a fair amount of studio time, both as a player and a producer, so I have had regular contact with the professionals I mention, in addition to having read books that touch on this subject. The flutter echo will be set up in a room not too large, with parallel hard surfaces and little damping. The short delay time will tend to fold the perceived effect into the initial event, and not be perceived as separate unless one was to stop the music short. You are correct that it will affect all the sounds, not just sibilants, but sibilants are by definition loud transients (which is why they will distort a mic preamp before throat tones, causing pops or hisses which are indicative of clipping), and these will appear to the listener to 'jump out' and smear more noticeably than non-transient sounds. Another factor is that in a typical, more damped environment, it's the higher frequency sounds that are most absorbed, recreating the intended balance of the sound mix, which was made in a damped mixing studio. When replayed in an undamped space, the parts of the music containing proportionally larger HF content (such as transients) will become exagerated in balance. As far as the example of unfurnished homes goes (which of course may contain the right sized rooms to compare with Braab8's problem), I am in these frequently as part of my work, and I have to disagree - I find conversational intelligibility to be greatly affected by such an environment. [I'll even give you a recorded musical example analogous to what I'm talking about: Play (if you have it) the The Beatles' version of Carl Perkins' "Everybody's Tryin' To Be My Baby"; an artificial tape-delay flutter echo has been applied to George Harrison's vocal track, and listen to what happens to the sibilant 'T's and 'S's as he sings the title line in the choruses.] Again, I stress that I am not trying to cast doubt on anything said above in this thread, but just to point out that in all probability those other potential culprits will be having a lot of their possible effects swamped by that of this room in its current state. In other words, had Braab8's system been set up in a carpeted furnished living room instead, we probably wouldn't be having this debate right now.