What is the cause of "digital glare"?

[tmtomh]

I've heard many recordings that sound harsh, and many others that sound too trebly but not harsh. I've also experienced some recordings that formerly sounded harsh becoming more pleasant, albeit still a bit heavy on the high end, as I've upgraded my equipment and/or experimented with speaker placement, room treatments, EQ and so on.

Surely we can agree that the mere presence of excess treble is not sufficient to explain or predict harshness, yes? Like many topics we discuss here, I would suspect that some kind of more specific frequency nonlinearity - in the original recording, in the speakers' reproduction in the room, or in the behavior of the speaker drivers themselves - would account for harshness, yes?

 

[Robin L]

I've heard many recordings that sound harsh, and many others that sound too trebly but not harsh. I've also experienced some recordings that formerly sounded harsh becoming more pleasant, albeit still a bit heavy on the high end, as I've upgraded my equipment and/or experimented with speaker placement, room treatments, EQ and so on.

Surely we can agree that the mere presence of excess treble is not sufficient to explain or predict harshness, yes? Like many topics we discuss here, I would suspect that some kind of more specific frequency nonlinearity - in the original recording, in the speakers' reproduction in the room, or in the behavior of the speaker drivers themselves - would account for harshness, yes?

Lots of times it's "operator error". If you want to get to that harshness, excess treble is where you should start. Often it comes from close miking, which is standard in most recording. Yes, my Sennheiser HD 599 headphones are harsh on top, my AKG K167s are not. Yes, an odyssey reissue of a Columbia Six-Eye original will be harsh. But a lot of the reason why they are harsh on top is too much top.

 

[majingotan]

I've heard many recordings that sound harsh, and many others that sound too trebly but not harsh. I've also experienced some recordings that formerly sounded harsh becoming more pleasant, albeit still a bit heavy on the high end, as I've upgraded my equipment and/or experimented with speaker placement, room treatments, EQ and so on.

Surely we can agree that the mere presence of excess treble is not sufficient to explain or predict harshness, yes? Like many topics we discuss here, I would suspect that some kind of more specific frequency nonlinearity - in the original recording, in the speakers' reproduction in the room, or in the behavior of the speaker drivers themselves - would account for harshness, yes?

To my experience, recordings even those incredibly compressed pop/rock/metal NEVER sounded harsh with CA Andromeda IEM with tons of cymbal crashes (e.g. The White Stripes, Nirvana, Michael Jackson) even at 95-105 dB SPL (my typical listening volume). I'm still impressed by the way this IEM produces ZERO harshness in the upper mids and lower treble (due to 4KHz dip) while delivering well lower treble (7-8 KHz flat crest). I agree that the harshness is certainly a trait of IEM or headphone tuning and speaker tuning and room interactions rather than the mastering/recording source themselves

 

[infinitesymphony]

Harshness is in a much lower frequency range than most listeners normally associate with treble. While treble knobs are commonly tuned to frequencies like 10 KHz, most of the harshness occurs in the sensitivity range, which in most human ears is between 1-5 KHz. Creating extension without harshness involves sculpting and dipping that range, then adding "air" in the high treble region of 11 KHz+.

There are a lot of these frequency guides around but I've been liking this one lately:

 

[Robin L]

Harshness is in a much lower frequency range than most listeners normally associate with treble. While treble knobs are commonly tuned to frequencies like 10 KHz, most of the harshness occurs in the sensitivity range, which in most human ears is between 1-5 KHz. Creating extension without harshness involves sculpting and dipping that range, then adding "air" in the high treble region of 11 KHz+.

There are a lot of these frequency guides around but I've been liking this one lately:

View attachment 81701

Something like that. My old Acoustic Research 3s had a suckout between 4khz and 8khz, with the treble rising after that. Did a good job with classical LPs, sounding smooth and shaving off a lot of surface noise in the process.

 

[Manjeshgpai]

Sorry to comment on an old thread, but couldn't resist after seeing the topic. An audiophile I knew said all sub $1000 DACs have "digital glare". He almost made it sound like DACs above the price range implement circuitry to remove the glare and I was almost sold into buying an expensive DAC . Due to the work of individuals like @amirm, I now know better. Not saying that expensive audio equipment is bad, but in the audio world knowing that expensive doesn't always mean good, saves money or leaves you funds that can be put to better use. In my case it resulted in decision to save up for a better sounding speaker.

 

[AdamG]

Sorry to comment on an old thread, but couldn't resist after seeing the topic. An audiophile I knew said all sub $1000 DACs have "digital glare". He almost made it sound like DACs above the price range implement circuitry to remove the glare and I was almost sold into buying an expensive DAC . Due to the work of individuals like @amirm, I now know better. Not saying that expensive audio equipment is bad, but in the audio world knowing that expensive doesn't always mean good, saves money or leaves you funds that can be put to better use. In my case it resulted in decision to save up for a better sounding speaker.

Welcome Aboard @Manjeshgpai.

 

[Pluto]

What is the cause of "digital glare"?

Marketing, mostly.

 

[Manjeshgpai]

Welcome Aboard @Manjeshgpai.

Thank you!

 

[Gorgonzola]

The notion of "digital glare" goes 'way back to the earliest CD era. I have to say my earliest regular exposure to CD, circa 1984, was disappointing, i.e. I was expecting better. Highs were very "sharp" vs. LP. My next generation of CDP, 1991, was a lot nicer and if never looked back.

I've had long correspondence with subjectivist audiophile. Actually, mention of "digital glare" has waned a lot in the last 10-15 years though you still hear it once in a while. My observation is this, over the years "digital glare" in most complained about by LP listeners and tube users. One thing is for certain, IMHO, vinyl and tubes filter the sound in a way that is pleasant but inaccurate.

 

[Robin L]

In audio, you'll have some critics saying that:
- "this class D amp has digital glare"
- "this ESS DAC chip has Sabre glare"

I wonder what is glare, what causes it and would this glare be related to harmonic distortion that causes the treble to lack control or else?

Thank you!

It's that there's more potential treble energy in digital formats than analog [tape features soft limiting, which cuts treble during peaks]. So, the initial reaction was "too much treble". However the collective "burn-in" of our ears [we became used to the difference over time] got people to expect more treble. Now it's all about LPs being "warmer" which really means more midbass and less treble.

 

[jsrtheta]

Marketing, mostly.

And Michael Fremer.

 

[tvrgeek]

I have quite a few CDs which have a harsh sound I could call glare, otoh most of my CDs, played through the same equipment, are not harsh and do not glare, so the recording itself is the culprit in my system. Nothing to do with being digital imo.

Old thread, but still topical.
What I call glare is a sound that in unpleasant in the treble. I believe it is our genetic programming for baby screams. If ever so slightly out of place, it gets to us.

I have found:
Primary, it is the recording.
Billy Joel CDs all bad. Joni Mitchel can kill you. ( it is her voice) 2400 Fulton Street probably the worst CD I have.
So why? I believe it has a lot to do with the mixing engineer pushing the "detail, 3000 to 3500 up a bit, right where we are most sensitive. I think a lot of them are half deaf from too loud monitors or nights in the club.
But, why do I hear such a big difference, I don't mean ABX controlled, I mean walk by differences? Not the DAC, those take careful headphone listening, but through my speakers?
Speaker quality. Nuff said on that
Amp quality. Technology aside, my Parasound sounded very harsh and glary. My own MOSFET does not. Neither did my 30 year old Creek.
TEQ Top end overall too bright. Room dependent. I roll off from 6000 up. Still tweaking how much. Too much, you lose detail, too little, a top hat can ge harsh.
That 3100 band. Drop it about 3 dB and it does wonders.
The difference between my old Wolfson , Asgard, and D30pro.
Wolfson was smoother, but far less detail. Old first generation, not the best analog.
Schiit very good.
Topping, through headphones, more detail right at the threshold of my hearing. Speakers? Indistinguishable. If I heard a reduction of glare, it was probably the $350 it cost.
Back off the EQ, Schiit to toping were indistinguishable. Much like when I heard a Atoll and Moon player, could not tell them apart. Both "good enough". But a Rotel, Halo and Krell, I did not have to even be close and listen. Give me an $300 Denon AVR first.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Agreed with above, the further back you go, the more likely you are to see a vinyl master being used directly for a CD master. I suspect that in the heyday of analog consumer formats, treble was intentionally compensated upward to account for the high-frequency rolloff of the average consumer's poorly-maintained stylus or cassette tape head.