Smearing

[Williamad33]

smearing is not an obvious malfunction to gear or a bad pressing, bad connection or bad power. at least as i consider it.

smearing (in higher end sorted systems) only is really evident in compare. almost impossible to know it's there until you hear it gone. smearing is when the media (or source gear ) misses the full event on the recording. it blunts it, or glosses over the info. might still be smooth and not obvious, until you hear it complete.

sure; in mediocre/modest systems there can be examples of obvious smear. for all sorts of reasons. does not mean the music is not enjoyable. what is interesting is how many long term track references in our auditory memory include smearing. it's startling to hear a long term known reference, 'right'.
https://wincraft.casino/hu
it can be as innocuous as when you compare a digital transfer to an analog source. on peaks many times on my amps it shows less peak watts from the transfer. yes, you hear it too, but the amps are only reporting the signal they receive. the digital blunts the peaks. that is smearing. the commonly used phrase......."smears the peaks".......it's missing the full information.
certainly there are a myriad of reasons for lower peak watts, could be a improper transfer or any number of things (level matching?). but none the less it's not news when it happens. it's typical. in my Wadax/MSB compare there were similar things, you only hear in direct compare.i suppose some speakers and amps smear peaks compared to other speakers and amps. it's logical that might happen. i've not personally heard that myself.

That’s a really thoughtful way of putting it. I agree that “smearing” often isn’t obvious until you have that direct A/B comparison with a cleaner source or higher-end gear. It’s like your ears get used to the presentation over time, and only when you hear the same track without the smear do you realize how much detail was missing.
I’ve noticed the same thing with digital transfers vs. analog originals — the body and transient impact of peaks can get softened, and it shows up both subjectively and on the meters. It doesn’t always ruin the listening experience, but once you’ve heard a reference played “right,” it’s tough to go back.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That’s a really thoughtful way of putting it. I agree that “smearing” often isn’t obvious until you have that direct A/B comparison with a cleaner source or higher-end gear. It’s like your ears get used to the presentation over time, and only when you hear the same track without the smear do you realize how much detail was missing.
I’ve noticed the same thing with digital transfers vs. analog originals — the body and transient impact of peaks can get softened, and it shows up both subjectively and on the meters. It doesn’t always ruin the listening experience, but once you’ve heard a reference played “right,” it’s tough to go back.

since you are reawakening a 2 year old thread and topic, i wanted to explain where Ron got the subject of 'smearing the peaks'.

i had posted that in my system, my dart mono block amplifiers have a read out for the 'peak watts' holding for 8 seconds in each channel. and over the years i've noticed even when i match the steady state SPL outputs for digital and vinyl on the same recording, that the peaks for the vinyl on sudden transients are clearly higher. i've even noticed when i added my Taiko Tana active isolation under my turntable that my peaks are higher for my vinyl with active than without. this with compares over dozens of recordings.

the difference on prominent transients can be 90 peak watts to 125 peak watts, or 105 peak watts to 150 peak watts. these are maybe micro-second peaks, not steady state. with the vinyl to vinyl compare more like 10 peak watts difference with the active isolation. this is not anything subjective, it is objective repeatable observations of the amplifier output. this is not to say that the lesser peaks sound distorted subjectively. but it's noticeable that the higher more dynamic peaks are more correct....more real. the more blunted peaks are relatively smeared.....blunted.

and logically if we see that these obvious events stand out objectively and we can hear the consequences, these differences are everywhere on every recording. it's why we hear more micro-dynamics, more sparkle, more life, with better vinyl. there is no accident. it's not anecdotal. it's how things are.

as far as other causes for smearing i'm sure plenty exist. smearing being when dynamics or intense musical activity lacks relative clarity and focus. not all relative smearing would show up as observable differences in amplifier output, but some do.

 

[Atmasphere]

the difference on prominent transients can be 90db to 125db, or 105db to 150db.

You must mean something else. 150dB is beyond the dynamic range of human hearing and likely would cause instant and permanent deafness.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You must mean something else. 150dB is beyond the dynamic range of human hearing and likely would cause instant and permanent deafness.

oops. correct. it's peak watts, not db. was doing this from memory and not thinking.

i edited my post.

 

[morricab]

since you are reawakening a 2 year old thread and topic, i wanted to explain where Ron got the subject of 'smearing the peaks'.

i had posted that in my system, my dart mono block amplifiers have a read out for the 'peak watts' holding for 8 seconds in each channel. and over the years i've noticed even when i match the steady state SPL outputs for digital and vinyl on the same recording, that the peaks for the vinyl on sudden transients are clearly higher. i've even noticed when i added my Taiko Tana active isolation under my turntable that my peaks are higher for my vinyl with active than without. this with compares over dozens of recordings.

the difference on prominent transients can be 90 peak watts to 125 peak watts, or 105 peak watts to 150 peak watts. these are maybe micro-second peaks, not steady state. with the vinyl to vinyl compare more like 10 peak watts difference with the active isolation. this is not anything subjective, it is objective repeatable observations of the amplifier output. this is not to say that the lesser peaks sound distorted subjectively. but it's noticeable that the higher more dynamic peaks are more correct....more real. the more blunted peaks are relatively smeared.....blunted.

and logically if we see that these obvious events stand out objectively and we can hear the consequences, these differences are everywhere on every recording. it's why we hear more micro-dynamics, more sparkle, more life, with better vinyl. there is no accident. it's not anecdotal. it's how things are.

as far as other causes for smearing i'm sure plenty exist. smearing being when dynamics or intense musical activity lacks relative clarity and focus. not all relative smearing would show up as observable differences in amplifier output, but some do.

How do you think the active isolation is improving the dynamic range of your analog? Have you also looked at digital with and without active isolation? Not expecting it to be different like you have seen with analog; however, if you do see something with digital then it might not be specifically turntable related. What you have observed is macro dynamic differences, I can see how that might even be more important for micro dynamics.

 

[Atmasphere]

the difference on prominent transients can be 90 peak watts to 125 peak watts, or 105 peak watts to 150 peak watts.

I'm sure that's easy to see on a power meter, but its only about 1.5 dB. You'd have to be listening quite carefully to hear that difference!! I think something else (other than smearing) is going on but without knowing more its a suspicion and nothing more.

 

[microstrip]

since you are reawakening a 2 year old thread and topic, i wanted to explain where Ron got the subject of 'smearing the peaks'.

i had posted that in my system, my dart mono block amplifiers have a read out for the 'peak watts' holding for 8 seconds in each channel. and over the years i've noticed even when i match the steady state SPL outputs for digital and vinyl on the same recording, that the peaks for the vinyl on sudden transients are clearly higher. i've even noticed when i added my Taiko Tana active isolation under my turntable that my peaks are higher for my vinyl with active than without. this with compares over dozens of recordings.

the difference on prominent transients can be 90 peak watts to 125 peak watts, or 105 peak watts to 150 peak watts. these are maybe micro-second peaks, not steady state. with the vinyl to vinyl compare more like 10 peak watts difference with the active isolation. this is not anything subjective, it is objective repeatable observations of the amplifier output. this is not to say that the lesser peaks sound distorted subjectively. but it's noticeable that the higher more dynamic peaks are more correct....more real. the more blunted peaks are relatively smeared.....blunted.

and logically if we see that these obvious events stand out objectively and we can hear the consequences, these differences are everywhere on every recording. it's why we hear more micro-dynamics, more sparkle, more life, with better vinyl. there is no accident. it's not anecdotal. it's how things are.

as far as other causes for smearing i'm sure plenty exist. smearing being when dynamics or intense musical activity lacks relative clarity and focus. not all relative smearing would show up as observable differences in amplifier output, but some do.

The logical question is if this 1.5 dB change happens at lower levels.

Considering the sensitivity of your speakers you are addressing levels around 115 dB with large bass towers - IMO your problem is not "smearing" in the sense others where addressing, it is probably just acoustic feedback.

BTW, as far as I see it, we do not have such power micro-second transients in our systems.

 

[Holmz]

since you are reawakening a 2 year old thread and topic, i wanted to explain where Ron got the subject of 'smearing the peaks'.
…

And someone else mentioned room and wall treatments.
Psychologists also use the term smearing, which, coincidently enough is also done on walls.

But I associate it with the time-domain.

 

[Atmasphere]

Considering the sensitivity of your speakers you are addressing levels around 115 dB

He meant 115 Watts, not 115dB.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The logical question is if this 1.5 dB change happens at lower levels.

Considering the sensitivity of your speakers you are addressing levels around 115 dB with large bass towers

when i listen to particular live jazz recordings at 'live' levels or nearly so, that's likely steady state around 82db-87db-90db. i've not measured Webster's horn or the drum whack, but maybe it's a jump of 20-30-35db brief peak. and if your system has the overall headroom (and proper amp circuit to stay linear and not soften) and full frequency then it's going to be pretty dramatic. i don't think my below 35hz bass towers are doing much with that.....some overtones maybe.....but my -4- 11" low excursion mid woofers per side (30hz-250hz) are plenty involved. your body feels the power of the horn and the drum whack.

- IMO your problem is not "smearing" in the sense others where addressing, it is probably just acoustic feedback.

not at all. that is exactly what my Taiko Tana active devices under every piece in the signal path (even my suspended cables) are curing.

BTW, as far as I see it, we do not have such power micro-second transients in our systems.

beyond my knowledge. i'm just an observer.

He meant 115 Watts, not 115dB.

in this case 115db brief peak might be right, or a little more or less.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I am reading Chuck and MikeL & sbnx post about "smearing."

What is "smearing" in audio?

J. Gordon Holt's glossary provides: "smearing: Severe lack of detail and focus."

Okay, but then smearing is a pretty egregious problem -- like a connector isn't making full electrical contact, or a phono cartridge stylus is covered by goop.

Is "smearing" -- other than due to some major malfunction -- a real thing?

Smearing is a loss of resolution. But is the smearing in the equipment and room or is it i the listener?

 

[Atmasphere]

Smearing is a loss of resolution. But is the smearing in the equipment and room or is it i the listener?

Equipment and room.