Dark sounding gear

[NorthStar]

Dark as opposed to light. Dry as opposed to liquid. I tend to think of dry sound as where you get the technical detailing of the sound, but it is just the patterns, the beat of the sound, but perhaps it does not feel alive, smooth, 'liquid', mellifluous.

Lol Lloyd; audio language is a vast and complicated language indeed.

Take a song for example; its words, its tone, its incantation, its resonance, ...
it has a different meaning, different 'emotional sound', to each one of us.

In Audio nothing is absolute; the music, the sounds, and even the words to describe it.

Me honestly thinks.

 

[LL21]

too true...too true! It is very hard to describe sound in writing, and on top of all that, we probably are actually using certain words differently from each other...

 

[NorthStar]

Exactemento. :b

 

[treitz3]

Gentlemen, allow me to address the first post of this thread just one more time. I wanted to know the definition [or the perceived] thereof.

I wonder when an amp has outstanding bass compared to so many others and from 20 Hz to 80 Hz you are hearing a foundation that some amps lack if that skews the balance such that you think you are hearing less highs in proportion to the bass. And thus comes the “dark” tag.

Is this really the representation of dark? Where I come from, it is not. Where I come from, it is commonly referred to as bright, which with my experience is not the case with Krell gear. Accurate, maybe "too" accurate could be the case but not dark.

Please allow me to ask just one more time. What is "Dark" to you?

Is this the only definition? Truth be told, a very different definition by me would be a "relaxed" system, which Krell and many others mentioned in this thread are not and could not be further from my observations. That said, would anybody please tell me what dark means to you? I have waited for 4 pages of typing from many members. "Dark" and its definition is still something that alludes me.

What say you?

 

[LL21]

Hi. To me, dark means the treble area is anywhere from slightly recessed/less prominent or balanced relative to the mids and bass...such that when you listen to music which has all 3 areas, somehow your ear gets drawn to the mids/bass. The treble may well be there but it does not have equal 'weight' in the delivery of music. Bright, on the other hand, can mean the treble balance actually is stronger and too bright, of course, means there is too much treble balance.

In comparing Gryphon Antileon v Gryphon Colosseum, i found the qualities of tonal purity were stronger in the mid/bass with the Antileon than with the treble which was there, just not as sonorous. With the Colosseum, the balance feel far better across the full spectrum, and the purity of tonality extends across the entire balance. So the ear is equally drawn across all three areas (treble, mid, bass).

Hey,...one person's definition...

 

[mep]

Please allow me to ask just one more time. What is "Dark" to you?

I think I asked this same question a couple of times too. No way is the Krell gear "bright." I would say it is relaxed in the sense of the positive meaning of that word while no one would mistake a "bright" system for being relaxed sounding.

 

[treitz3]

....such that you think you are hearing less highs in proportion to the bass.....

Hello mep, this is where I got this from. The first post of the thread describing "dark", hence the confusion. Krell is not bright IMO, in any rig I have heard them in. I wouldn't think it as "relaxed" either. Most of the ones I have heard have been very linear. My only observation, and it is mine alone, is that they are too clinical. Not that it's a bad thing at all, just not my style for musical reproduction. My observations are for another thread. That said,

.....dark means the treble area is anywhere from slightly recessed/less prominent or balanced relative to the mids and bass...such that when you listen to music which has all 3 areas, somehow your ear gets drawn to the mids/bass. The treble may well be there but it does not have equal 'weight' in the delivery of music. Bright, on the other hand, can mean the treble balance actually is stronger and too bright, of course, means there is too much treble balance.

So what is the definition of dark to all responding on this thread? I mean the utmost of respect to all who may offer their observations or definitions but I truly would like to know what "dark" means.

 

[mep]

Again Trietz, I tried to ask the question too in order to see if there was something coming close to a common definition. I also didn't realize that if something is "very linear" that would imply it was clinical sounding. Out of any adjective I could use to describe the sound of the KBL/KSA-250 combo, clinical sounding wouldn't come to mind. To me, clinical sounding implies it has no heart and soul. Now we can debate what heart and soul is I guess.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, mep. I did not mean to sound like or imply that linear was any of the things discussed so far. That was my complement and observation of Krell gear on many a rig with many a room without regard to any other aspect of reproduction. What I was saying is that they weren't bright and they weren't lacking in bass as the masses know of bass. Clinical as you define it is just that to me. No heart and soul to be quite blunt and honest. If you tap your toes to the music, unknowingly? It tends to be more musical in reproduction. If you just sit there and critically listen........?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What Lloyd said. There are a number of paths to get there, from rolled off highs to bloated mid bass, to flabby deep bass, but it is an imbalance in favor of lower mids and bass. But it doesn't even take deep bass to get there. With a bit Of eq, I can make my monitors, which roll off pretty quickly below 60 hz, sound "dark."

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

The 'dry' side of neutral, for me, is with an emphasis on the mids;
and consequently, could be described as having a 'dark' sounding character.
Even polite, with a bass not so well defined, and highs not so well refined.

That's me though, in my own words and what they represent.

And another word for 'dark' in audio: recessed.
{Not fully resolved, not fully resolute.}

 

[NorthStar]

What Lloyd said. There are a number of paths to get there, from rolled off highs to bloated mid bass, to flabby deep bass, but it is an imbalance in favor of lower mids and bass. But it doesn't even take deep bass to get there. With a bit Of eq, I can make my monitors, which roll off pretty quickly below 60 hz, sound "dark."

Tim

I'm with ya Tim, and Lloyd as well. :b

 

[Ron Party]

Mark, I'm guessing your Krell gear, together with your speakers + subs (to state nothing of your sources), sounds fantastic. I'd be a bit concerned about falling for Audiophile lore, e.g., dark, bright, clinical, musical, etc. Particularly taking into consideration your other thread, wherein members are offering suggestions about moving gear around, moving your seat and the like, I think in-situ measurements combined with listening will be your best friends. If you don't have the gear, PM Nyal and he'll get you on the right path. Heck, then you could even post your measurements for the collective to tell you if your sound is dark, bright, etc.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I've been reading the thread, and have now finally seen two discriptions I can agree with. Both Lloyd and Tim explained quite clearly IMO what "dark" is.

 

[KeithR]

tube gear traditionally associated with the term "dark" include BAT and Lamm if that helps. maybe that is why they work so well with Wilsons of yesteryear.

is BAT really in business anymore btw? never hear about them anymore.

 

[JackD201]

BAT VK-150/VK-6200 and Lamm M1.2, M2.2, ML1.1 owner. Not dark at all IMO. Lot's of fine extended HF detail and air. Lot's of bite too when it's in the recording. Just not coarse, etched detail. Lamm and Khomenko made names for themselves precisely because their tube amps were very extended up top with their adoption of the 6c33b tubes.

 

[KeithR]

BAT VK-150/VK-6200 and Lamm M1.2, M2.2, ML1.1 owner. Not dark at all IMO. Lot's of fine extended HF detail and air. Lot's of bite too when it's in the recording. Just not coarse, etched detail. Lamm and Khomenko made names for themselves precisely because their tube amps were very extended up top with their adoption of the 6c33b tubes.

Like I said, I feel it's related to speaker match.

I used to be the BAT-man and have owned all of the following pieces:

Vk 5i
VK 31SE
VK 300xSE
VK 50SE
VK 51SE
VK 75SE

And I've demo'd the VK 250Se and the CDP on many occasions. the CDP is slow and dull and clearly the worst piece BAT makes. the 5i was muddy and soft as well. but with the "1SE" ending pieces, they clearly escalated their game.

But matched to Wilson, it was a very, very good match (51SE/75SE in particular)

 

[microstrip]

I've been reading the thread, and have now finally seen two discriptions I can agree with. Both Lloyd and Tim explained quite clearly IMO what "dark" is.

John,

I hope I will not disturb your (and others) peace of mind, but we are faced with two very contradictory definitions - one based in frequency response, implying a change in electrical gain with frequency , and a very subjective one (The treble may well be there but it does not have equal 'weight' in the delivery of music.).

Mostly because any of the amplifiers we were addressing - it was the item in question in the first post - had a very flat frequency response!

I only point it because these are two very different aspects of "darkness", sounding very different in real systems.

 

[fas42]

BAT VK-150/VK-6200 and Lamm M1.2, M2.2, ML1.1 owner. Not dark at all IMO. Lot's of fine extended HF detail and air. Lot's of bite too when it's in the recording. Just not coarse, etched detail. Lamm and Khomenko made names for themselves precisely because their tube amps were very extended up top with their adoption of the 6c33b tubes.

Curious, Jack, what intrinsically in an amplifier produces "coarse, etched" detail?

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Your favorites Frank, distorted transients.