Some '80s boxes have mids,highs that actually hurt your ears.This Telefunken TM6670 is one of them.When turned up loud vocals can actually be painful listening.If I run the 1k midrange slider all the way down to the very bottom it will back off most of this.Not only does this model have bright mids but the highs are sharp to the point of shimmering.This is with the treble sliders set to their neutral positions!Even so I really do like the sound of this box .This effect though inaccurate can be quite "electrifying" especially with rock.

In recent years high frequency content of portable audio has been neglected optimizing the presence of the bass on balance.This tends to give a more distant sound to the music.It's one of the main reasons I love some older boomboxes.Of course their were boxes with abundant and clean highs made during the classic era.However sometimes I just prefer the edginess of the harsher sounding highs.I don't know if its just nostalgia or an unusual appreciation for what many would rate as bad sound.

Is there anyone that feels the same way or am I alone on this?Were such boxes designed by hearing impaired designers who don't perceive this harshness?Would anyone else care to share other models that have a similar sound?I know someone here in the forum mentioned the Emerson CTR965 as one box that might actually make your ears bleed.

jovie --there are soooo many boxes that are over-bright and over-harsh --
no model names -- cuz - many will disagree or get insulted --

my guess is that these were designed to make for an immediate 'impulse buy' --as they do -- at the very first moments, sound cleaner and louder than other boxes in a store shelf // display competition --

but when they get into the home environment -
then TOO MUCH EDGE is just annoying.

my 2 cents

They do the same thing with TVs too... make the picture too bright in order to "stand out" in the store....

Most boxes with EQ's (even the classic ones) can be harsh depending on how the EQ is set. I think that most boxes with simple Bass/Treble controls were some of the best balanced out there.

The Sharp GF-7400 has over-bright highs, absolutely piercing. What's surprising is it has no proper tweeters.

Sharps (the older ones).

Sharp by name, sharp by nature...

My Fisher 492 is like that. Have to have the mid set all the way down.

quote:

Originally posted by isolator42:
Sharps (the older ones).

Sharp by name, sharp by nature...

EXACTLY !!-- but i was 'chicken' to mention it (above)!!
iso --we likely have alot more Sharp collectors here --than any other brand --
so expect that you (and i) are not about to be very popular around here

but --thats just so right --
i love the looks of all them --but every time i buy one --i stare at them for a few months -and then 'have to' sell them --i now have NO sharps at all !!
to use a semi-acceptable description --their sound is just to rich.

not the 777z, if anything it doesn't have enough "sharpness"

peter --i meant all the sharps --except that big boy series
in fact --those are on my xmas wish list

quote:

Originally posted by oldskool69:
Most boxes with EQ's (even the classic ones) can be harsh depending on how the EQ is set. I think that most boxes with simple Bass/Treble controls were some of the best balanced out there.

There were many good sounding boxes on balance made during the late '70s/early '80s.Though they were equipped with only bass and treble pots,there were enough mids designed into them for the type of sound that I like.My G.E. Blockbuster and 3-6000/6035 are that way.Around 1985 I remember going into a Service Merchandise store looking for a boombox having a nice bright sound.I fondly remembered the old KTO 1090 a co worker had brought to work a few years earlier.When I demo-ed all the models on the shelf,only a G.E. 3-5266 had the bright sound I so adore.The display model was the last one so I bought it.Everything else had a darker more "laid back" sound to my ears.I should mention that I only tested the boomboxes with the bass and treble pots centered.After the mid '80s equalizers appeared on boxes more and more as the years passed.For some reason I felt cheated having to use one."Why wasn't the box designed to sound right in the first place?" I wondered.Years previous I had heard boxes that sounded perfectly fine to my ears with the bass and treble pots centered.

Concerning boxes with EQs I have a glitzy '80s 1 piece Techsonic MX-900 that is so equipped.Though the EQ will change it's sound,no amount of backing off the mid and upper mid sliders will tune out enough of the brightness of the sound for it to be listenable.Though I probably appreciate a harsher sound than many here,even I have my limits!Again I wonder why.Was it as Redbenjoe indicated engineered to impress only at the point of sale?I know bright mids make a box sound louder than one without them at a given volume.This is because the human ear is most sensitive to the middle frequencies where the human voice is located.Alternately might the designers had hearing damage?

Interestingly I remember buying certain CDs on the Geffin label back in the late '80s/early '90s which exhibited harsh sounding vocals.This wasn't evident on lower fidelity equipment.However a friend of mine who had assembled a high end home system found the recordings unlistenable without adjustment because of their harsh mids.I remember wondering if the engineers who put the CD together were hearing impaired and decided to screw the mids way up to compensate.

As for oldskools comment about boxes with EQs,my experience with post mid '80s boxes has been different.When using these and also many '90s 3 piecers,I always run the treble sliders way up to get the mids and highs I want.In fact the 10K slider is always set to max with the next lower one of a 5 band control not far behind.It's been rare for me to find a box that can get disagreeably harsh save running the mid and upper mid controls slam to the ceiling!Of course perhaps this is what oldskool meant.However even running such values none are anywhere near as harsh as my MX-900 or TM6670 set to completely neutral EQ values.

During the '90s the much maligned "sound presets" appeared.It would be safe to say most of us hate those!Even so I have had some good results using them on specific music.On many JVC models the "clear" setting restores the highs to where they should have been in the first place.All the other settings seem to either not give music a full range sound or seem designed to emphasize the bass at the expense of the mids and highs.Perhaps perceived loudness sold boxes back in the early '80s and emphasizing bass as a ratio to highs better sells audio equipment today.

LOL at the Geffen Records comment!! I always thought that! I don't think I have EVER heard a decent Geffen Recording (listen to any of Asia's early stuff). Only Decca records might be worse...

I think the Columbia/Epic records, especially the 45RPM singles were horrible!!! Oh and about which boxes have the harshest sound...Sharp.

quote:

Originally posted by redbenjoe:

quote:

Originally posted by isolator42:
Sharps (the older ones).

Sharp by name, sharp by nature...

EXACTLY !!-- but i was 'chicken' to mention it (above)!!
iso --we likely have alot more Sharp collectors here --than any other brand --
so expect that you (and i) are not about to be very popular around here

but --thats just so right --...

When I was looking for a boombox upgrade back then, I had no preconceptions, just a tape & some money to spend.
At least 4 of my mates had various Sharps, so I knew their sound very well. They sounded very clear, but none had enough bass. I was happier with the "warmer" sounding Philips models (& their cheaper price) until the affordable extra-bass with BTL amps revolution started. I was there right at the start of that revolution with the TRK7620 (aka 3D7)

My Studio 1 is my only box that doesn't need its treble turned all the way up.

I've been doing some more listening to the TM6670 lately.I'm really growing to love this box !It's very well built and extremely heavy for its size.On balance it's not weighted towards the bass.If you like the extended bass frequencies of more recent electronic music it will sound a bit bass shy. Even so '80s synth pop doesn't leave me wanting more bottom end from this box.

At the risk of being redundant,I'm going to emphasize something I have strong feelings about.I feel manufacturers eventually realized just how important balance really is when designing even a portable device.To cheat they must have engineered less mids and highs into boxes to highlight what bass a box actually does have.Though this results in a pleasingly balanced sound overall it also degrades the sound quality.I've mentioned this probably too many times here in the forum.Mids and highs have just become too polite and distant sounding in recent years.It's really no wonder to me why JVC didn't put proper tweeters in their Kaboom.Most people are totally bass obsessed.

I'm thinking my line source Ipod must have been on some special EQ setting instead of being set to flat.After more listening some of the harshness seems to be gone now.I really love boxes that sound like this especially for rock.Guitar sounds are up front and exciting.Transitions in playing styles are well contrasted from one another.In that way it reminds me of my MacDonald Instruments though this box seems to have a cleaner sound.From all the Sharp comments I'm very interested in adding some to my collection.

quote:

Originally posted by Jovie:
...It's really no wonder to me why JVC didn't put proper tweeters in their Kaboom.Most people are totally bass obsessed...

Who, me?

quote:

My Fisher 492 is like that. Have to have the mid set all the way down

Agreed. I too have mine set all the way down when I play both 492s along side the GF-919. 492's tweeters are so loud and have such a high clarity, I have to turn the mids all way down to complement the bass. The 919's highs aren't as high.

the conion c100 has sharp mids and highs plenty of bass and treble ,just wish they would have tuned the sound a little batter cos it has the potential for super sound and altho i like the controls it has it could benefit greatly from a 7 band eq that would really be sweet on the conion.

Fuzz, have you tried that "stereo-wide" setting? That literally made my ears bleed, especially on FM. had to put it back to stereo.

quote:

Fuzz, have you tried that "stereo-wide" setting?

Yup. Sounds great at low volume. But at 3/4+ volume, fuh-getaboutit! Crazy!

There's a box that can actually survive @ 3/4ths volume?

I'm wanting a 492 now.There's something that impresses me about a boombox that can be weaponized.I don't know why.Perhaps it's a left over idea from my rebellious youth.

haha, the 492, at least mine, seems to be way louder after 1/2 volume then most of my other boomboxes. And it's clear until about 8/10th.

The Sharp GF9696. That thing can be harsh, IMHO....