Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › What do great mids sound like?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do great mids sound like?

post #1 of 153
Thread Starter 

I've heard it said that when you're listening to singing voices through a headphone with great mids, should you hear a really deep, chesty feeling, as if the voice was originating from your own voice box.

 

But then I thought that that wouldn't be accurate, because when you're listening to someone else singing the voice should sound like it emanates from your voice box because... it's not - it's coming from someone else's voice box, so you shouldn't hear that bassy, chesty tone?

 

Does a headphone that renders voices really well always provide this deep, 'chesty' sort of sound to the voice?

post #2 of 153
They should sound real, not deep and chesty, you should be able to hear every little detail as if they were singing near you
post #3 of 153

Midrange is where the music is.

A truly great sounding midrange will add a sense of realism to a great sounding recording.

It should also improve soundstaging, imaging, clarity.

Really almost all of what you would want from an accurate sounding reproduction system.

post #4 of 153

But from my experience a fluid and realistic midrange also seem to involve a good and solid, but not exaggerated bass response (the Hifimans and planar magnetic in general). Then add tubes to such a phone, and the midrange seems rich and musical (often, at least from my experience). 

SO to me a good bass response is critical for a natural midrange

post #5 of 153

People always like to talk about how forward vocals are and how that is a great midrange.  That's sorta ********.  Midrange is where the majority of the music lies, which includes vocals and all the instruments.  If a forward midrange brings vocals forward, it'll also bring instruments forward as well.

post #6 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsh View Post

But from my experience a fluid and realistic midrange also seem to involve a good and solid, but not exaggerated bass response (the Hifimans and planar magnetic in general). Then add tubes to such a phone, and the midrange seems rich and musical (often, at least from my experience). 

SO to me a good bass response is critical for a natural midrange

 

Very well put!

Thanks!

May as well add in a good clean, unexaggerated treble so as to not overwhelm the midrange.

post #7 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

 

Very well put!

Thanks!

May as well add in a good clean, unexaggerated treble so as to not overwhelm the midrange...

...which corresponds to a properly amped HE-500 from my experience biggrin.gif

Thank u2 for the credit :P I still consider myself fairly newbish, thinking about what I haven't experienced in audio... So far it has definitely been exciding, but expensive tongue.gif

post #8 of 153

Voice should be reproduced like it was in front of you. It is really something you can attempt to put into words but fail. Describe the feeling of a waterfall to a person who has never seen one. Describe ice-cream to someone who has never ever tried it. It can be interesting but never really correct.

 

 

Middle tone is where the information and emotion is. They get there with PRaT, they get there with speed and clarity. I guess they would have sound-staging just like live singing.

 

 

I can not tell you what it is but I can explain what it is not. The results are really captivating emotion. Some systems can be clinical and pure. I would choose simple musicality before a nice politically correct graph-out here.

 

The results could even be transporting without analyzing why, just like how a good movie takes you there. That's the magic.

 

 

 

 

 

Most of all the mids must be interesting, the kind of interesting that procures 4 hour listening runs. If you have that then you have mid-potential in your rig.

post #9 of 153
Great mids sound like the real thing. "Chesty" doesn't mean good, unless you're talking about girls.
post #10 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

Voice should be reproduced like it was in front of you. It is really something you can attempt to put into words but fail. Describe the feeling of a waterfall to a person who has never seen one. Describe ice-cream to someone who has never ever tried it. It can be interesting but never really correct.

 

 

Middle tone is where the information and emotion is. They get there with PRaT, they get there with speed and clarity. I guess they would have sound-staging just like live singing.

 

 

I can not tell you what it is but I can explain what it is not. The results are really captivating emotion. Some systems can be clinical and pure. I would choose simple musicality before a nice politically correct graph-out here.

 

The results could even be transporting without analyzing why, just like how a good movie takes you there. That's the magic.

 

 

 

 

 

Most of all the mids must be interesting, the kind of interesting that procures 4 hour listening runs. If you have that then you have mid-potential in your rig.

Seen from another thread:

 

 

A new audiophile craves bass;

An established audiophile craves treble;

A really serious audiophile craves mid-range.

 

See the point, IMO the best experience is found in the great representation of mids with musicality and authority. THAT is what music really is about

post #11 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_farmer View Post

I've heard it said that when you're listening to singing voices through a headphone with great mids, should you hear a really deep, chesty feeling, as if the voice was originating from your own voice box.

 

But then I thought that that wouldn't be accurate, because when you're listening to someone else singing the voice should sound like it emanates from your voice box because... it's not - it's coming from someone else's voice box, so you shouldn't hear that bassy, chesty tone?

 

Does a headphone that renders voices really well always provide this deep, 'chesty' sort of sound to the voice?

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

Voice should be reproduced like it was in front of you. It is really something you can attempt to put into words but fail. Describe the feeling of a waterfall to a person who has never seen one. Describe ice-cream to someone who has never ever tried it. It can be interesting but never really correct.

 

Depends on what's on the recording. If the 'phone is "accurate" you should hear the sound of the mic. Unfortunately, you would have to have attended the recording session to find out what that is.

post #12 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by eugenius View Post

Great mids sound like the real thing. "Chesty" doesn't mean good, unless you're talking about girls.

 

Now that funny considering you avatar. tongue.gif I love good mids. I have been gravitating toward them since I started the journey. Good mids to me are of course lifelike. Just go and listen to live preferably acoustic music and concentrate on the vocals. The voice is an instrument and every one is different with it's own tone, timber and resonance. Some vocalist/singers just have a wonderful quality to their voice that is enjoyable to listen to. Hp's with good mids simply reproduce the voice with a naturalness that is lifelike. 

 

For me and my budget, I'm enjoying the mids on the hd650 and Maddogs these days. 


Edited by MattTCG - 1/1/13 at 8:07am
post #13 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsh View Post

Seen from another thread:

 

 

A new audiophile craves bass;

An established audiophile craves treble;

A really serious audiophile craves mid-range.

 

See the point, IMO the best experience is found in the great representation of mids with musicality and authority. THAT is what music really is about

 

Oooooh!

I like that!

I must be a really serious audiophile.

Although I do seem to have a preference for trebly headphones, if I don't love the mids, all bets are off.

OTOH, I'm sure most lay people would listen to my speakers and say "where's the bass? where's the treble?"

 

P.S.

Red Car Moose: Ice Cream is tasty!  Enough said.

post #14 of 153

I'm quite new to all this, but this is my interpretation... am I right in that:

 

treble = high (frequency) range

mid-range = mid (frequency) range

bass = low (frequency) range

 

Bass heavy cans would emphasise the low range. This appeals to "bass heads", since they don't mind the extra "punch" at the loss of detail due to muddiness caused by an unnatural low frequency reproduction. (This effect is apparent in most cheaper cans?)

 

Mid-range cans emphasise the... mid-range. As has been mentioned, this is where "most of the music is". As far as I understand, an emphasised mid-range will make songs sound more natural, but may sacrifice some bass punch & clarity of high notes. (Audio-Technica signature sound?)

 

Now it's self explanatory what treble emphasising cans would sound like. (Grado signature sound?)

 

There's also neutral cans, but these seem to be referred to as "boring" nearly everywhere. People seem to want some "coloration", and "mid-range" seems to be the preferred one.

 

A truly great set of cans (usually $1000+ range) is one that can reproduce each of these ranges with distinction, a "clear" mid-range, "punchy" bass, and "sparkling" treble, without any of the trade off you may see in cheaper cans.

 

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF ANYTHING SOUNDS ODD! It's just my limited understanding from lurking around here for a few years.

 

Sorry if this isn't strictly on topic.

post #15 of 153
Great mids sound like the HD650. biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › What do great mids sound like?