Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What does body and weight to the midrange mean?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What does body and weight to the midrange mean?

post #1 of 77
Thread Starter 

I often read that AKG headphones lack body and weight to their midrange, making them thin sounding. What exactly does this mean?

post #2 of 77

It is a combination of two things:

 

1.)  Continuous neutrality from 500Hz to 3kHz ( flatness )

2.)  Relative to the rest of the frequency spectrum of the headphone how does the midrange measure.

 

If the headphone has a big bass increase and a peak in the treble from 3kHz to 6kHz, but lacks flatness in the midrange the headphone will sound thin in the midrange.  If any group of frequencies outweighs the mids by more than 2-3dB then the mids are not the dominant portion of the spectrum.  This depends on the width of each range, but take the following graph as an example of a thin midrange headphone:

 

DT990 vs AH-D2000

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2141&graphID[]=2881&scale=30

 

See how the DT990 has some serious increases in the bass and treble compared to the AH-D2000?  That is adding color to the sound and making the spectrum not very neutral.  Because the mids are not the highest region they will sound thin compared to the rest of the spectrum.

post #3 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakanao View Post

I often read that AKG headphones lack body and weight to their midrange, making them thin sounding. What exactly does this mean?

"Body and "weight" are meaningless terms, proven by the fact that you have to ask what they mean. I don't know what they mean either. If a device has a skewed frequency response, it makes more sense to simply state the deviation from flat. Not all audiophile terms are useless: "Thin" obviously means too little bass, and "bright" implies too much treble. But even then it would be far more useful to list the specific frequencies and amounts or gain or loss.

--Ethan
post #4 of 77

Ethan if you like me have qualified in electronics/electrical/ or even a good grounding in it . Millions do not have that advantage who listen to HI-Fi  so words like "thin"  and "lacking" body/fullness"etc are the only way  human beings in that situation can communicate to each other round the World . To a lot of people showing a frequency response elicits the response=What does that mean" and when you tell them they get upset because they think you are trying to be --arrogant/patronizing/condescending/ >the only time I answer in that way is if somebody speaks to me  FIRST  in that manner.  We are human beings not robots and I hope never start acting "inhuman" to each other. 

post #5 of 77

Truth be told I don't entirely know what it means either and it's something that's pretty subjective.  Frequency response charts definitely won't show it.

 

Planar magnetics seem to have it because of the way they portray music-- a very tight and extended bass all the way down to the sub-bass that adds very tight and controlled bass elements to many midrange tones that can add realistic weight without bloat.  Also they sort of 'blend' the tones together, they're not quite as snappy as dynamics.  A lot of people describe it as a buttery or liquidy type of deal.

 

Bottom line don't put too much stock in the terms.

post #6 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

We are human beings not robots 

 

duncan1, a lot of your posts insist on the fact that you or us or "we humans" are not robots. Are you a robot in disguise??? tongue.gif

post #7 of 77

Anybody that tries to remove subjectivity from the  human race and just talk technical cant be acting in a human manner. We hear what our organic bodies tell us. Some would have you believe that they are "imagining  it" --"its all in the mind" etc -Well where do you think it should be on a computer?? You shouldn't criticize people  for being subjective since when can a robot  ---FEEL????? the music??? Human beings are unique we can sense when music is not right objectivists would have you believe that that is wrong and we should just believe science. Well science --even though I learned it is wrong it keeps on shifting its position when new evidence is revealed . It hasn't and never will have the answer to --Why are we here and never will.WE are more than a body we have a spirit. But if you don't believe that them tell me what happens when you die?? is that IT--ZERO/NIL  /THE END??? that's not logical as Spock would say!   

post #8 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Anybody that tries to remove subjectivity from the  human race and just talk technical cant be acting in a human manner. We hear what our organic bodies tell us. Some would have you believe that they are "imagining  it" --"its all in the mind" etc -Well where do you think it should be on a computer?? You shouldn't criticize people  for being subjective since when can a robot  ---FEEL????? the music??? Human beings are unique we can sense when music is not right objectivists would have you believe that that is wrong and we should just believe science. Well science --even though I learned it is wrong it keeps on shifting its position when new evidence is revealed . It hasn't and never will have the answer to --Why are we here and never will.WE are more than a body we have a spirit. But if you don't believe that them tell me what happens when you die?? is that IT--ZERO/NIL  /THE END??? that's not logical as Spock would say!   

 

Duncan, being skeptical, demanding a higher level of evidence than subjective anecdotes, wanting to represent data in a set of specific ways (you cannot solve a problem until you can represent it)  is in no way incompatible with having a subjective response to music, art and so on. One of the benefits of a good education is to learn how to hold opposing views in your head at the same time.

 

You refer to yourself as "qualified in electronics/electrical/..." if this was via a formal education you must have been exposed to scientific methods, theory testing, rigour and so on. You are obviously not suggesting that we throw away all the useful and evolving models we have obtained from 2000+ years of inquiry. How can you design working circuits without these laws/principles.

 

Clearly you have limited understanding of human psychology but we'll let that pass. You can find endless examples on the web of how we can perceive things that are illusory or differences between A and A. I can say I hear a difference between A and B and it is a worthless statement, nobody else can have the same experience as me and my experience cannot be verified in any way. However if I can demonstrate consistently an ability to detect differences when I do not know in advance which stimulus I am listening to (DBT) that is a much stronger standard of evidence. This does not in any way mean I cannot have an emotional response to music !

 

Language is a valuable tool but like all tools it is more or less useful in specific contexts, in some contexts diagrammatic representations are better for communication. I can read out the sales, costs and profits for the items in 3 business lines and ask you questions about it, maybe I will be generous and write them down, still if I represent the data in a bar chart it is much easier to derive useful information from it than from a load of text.

 

Human beings are not unique in reacting to music   

 

Quote:
This study explored the influence of five types of auditory stimulation (human conversation, classical music, heavy metal music, pop music, and a 
control) on the behavior of 50 dogs housed in a rescue shelter. The dogs were exposed to each type of auditory stimulation for 4 h, with an intervening period of one day between conditions. The dogs' position in their kennels (front, back), their activity (moving, standing, sitting, resting, sleeping), and their vocalization (barking, quiet, other) were recorded over 4 h at 10 min intervals during each condition of auditory stimulation. The dogs' activity and vocalization were significantly related to auditory stimulation. Dogs spent more time resting and less time standing when classical music was played than when any of the other stimuli were played. Exposure to heavy metal music encouraged dogs to spend significantly more of their time barking than did other types of auditory stimulation. Classical music resulted in dogs spending significantly more of their time quiet than did other types of auditory stimulation. It is suggested that the welfare of sheltered dogs may be enhanced through exposure to appropriate forms of auditory stimulation. Classical music appears particularly beneficial, resulting in activities suggestive of relaxation and behaviors that are considered desirable by potential buyers. This form of music may also appeal to visitors, resulting in enhanced perceptions of the rescue shelter's environment and an increased desire to adopt a dog from such a source

 

 and some studies suggest animals can develop a sense of rythmn

post #9 of 77
lol the sound science forum is not the best place to ask about subjective descriptions of sound - you'll get a lot of sarcasm :)

 

In the case of the AKGs, it just means for the most part that the lower midrange and upper bass are less prominent than the upper midrange, and so harmonics are louder than the fundamental frequency, resulting in a light, airy sound. Warm headphones, on the other hand, tend to have more body and weight.

 

However, two headphones can have the same frequency response and one can still have more body than the other. A faster driver with shorter decay and a housing with less reverb will result in greater perceived resolution detail but less body and weight.

post #10 of 77

I do not have a limited knowledge of human psychology . It something I have studied for a long time. You are back to the "don't believe all you see/hear/ touch --Why because you are a human being.I have no intention of "sticking to science " just because you learn it doesn't mean its MY "god" and never will be. I know human failings only too well as I wasn't born "with a silver spoon in my mouth" . Everything I achieved was by my OWN sweat of my brow. Nobody helped me. But what it showed me that there are many people who would like to keep the "rest" in their place.And you had to fight twice as hard to get anywhere.I have seen every aspect of life and I mean that. From meeting and talking to criminals to meeting and talking to Lords and  Ladies. Funnily enough I had no problem will the upper class it was always the middle class[snobs] who patronized you and I cant stand that . It may be a miracle that I was born with a high IQ . It certainly wasn't my parents. But I never found learning hard.at times in primary school I didn't even study and still passed with  high marks. How do you account for that?? Science cant.-[hereditary genes etc]  But I never stopped believing in people. I have watched science change its stance many times. When in high school my maths teacher proved using simple algebra that -2+2=5. That stuck in my mind [not the formula]   and science was just a tool for humans after that --not a mini-"god" You question human beings ability to reason correctly because of "flaws" "faults" in their make up. But you don't answer how people can FEEL the music --no machine can. You stick with science I will stick with human beings- even if they are "flawed" I would rather take the opinion of somebody subjectively telling me what the music from their equipment sounds like than look at a frequency response  on my analyzer.. 001% dis does NOT guarantee that that amp will "sound good" A ADE writing in EW wrote that everybody loved his amp design . The manufacturers made a lot of money in the UK. And then one day an "Golden Ear" decided to test it using the usually test equipment along with others--guess what -it TESTED BAD!!--He couldn't figure it out. 

post #11 of 77

NA Blur gave the correct answer.

 

Maybe rather than arguing over your subjective ideas about how things should be viewed and how people should approach audio, you could instead work on expanding on what NA Blur did and write some useful definitions so that people can connect things like frequency response to subjective descriptions.

post #12 of 77

The logic here is really funky. If the argument is an amp with 0.01% sounds good, Will any amp with 0.01% sounds good? Will the logic or robot claim it's good? Will according to the previous post it does claim that and that's the flaw of logic. If this is logical, Let's try another argument. A horse has four legs; so if it has four legs, it must be a horse. No wonder 2+2 can add up to be 5. 

 

Strangely enough, when people claimed that they're only human it is usually in a negative connotation. The latest was Weiner's statement on sexting is that he is only human. I guess the only non-flaw of a human is his ears.

post #13 of 77

dvw: How does that answer the OP's question? smile.gif

post #14 of 77
Here is my attempt to describe this without resorting the charts and numbers...

Generally a frequency response curve with a weak midrange isn't as loud as a proper response curve. The middle is where most vocals and solo instruments sit. It's also the range where the human ear is particularly sensitive (especially the upper mids). So if there is a big droop in the middle of the response, sound will be boomy and thin with no real loudness, except for thickness in the bass and piercing highs.
Edited by bigshot - 8/16/13 at 6:39pm
post #15 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

dvw: How does that answer the OP's question? smile.gif

I am answering Duncan1's post. Or maybe I should quote him first.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What does body and weight to the midrange mean?