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? - Page 2

post #16 of 77

Dakanao- Listen to a pair of  007 MK1s and you will hear what body and weight mean--unlike the 009. In other words a more musical presentation but still with detail.   

post #17 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Dakanao- Listen to a pair of  007 MK1s and you will hear what body and weight mean--unlike the 009. In other words a more musical presentation but still with detail.   

The 009 has ~5 dB more energy in the highly sensitive 1 - 5 kHz range.

 

That also shows that "body and weight" is kinda the wrong term...

 

 

If you don't want to use decibels and frequencies you could still just say: the 009 has more energy in the low treble, therefore there's less focus on this range in the 007 mk1.


Edited by xnor - 8/17/13 at 7:05am
post #18 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Dakanao- Listen to a pair of  007 MK1s and you will hear what body and weight mean--unlike the 009. In other words a more musical presentation but still with detail.   

I wish I could, but no one around here has them, and they're WAAAAY out of my budget :tongue:

 

Do you think the Shure SRH-840 has good body and weight to the midrange?

post #19 of 77

Sorry Dakanao I have never listened to them but there are plenty on Head-Fi who have and will let you know. 

post #20 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

a more musical presentation but still with detail.   

 

That's drifting off into vagueness again, I'm afraid. It would help if you focused on the aspects of sound... frequencies, dynamics, distortion, etc. We all know what that means. But you could put a gun to my head, and I wouldn't be able to identify "more musical" headphones.

post #21 of 77

Funny I have no problem when talking to other hi-fi enthusiasts and they understand what I say . So do 80% of the Head-Fi posters here who comment subjectively.Unless it relates to the actual design of an amp in all its aspects I have no intention of quoting scientific figures. I leave that to when I am talking to other people I know involved in Audio HI-Fi.electronics I feel it is patronizing them to try to "sound technical" when all they want to know is---"What does it sound like". I have lost count of the Head-Fi posters who ask --exactly that question. 

post #22 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Funny I have no problem when talking to other hi-fi enthusiasts and they understand what I say . So do 80% of the Head-Fi posters here who comment subjectively.Unless it relates to the actual design of an amp in all its aspects I have no intention of quoting scientific figures. I leave that to when I am talking to other people I know involved in Audio HI-Fi.electronics I feel it is patronizing them to try to "sound technical" when all they want to know is---"What does it sound like". I have lost count of the Head-Fi posters who ask --exactly that question. 

Funny? Funny: Those terms are so clear (<- that is sarcasm btw) that:

 - we keep on seeing threads popping up people asking "what do audiophiles mean with <meaningless term X>"

 - people are being sent to glossary threads but keep coming back asking questions

 - there's obviously a need for multiple "glossary" threads

 - everytime you ask the same question you get a different answer

 - explaining those terms is more of a guessing game due to misapplication (great example in #17)

 - ...

 

Could as well do it properly, compose and sticky a thread that explains frequency response, distortion, etc.

That way there would be a lot less ambiguity, BS in general and people would be better educated.

 

Indeed, all people want to know is how does it sound like, but most of those terms are a vague description of that, at best - open to complete misinterpretation, misapplication.


Edited by xnor - 8/17/13 at 10:17am
post #23 of 77

XNOR- I think the best possible situation is that we agree to disagree. We have a totally different philosophy  on the approach when talking to people . If technical information is of use when describing a loudspeakers wattage-sensitivity etc then I would supply it along with how it sounds so that the person reading it  knows the limits of the power output and whether to buy a powerful amp for a low sensitivity loudspeaker or not. But to quote scientific terms that most don't want to know about is futile to the person asking the question . Time after time on Head-Fi somebody says --"that's all very well but all I want to know is what it sounds like" . There are at this minute many people wanting to know just that on head-fi  If you feel so strong about it why don't you stick to technical questions only and leave the subjectives alone without jumping in to every subjective --question/ answer on head-fi and criticizing them for not being technical . I have spent enough of my life discussing technical minutia with others like me. It gets boring after a while and to me its not the real world that human beings live in.Especially when its being turned into a "philosophy " or a    semi-religion. to brainwash others. Its something I am totally immune to.     

post #24 of 77
Thread Starter 

Now I now what my preferred sound signature is like. Full bodied, tight, deep punchy bass. Full bodied, organic, thick midrange. And sparkly highs without sibilance.

post #25 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthanWiner View Post


"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

Actually, they do have meaning and the Dt 990 has a very lovely delicate body and weight. For me the Akg K550 has lovely mid body, as nice as my Modded w1000x, but it lacks the wieght or the PUNCH of the Mids on the w1000x. For me Body gives mids warmth, and that gentle touch agains't your ear. where as weight is more aggressive use of body, weight has mids that hit your a little heavier and faster

 

an example would be a cello. Softer slower and deeper notes are going to want a nice body, where as the faster more dyanmic notes will want the weight. In addition most often, laid back cans have more body but lack in weight, where as more aggressive cans have weight but lack in body.

 

That's my understanding of it though, Going back to the Akg K550  the  upper mids have nice weight to them, but the entire mid specturm lacks a little in body, the mids have wamrth and body but not a lot. You can feel them, they are just more delicate. Where as with the ATH w1000x, the mids have both wonderful body and weight, 

 

Again, for me body and weight are more felt with my ears, than heard. But that is me and my understanding [ in addition I amp with a Solid State Matrix M Stage with a LME 49990 Op amp [only slightly warmer than the LEAN LME 49720 HA] 

post #26 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Time after time on Head-Fi somebody says --"that's all very well but all I want to know is what it sounds like" .

 

Doesn't that depend on what CD you are playing on it? "When I play music on my stereo, it has a very musical sound."

post #27 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Actually, they do have meaning and the Dt 990 has a very lovely delicate body and weight. For me the Akg K550 has lovely mid body

 

Stop! You're turning me on!

post #28 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

Doesn't that depend on what CD you are playing on it? "When I play music on my stereo, it has a very musical sound."

Musical... there is a vague term lawl. I Sort of understand it refers to "enjoyable coloration" as opposed to something non musical like the Shure 940 

post #29 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Musical... there is a vague term lawl. I Sort of understand it refers to "enjoyable coloration" as opposed to something non musical like the Shure 940 

 

If a friend of mine is playing a guitar for me live and there is no coloration to the sound because he is sitting right in front of me, does that mean he is non musical?

post #30 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

If a friend of mine is playing a guitar for me live and there is no coloration to the sound because he is sitting right in front of me, does that mean he is non musical?

No coloration are you deaf? If it's an acoustic there's the color of the wood. so I suppose not to much coloration but rather the retention of natural color, but yes it's very colored, I suppose everything is, Yet we use Audio phile terms to describe our gear do we not? As we k now a Live Guitar is Musical. A musical headphone will retain that quality, for example my Akg K550 is not as musical as my w1000x, the natrual color and beuaty of a Acuostic Twelve string is better retained and projected through my w1000x, than my Akg K550 

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?