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 3

post #31 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

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.     

Yes I disagree and yes we have a different approach talking to people. I like to tell them the truth, what's actually going on, and not speaking in riddles and meaningless flowery words.

 

What's the difference between accurate "scientifc" terms people need to learn vs. inaccurate, flowery audiophile terms people need to learn? But that's not all of it. For such terms it's usually not enough to just read the glossary, you also have to skim through reviews and get to know the "taste" of the reviewer to get a better idea what he means.

 

You make it sound like people don't need to look up audiophile terms, or that such terms all have an inherent meaning everybody understands clearly ... that couldn't be further from reality.

 

This is Sound Science, if something is too technical to you here, nobody forces you to be here. Also, I don't see a reason to complain about me being technical and I'm definitely not jumping on every subjective question on head-fi, that's simply a lie.

I understand how you were getting bored with reality and live somewhere else now. Let us know when you're back - and please make use of the Enter key.


Edited by xnor - 8/17/13 at 12:37pm
post #32 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Yes I disagree and yes we have a different approach talking to people. I like to tell them the truth, what's actually going on, and not speaking in riddles and meaningless flowery words.

 

What's the difference between accurate "scientifc" terms people need to learn vs. inaccurate, flowery audiophile terms people need to learn? But that's not all of it. For such terms it's usually not enough to just read the glossary, you also have to skim through reviews and get to know the "taste" of the reviewer to get a better idea what he means.

 

You make it sound like people don't need to look up audiophile terms, or that such terms all have an inherent meaning everybody understands clearly ... that couldn't be further from reality.

 

This is Sound Science, if something is too technical to you here, nobody forces you to be here. Also, I don't see a reason to complain about me being technical and I'm definitely not jumping on every subjective question on head-fi, that's simply a lie.

I understand how you were getting bored with reality and live somewhere else now. Let us know when you're back - and please make use of the Enter key.

I happen to enjoy knowing the science behind what I am hearing, so what adds that additional heaviness and solidity in the mids of my w1000x that makes it sound more "weighty" than the Akg K550? 

post #33 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

No coloration are you deaf? If it's an acoustic there's the color of the wood.

 

Reality is a flat response by definition.

post #34 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

I happen to enjoy knowing the science behind what I am hearing, so what adds that additional heaviness and solidity in the mids of my w1000x that makes it sound more "weighty" than the Akg K550? 

 

Human hearing is most sensitive to the frequencies in the upper mids. If you boost them, your sound will appear to be louder. If that is what you mean by heavy and solid, that's why.

post #35 of 77

"You still don't understand" as Judge Judy has said many times along with. "Your not listening because you have your own agenda"--Hello Earth calling--beep--beep- People don't WANT to your your "truth"  which is just technical information. People want to speak ---SUBJECTIVELY-- WITHOUT you and your OBJECTIVES cafe -gangsters butting in. I don't determine where posts are put --those in charge of this website do . And if they want to put my or others posts in that section then that's THEIR privilege . I don't care where they put me as long as I am allowed to reply to subjective  questions from posters wanting an answer  SUBJECTIVELY . A more   patronizing--condescending -arrogant comment --"if its too technical for you" I was building/designing and repairing electronic equipment  loooong before your parents even  conceived you . Is that patronizing enough because it seems its the only language terms you know. You must be stuck in some technical office surrounded by equipment and only lived your life in the company of others of your ilk.- There you  go!!! can you take what you give out--nooooo. 

post #36 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Stop! You're turning me on!

Wait, I thought you liked 'em flat? You're into the full-bodied type now? biggrin.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

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 

Yes, but if it's an accurate recording, the colour of the wood etc. would be already on the recording and is part of the music. His point was if you're there in person listening live, there's no additional colouration added by your gear.

post #37 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

Reality is a flat response by definition.

Indeed, so reality can't be defined with terms that are used to describe the effects of something that is the result of an mechnical reproduction. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

Human hearing is most sensitive to the frequencies in the upper mids. If you boost them, your sound will appear to be louder. If that is what you mean by heavy and solid, that's why.

I suppose a more dynamic and quicker shift from loud to soft, would result in more weight, or rather the feel of weight 

post #38 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel2323 View Post

Wait, I thought you liked 'em flat? You're into the full-bodied type now? biggrin.gif

 

Yes, but if it's an accurate recording, the colour of the wood etc. would be already on the recording and is part of the music. His point was if you're there in person listening live, there's no additional colouration added by your gear.

Indeed, because there is no gear, unless you consider the Guitar it self as gear. Seeing as different wood sound different, as do different strings.  Not to mention, are we including an Electric Guitar, because that needs an amp. 

post #39 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

I happen to enjoy knowing the science behind what I am hearing, so what adds that additional heaviness and solidity in the mids of my w1000x that makes it sound more "weighty" than the Akg K550? 

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing with mids, so I'm gonna do a very simple definition:

up to 150 Hz = bass, up to 2 kHz = mids, higher frequencies = treble

 

Incorporating both what I remember from hearing those headphones and measurements:

The imho biggest difference is in the bass range. Let me explain how that influences perception of other frequency ranges as well.

 

K550: If you get good seal with the K550 you will get that really deep, well-extended bass. For some, this might be a bit too much especially in the lower bass range, but it's still a fairly clean bass without excessive distortion.

 

W1000x: The W1000x has a mid-bass peak (increase in energy in that frequency range), but below that bass starts to roll-off. What that means is that there will be much less lower bass, so your attention will automatically shift toward upper bass and mids.

Bass distortion is also a bit higher, which means that there will be added harmonics especially in the midrange.

 

Upper mids are very similar for both headphones. Only when we get to the treble there's another huge difference. In the mid treble this time the K550 has a small peak and the W1000x has a dip (reduction in energy).

Again this dip is going to shift your attention down to the mids and maybe a bit to the upper treble.

 

 

I think this explains the main differences you noticed in the mids and hope I'm not completely off. wink.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

"You still don't understand" as Judge Judy has said many times along with. "Your not listening because you have your own agenda"--Hello Earth calling--beep--beep- People don't WANT to your your "truth"  which is just technical information. People want to speak ---SUBJECTIVELY-- WITHOUT you and your OBJECTIVES cafe -gangsters butting in. I don't determine where posts are put --those in charge of this website do . And if they want to put my or others posts in that section then that's THEIR privilege . I don't care where they put me as long as I am allowed to reply to subjective  questions from posters wanting an answer  SUBJECTIVELY . A more   patronizing--condescending -arrogant comment --"if its too technical for you" I was building/designing and repairing electronic equipment  loooong before your parents even  conceived you . Is that patronizing enough because it seems its the only language terms you know. You must be stuck in some technical office surrounded by equipment and only lived your life in the company of others of your ilk.- There you  go!!! can you take what you give out--nooooo. 

Don't do drugs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Indeed, because there is no gear, unless you consider the Guitar it self as gear. Seeing as different wood sound different, as do different strings.  Not to mention, are we including an Electric Guitar, because that needs an amp. 

We usually just talk about reconstruction here. The choice of instruments, venue etc. even preamps, microphones etc. are already all on the recording. All we want is to turn this into sound waves again without distorting the recording too much.

(With some fancy DSP you might be able to completely transform the sound of an instrument on the recording, but why listen to that particular recording then in the first place.)


Edited by xnor - 8/17/13 at 1:46pm
post #40 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing with mids, so I'm gonna do a very simple definition:

up to 150 Hz = bass, up to 2 kHz = mids, higher frequencies = treble

Yes I am aware of that, in addition I suppose I should mention my w1000x is modded...

 

And yes mids start at 150hrz, and mind you that mid is a pesky one in DnB. 150hrz is SO vital to a wobble yet it can take away from a deep Drop -.- I usually eq it down a little to get more weight to the bass. But then again ofc, Benga then choose to start his wobble, which is lacking without that little meat from that mid. 

 

 

Warning: Long Post - Video Linked (Click to show)

 

I know what mids are and yes you can feel them again'st your ears, not unlike bass. But it's a much more delicate feeling, in addition I'm sure you have heard a live Acoustic guitar, we know the Low E string is a bass, but that Open D string has weight to it, as it's strummed you can feel it again'st your ear. and a louder sound [or one with more sound pressure] has more feel to it ofc, non the less I don't listen to loud music because it tends to distort the weighty nature of some mids out of some headphones

 

Ahh, when you feel the strike of a Piano String in real life. That is weight, that inital Strike has the weight followed by the warmth of the note it self, if there is a rapid progression of strikes you can feel each one as it hits your ears so to speak and again you don't need a lot of volume to feel it. Another good example is a Pop of the G String on a accoustic Bass, the notes on the 4th string are mids, 

 

For example, a Flute has wonderful body out of my w1000x and Akg K550, even better are Brass Instruments, on the w1000x they have a weight to them an I'm talking about trombones and Saxaophones, the mids are weighty with good body, I enjoy the tactility and warmth of those mids on my w1000x. where as the K550, does not have that weight, only the body. Another example would be  in Male Vocals, in a song Called  恋し By the Yoshida Brothers, the male vocalist sings a note that is around 500hrz, sings this VERY loudy and with a lot of power, and very little bass in that note. And that Vocal has a very nice weight! His voice peaks with a nice weighty mid, then softens out as he coutinues to vocalize [it's a very Gusto Shout more or less] 

 

So what gives those mids those weight? And why do some headphones lack it, because in reality almost all mids have a weight to them, some more so than others depending. 

 

While we are on the subject of it all, I have yet to find a low end can that has that accuract weighty mid. Most of them are just so forward and full bodied... overly thick or thin. 

 

Lastly with regards to this comment "The imho biggest difference is in the bass range. Let me explain how that influences perception of other frequency ranges as well."

 

Bass does drown out the weightness of mids, so the effect is really wonderful in music that lacks a promiment bass line. Classical Duets, such as Piano and Cello, have pieces that are mostly all mids and Treble with almost no bass. 

 

Oh gawd here is a song that also demonstrates what I'm talking about as well [Bells have a lovely weight as well] 

 

 

The piano notes, as well as the bell, have a touch more weight on the w1000x than does the K550 [And yes there is a LITTLE bit of bass in there, it think the most noticeable are some 90-130hrz  notes mixed in, but it's not those I'm concerned with. it's the intro that I'm curious about] tthe first about 45 seconds. And again the k550 to my ears just lacks the weight of those mids, it captures the body nicely just not that initial hit that weight. 

 

And if you've not felt this weightyness to mids before I apologize. I suppose, maybe since allergies destroyed my sense of smell, and taste [and my eye from rubbing them so much] I just tend to pay closer attention to how sounds feel, 

 

I suppose it may have to do with the "loudness" of the mid, the w1000x get's them louder [even at the same realitive] volume. But yet again cheap cans with forward mids don't have this weight, it's just yukky from those. In addition even the Dt 990 has more Weight to it's mids than the K550, but the Dt 990 lacks in body

 


Edited by Mshenay - 8/17/13 at 2:29pm
post #41 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Indeed, so reality can't be defined with terms that are used to describe the effects of something that is the result of an mechnical reproduction.

Of course it can. Reality had a full audible frequency response that is stone flat, no audible distortion, 1:1 dynamics that reach from the noise floor of the space you are in all the way up to the threshold of pain and beyond.

This should be the goal of audiophiles. Complete acoustic transparency within the range of human hearing. No coloration. No distortion. No compression. It's possible to get very very close if you are smart and understand the way sound works.
post #42 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

I suppose a more dynamic and quicker shift from loud to soft, would result in more weight, or rather the feel of weight 

I don't know of any equipment that expands dynamics. Just about any digital recording has 1:1 dynamics throughout the limits of human hearing.
post #43 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

So what gives those mids those weight?

A flat frequency response throughout the range of human hearing.
post #44 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


A flat frequency response throughout the range of human hearing.

Yea thank you I am aware of that, but what makes two headphones potray that life like weight differently? The "flatter" K550 does not have the weight of the less linear w1000x 

post #45 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


I don't know of any equipment that expands dynamics. Just about any digital recording has 1:1 dynamics throughout the limits of human hearing.

Dynamics are the shift from high to low, some headphones do this well and others... well do not... the shift from loud to soft can be rough and uneven with some headphones... at least I have noticed 

 

I tie Decay and attack into dynamics, that attack is the peak,  following the attack is the decay, a headphone with poor decay will not sound as dynamic, or that shift from high to low will not be as quick or as smooth as it should/ the w1000x before I modded it, for example my old Tube amp had very bad decay, everything lingered so long. It made my music sound very... non dynamic. The shifts from high to low where rather poor and un enjoyable. 

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?