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 5

post #61 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

The term "musical" came about from a translation from Chinese of an attempt to describe a very slight difference between the sound of two different types of circuits, each designed to be "neutral" but slightly different all the same.

Must have been some sort of distortion going on.

With a speaker setup, the basic illusion of reality can be achieved. 7:1 sound, balanced response, clear soundstage, etc. and the room effects are the same as if the musicians were in the room performing. You're right, the room is part of the sound. With speakers you can have that. I've got piano recordings that sound so real, if I close my eyes, it seems the piano is in the room with me.
post #62 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


Must have been some sort of distortion going on.

With a speaker setup, the basic illusion of reality can be achieved. 7:1 sound, balanced response, clear soundstage, etc. and the room effects are the same as if the musicians were in the room performing. You're right, the room is part of the sound. With speakers you can have that. I've got piano recordings that sound so real, if I close my eyes, it seems the piano is in the room with me.

Indeed, but we are mostly talking about headphones are we not

post #63 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

The term "musical" came about from a translation from Chinese of an attempt to describe a very slight difference between the sound of two different types of circuits, each designed to be "neutral" but slightly different all the same.

It might be a language barrier, but musical in German means something like

a) regarding music,

b) talented in making music.

 

Why not just say circuit X sounds more pleasing to the ear? Once we have that "claim", we can do listening tests to confirm the heard differences. After those were successful we can look at measurements and try to find a correlation.

 

 

Quote:

All terms are useless without actual experience of them. You could teach someone the science behind all of audio over a few years, but if they never listened to music throughout that time, it'd all be meaningless. It is the same with all science.

Sure, some are just more useless than others.  There's even free software to train exactly how peaks/dips etc. sound like.

 

When I say +5 dB peak at 100 Hz with +2.5 at 250 Hz, +0 at 500 Hz (like with the W1000x above) you should know exactly how it's gonna sound like. If you don't, you can play with an EQ and simply add this peak.

On the other hand, when somebody says "warm" I have to guess. I can ask the guy what he means but if he'll answer with "it has a full body, not thin, lush low mids" I still don't know precisely what the person is saying. All I can assume is that there is some kind of boost roughly in the bass range.

 

As audiophiles tend to like to distinguish even smallest differences why don't they use adequate language for that?


Edited by xnor - 8/19/13 at 7:06am
post #64 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

It might be a language barrier, but musical in German means something like

a) regarding music,

b) talented in making music.

 

Why not just say circuit X sounds more pleasing to the ear? Once we have that "claim", we can do listening tests to confirm the heard differences. After those were successful we can look at measurements and try to find a correlation.

 

 

Sure, some are just more useless than others.  There's even free software to train exactly how peaks/dips etc. sound like.

 

When I say +5 dB peak at 100 Hz with +2.5 at 250 Hz, +0 at 500 Hz (like with the W1000x above) you should know exactly how it's gonna sound like. If you don't, you can play with an EQ and simply add this peak.

On the other hand, when somebody says "warm" I have to guess. I can ask the guy what he means but if he'll answer with "it has a full body, not thin, lush low mids" I still don't know precisely what the person is saying. All I can assume is that there is some kind of boost roughly in the bass range.

 

As audiophiles tend to like to distinguish even smallest differences why don't they use adequate language for that?

The words might not exist in our language yet, music has been around longer than then English Language has been,

 

But a small boost in bass does lead to weight and warmth in the mids. Indeed more comparisions to the w1000x and k550. The w1000x even with my MANY mods to decrease it's decay and tighen up it's sound signiture. It still remains it's slighty more forward mids weighty full bodied mids. It's more intimate on mid heavy songs, where as the k550 really keeps everything about the same, having a touch less weight and a little yet the same body. The weight would be from [as we've noted] the "louder" or increased driver response on the w1000x. The attack peaks a little louder than on the k550, so the more modest k550 and w1000x have equal decay. Which is why they both retain thier body. An ofc the little bit of bass that is in most low mids is given a little more energy as well on the w1000x. The mods I made to it helped cut down it's decay as well, not to mention the pads adding the same effect. 

 

So that's good to know, a mid bass hump and forward mids result in more weight, but with to much weight and attack there can be a little to much decay which makes the mids overly smooth and kinda THICK, something like the w1000x needs the combination of a Solid State, Improved pads AND increased dampeing to create less decay and further compliment the attack of the mids. Keeping them very intimate but yet still punchy. Hence is why I modded my w1000x

 

Where as the K550 not having as much attack sounds a little tighter and not as warm or intimate, but still having good bodied mids that are sufficently warm. The k550 would only need a hybrid Tube if you wanted to add a little more weight to it's mids. A simple solution, when compared to the time and energy spent on the w1000x. So happy to have both cans honestly. Although the Dt 990 [due to it's EVEN bigger bass hump] has a great balance of delicate yet weighty mids [which are by no means forward] is pleasent. but slighty lacking in body though. The Dt 880 [having slighty more forward mids and a lessened but still humped bass] had even nicer mids. 

 

In the end, even out of my Solid State both the K550 and w1000x have nice mids, I prefer the w1000x but pff for the price wish I would have gotten the k550 a long time ago [I got them in reverse order it seems lol] and ofc a very small mid bass boost adds a little weight to the k550, although the wooden resonnace of the w1000x also plays in part in it's weighty mids. To bad we can't measure how that wood changes the sound...


Edited by Mshenay - 8/19/13 at 8:06am
post #65 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Indeed, but we are mostly talking about headphones are we not

So some headphones are "musical" and some aren't, but all speakers are "musical"?
post #66 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Staggerleed View Post

Meaty
Bouncy
Juicy
Stabby

That's generally how I look at sound. And food.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


So some headphones are "musical" and some aren't, but all speakers are "musical"?

No they are not but the space a speaker is in has an effect on it's sound. Thus all headphones will sound relitivly the same regardless of the room your listening to them in [assuming the room is quiet] where as speakers will sound different based on the walls around them. Thus to judge a headphone and a speaker by the same merits seems a little un fair, as If I'm a little above or below the speaker the sound changes

 

where as a headphone can really only sit in one place on your head, and we can all agree we FIND the sweet spot for a headphone [without anything but our hands] . where as again in a Room with speakers, the sweet spot may depend on your distance from the speakers, maybe even the hieight of the chair your sitting in. if your sitting at all or standing. So there are many more factors that are taken into play when listening to speakers, that do not exist with headphones.

 

Hence I guess we should decide if we are speaking about Mid body and Weight on speakers or headphones, as there are going to be some differances in it all

 

But no not all speakers are musical but if I'm sitting behind my tweeters they aren't going to sound to good are they 

post #67 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Staggerleed View Post

Meaty
Bouncy
Juicy
Stabby

That's generally how I look at sound. And food.

 

Add tender and spicy to that.
post #68 of 77
I'm just trying to figure out what "musical" equipment is. I'm afraid it still makes no sense. Accurate/Inaccurate I understand. But musical is a cipher to me.
post #69 of 77
Human expression in organized sound.

How'd I do?

Equipment is neither human, expressive or organized. It either reproduces faithfully or it doesn't. Musicality is a trait shared by musicians, not transistors.
Edited by bigshot - 8/19/13 at 11:40am
post #70 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Staggerleed View Post

Define music.

An art form that is being conveyed as sound?

post #71 of 77
"The world of experience is composed of patterns, and patterns within patterns. Human adaptation is a matter of adapting the patterns of the body and mind to the patterns of the world. Music models these patterns, and provides the listener with an intimation of ultimate harmony and meaning." http://blip.tv/jordan-b-peterson/the-meaning-of-music-3512369
post #72 of 77

Personally, I enjoy progressive music with many tempo and signature changes, improvised parts .... much more than the really repetitive stuff, which I can hardly stand.

 

But anyway, electronics and speakers/headphones that reproduce sound faithfully don't care whether you feed them a single tone, a thousand tones, random noise, sweeps, .. or music.

post #73 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Personally, I enjoy progressive music with many tempo and signature changes, improvised parts .... much more than the really repetitive stuff, which I can hardly stand.

 

But anyway, electronics and speakers/headphones that reproduce sound faithfully don't care whether you feed them a single tone, a thousand tones, random noise, sweeps, .. or music.

Indeed, and I agree with you on that with the many changes. I do like a repition of the same basic structure, but with twist through out the song. Like eating a meal, each part is slighty different but carries simmilar flavors

 

Earthy

Spicy

Mellow and Sweet 

 

and ofc contrast makes everything a little better, but I'm not AS big a fan of Proggressive where it just changes gears so suddenly, but ofc that is just me. 

 

Classical Jazz is still one of my favorites, espically with a creative bassist 

 

but we are derailing, I think though we can agree, that weight is the result of a little mid bass hump as well as the power in the attack, and body from the overall Freq Response of a can, and it's decay. To little not enough body maybe, to much decay and you loose some of the punch from the weight and attack [at least from what we've discussed here and what I've heard on my w1000x and k550 comparisons] 

 

The K550 has weight, just not enough attack to bring attention to it. Where as the w1000x does 

 

Interestingly, the Ath a900x has more weight on it's mids [ it features a more aggressive mid bass hump than the Akg K550] but not as much body [I think that's due to the slighty less forward mids of the Ath a900x] Again just chimming in on what I've heard based on what we've discussed 

post #74 of 77

Regarding "body": I don't know the A900X and don't know how much was changed from the A900, but iirc the A900 had an upper bass/lower mid dip.

 

You could also borrow terms from http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm. Imo still better than using terms that don't have an accurate underlying technical definition.

post #75 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Regarding "body": I don't know the A900X and don't know how much was changed from the A900, but iirc the A900 had an upper bass/lower mid dip.

 

You could also borrow terms from http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm. Imo still better than using terms that don't have an accurate underlying technical definition.

*face plam* I know what mids are thank you for the 4'th time. And yes it has a Upper bass lower mid dip and it sounds like that. The extra bass gives the mids some weight but the lack of lower mids kinda makes them sound a little thin, the Dt 990 has a simmilar sound but with more of  balance of Weight and Body, where as the Ath a900x just lacks mids body...  

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?