[Strangelove424]

I have seen 2khz regarded as the upper midrange, and have also seen it regarded as treble. In my own opinion, which I hope will not influence the poll, when I think of the mid range, I think of 200hz-1,000hz, and associate 2,000hz with the beginning of the treble range. I also find I am quite sensitive to 2,000hz, which I believe has been proven to be normal because the tone of the human voice occupies this range. Please take the poll, and feel free to write any opinions about your experience with headphones which emphasize or demphasize this range.

 

[ev13wt]

My 2-way speakers tweeter comes in at 1.600 Hz.


Why is this so important?

 

[Lv100Pidgeot]

I don't really like to designate a specific number to being the line between midrange and treble. It wouldn't make sense to me that 1999khz is midrange but 2000khz isn't.

 

[obobskivich]

I don't really like to designate a specific number to being the line between midrange and treble. It wouldn't make sense to me that 1999khz is midrange but 2000khz isn't.

In music notation it absolutely *is* across a line (but it isn't 1 Hz) - "midrange" seems to be more of a construct of speaker/audio reproduction discussions than anything else (which I would guess goes back to the woofer/squaker/tweeter design for loudspeakers, to try and more accurately reproduce the audible range). Some more you can read (there's enough to read until your head spins if you keep looking):
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html
http://troelsgravesen.dk/frequency_ranges.htm
http://greenboy.us/fEARful/frequencytables.htm
https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/

A lot of terminology shifts around for the audible range over ~2kHz (or C7) - "treble," "high end," "upper midrange," "presence" etc can all be found - I think that's more to do with the inspecificity with which we talk about speaker systems and/or the intended audience (or author's origins) - is it being written by/for musicians, studio/live professionals, speaker designers, audiophiles, etc? Those groups tend to use different vocabulary to talk about similar things in different contexts.

As far as "sensitivity" at this range - human hearing response isn't flat, and we do indeed "hear better" through what roughly occupies the human vocal range (imagine that). There's also a degree of personal preference when it comes to listening to music (or even the type of music you like), and our individual hearing probably factors into that on some level (there's also interactions between the headphone and your head/ear shape which influence perceived frequency response). If I remember right, Tyll had an article about "treble sensitivity" on the InnerFidelity blog a while ago when there was more discussion about the Harman Target Response for headphones and such, but I haven't seen as much about that in more recent times.

 

[watersedge1234]

Around 6k is where upper mid-range turns into low treble. 2-6k is considered upper-mids. I imagine there's some room for interpretation on the subject, but in the pro audio world this is considered the standard.

 

[Brooko]

Around 6k is where upper mid-range turns into low treble. 2-6k is considered upper-mids. I imagine there's some room for interpretation on the subject, but in the pro audio world this is considered the standard.

Yep - this ^^

This helps as well - http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

[obobskivich]

Just to reiterate what I said: where you're getting the information will influence how the same phenomenon is described. I wouldn't be inclined to consider any one source/group "more definitive" than another - there are contextual differences that shape how we talk about audio in different spheres. Frankly, this leads to inspecifity - we can argue to the end of days about "what is upper mid range" versus "what is 'real' treble" and end up with a lot of hurt feelings and anger, all to defend terms that are objectively and technically less precise. To use the original question as an example, the interest point is frequency response amplitude around 2kHz - who cares if we call it "upper mids" or "lower treble" (or who can be "more right on the Internet") - by talking about it in terms of measured frequencies we're already as specific and precise as we need to be, and meaningful discussion can move forward from there.

 

[Strangelove424]

Why is this so important?

I am just curious what people’s perspectives are on a significant transition region between mids and treble. It’s an area that seems to change the character of a headphone quite a bit, and a point where many headphones start to deviate in FR. So, too, do opinions on what the “proper” kind of response at this point is.

In music notation it absolutely *is* across a line (but it isn't 1 Hz) - "midrange" seems to be more of a construct of speaker/audio reproduction discussions than anything else (which I would guess goes back to the woofer/squaker/tweeter design for loudspeakers, to try and more accurately reproduce the audible range). Some more you can read (there's enough to read until your head spins if you keep looking):
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html
http://troelsgravesen.dk/frequency_ranges.htm
http://greenboy.us/fEARful/frequencytables.htm
https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/

A lot of terminology shifts around for the audible range over ~2kHz (or C7) - "treble," "high end," "upper midrange," "presence" etc can all be found - I think that's more to do with the inspecificity with which we talk about speaker systems and/or the intended audience (or author's origins) - is it being written by/for musicians, studio/live professionals, speaker designers, audiophiles, etc? Those groups tend to use different vocabulary to talk about similar things in different contexts.

As far as "sensitivity" at this range - human hearing response isn't flat, and we do indeed "hear better" through what roughly occupies the human vocal range (imagine that). There's also a degree of personal preference when it comes to listening to music (or even the type of music you like), and our individual hearing probably factors into that on some level (there's also interactions between the headphone and your head/ear shape which influence perceived frequency response). If I remember right, Tyll had an article about "treble sensitivity" on the InnerFidelity blog a while ago when there was more discussion about the Harman Target Response for headphones and such, but I haven't seen as much about that in more recent times.

Thank you for your thoughts, and informative links. What struck me most was the second link, where the frequency is divided high/low, and the mids overlap with both. At first I thought “that’s odd” but the more I look at it, the more I realize it might actually be a better representation of the way I personally categorize the frequency band. Low/Mid/High are arbitrary designations. Air molecules don’t arrange themselves into groups before they vibrate at certain frequencies, so these categories are all systematic models helpful to one degree or another to the camps that use them. For instance, I’ve never ran across the terms lows/mids/highs while learning instruments. However, it seems that for the speaker engineers, who need to deal with the difficult crossover point that happens between 1khz and 2khz, treble is more or less defined as tweeter range. And for the music production professionals, treble appears to begin much higher.

Around 6k is where upper mid-range turns into low treble. 2-6k is considered upper-mids. I imagine there's some room for interpretation on the subject, but in the pro audio world this is considered the standard.

Interesting. 6khz is also the beginning of the harmonics range. Is there a reason the pro audio world regards it as such? Can you also specify which aspect of the pro audio world you are referring to? There are many facets to pro audio – performance, capture/production, or reproduction, and many jobs within each.

Yep - this ^^

This helps as well - http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

Thanks for the link, very informative on all the different aspects of an acoustic source in terms of Hz!

Just to reiterate what I said: where you're getting the information will influence how the same phenomenon is described. I wouldn't be inclined to consider any one source/group "more definitive" than another - there are contextual differences that shape how we talk about audio in different spheres. Frankly, this leads to inspecifity - we can argue to the end of days about "what is upper mid range" versus "what is 'real' treble" and end up with a lot of hurt feelings and anger, all to defend terms that are objectively and technically less precise. To use the original question as an example, the interest point is frequency response amplitude around 2kHz - who cares if we call it "upper mids" or "lower treble" (or who can be "more right on the Internet") - by talking about it in terms of measured frequencies we're already as specific and precise as we need to be, and meaningful discussion can move forward from there.

An excellent point. The goal of this thread was to share perspectives constructively, not to corral consensus. There are bound to be multiple perspectives here, and I am far more curious where each is rooted than finding out which is “correct”.

Thanks for everyone's input so far.

 

[watersedge1234]

Just to reiterate what I said: where you're getting the information will influence how the same phenomenon is described. I wouldn't be inclined to consider any one source/group "more definitive" than another - there are contextual differences that shape how we talk about audio in different spheres. Frankly, this leads to inspecifity - we can argue to the end of days about "what is upper mid range" versus "what is 'real' treble" and end up with a lot of hurt feelings and anger, all to defend terms that are objectively and technically less precise. To use the original question as an example, the interest point is frequency response amplitude around 2kHz - who cares if we call it "upper mids" or "lower treble" (or who can be "more right on the Internet") - by talking about it in terms of measured frequencies we're already as specific and precise as we need to be, and meaningful discussion can move forward from there.

I do believe I answered the question in a meaningful way, and don't personally believe the range in question is up for debate. The links provided are very informative in that they do specify the marked difference between this terminology when discussing speaker box design/instrument frequency range vs discussion of human hearing. These are all different things entirely, and are expressed as such in their respective contexts. Bass, mid, and treble are just words meant to express the low, mid, and high information of the source in question, nothing less, nothing more.

Take, for example, the second link provided. It's true, in 2-way speaker box design, it is beneficial to providing equal dispersion that the treble driver handle mid range information as well. This is due to beamwidth as well as efficiency. It even goes on to discuss adding a 3rd driver (a "midrange" driver) to handle 800-4000 hz. The author of this article is referring to treble response in the context of bass/treble drivers and not that of what the OP is referring to in his original question. If a speaker can only replicate frequencies up to 2k, then 2k would be considered the treble of the respective driver. However, 2k is not the upper reaches of human hearing and should not be considered treble in that context.

Also taking instrument ranges into consideration, bass/mid/treble again takes on yet another meaning, but again, these words just exist to better express the range of frequencies a sound emanating source can reproduce. For example, the "treble" of an amplified electric guitar would be considered to be around 2-5k or so. This is the top of the range that the instrument can reproduce, and is expressed as such through using the same word we use to express the upper reaches of human hearing. However, as previously noted, this word takes on a different meaning altogether when discussing the frequency response of human hearing, but is used interchangeably as it's definition is the same in either context.

When discussing human hearing, of which the original question is referring to, ranges have been established to allow us to better verbalize the auditory experience. It seems counterintuitive to refute these established frequency ranges as they are well documented and allow us to better express the human response to auditory stimuli. The sooner we globally accept these established ranges, the sooner we can succinctly discuss personal experiences with audio equipment.

 

[obobskivich]

@watersedge1234 - I have no interest in a never-ending semantic argument, and wasn't explicitly "calling you out" or any similar behavior. There's no need for hostility. My point, which it sounds like you very much agree with, is that specific descriptors allow for meaningful discussion. Different contexts *will* use different colloquial descriptors and none are "more right" than the other (regardless of how we may feel about them), and there's no need for drawing up battle lines of opinion either.

To respond to the original point - personally I like a bright sound (and I know this disagrees with many "target response curves" or other "this is the most right way to do things because 'science says so'"), which usually sees high frequencies from 1-2kHz and above boosted.

 

[watersedge1234]

I am just curious what people’s perspectives are on a significant transition region between mids and treble. It’s an area that seems to change the character of a headphone quite a bit, and a point where many headphones start to deviate in FR. So, too, do opinions on what the “proper” kind of response at this point is.



Thank you for your thoughts, and informative links. What struck me most was the second link, where the frequency is divided high/low, and the mids overlap with both. At first I thought “that’s odd” but the more I look at it, the more I realize it might actually be a better representation of the way I personally categorize the frequency band. Low/Mid/High are arbitrary designations. Air molecules don’t arrange themselves into groups before they vibrate at certain frequencies, so these categories are all systematic models helpful to one degree or another to the camps that use them. For instance, I’ve never ran across the terms lows/mids/highs while learning instruments. However, it seems that for the speaker engineers, who need to deal with the difficult crossover point that happens between 1khz and 2khz, treble is more or less defined as tweeter range. And for the music production professionals, treble appears to begin much higher.



Interesting. 6khz is also the beginning of the harmonics range. Is there a reason the pro audio world regards it as such? Can you also specify which aspect of the pro audio world you are referring to? There are many facets to pro audio – performance, capture/production, or reproduction, and many jobs within each.

I don't personally believe there is such thing as "proper" FR when discussing enjoyment listening, audio and music enjoyment is so subjective that it really comes down to preference at that point. For mixing/mastering/etc it's typically preferred that each frequency range is represented somewhat equal logarithmically, but in this context go with what your ear tells you and forget the rest!

In terms of speaker box design, I can touch a bit more on why these ranges are chosen as crossover points. In basic terms, as wavelengths begin to shorten to that of the size of the driver, the driver dispersion narrows. So, for instance, as a 12" driver begins to attempt to replicate a 12" wave (which is roughly 1.1k), it will beam 1.1k and up in a pattern as narrow as the driver itself. This is obviously an issue, as unless you are standing directly on axis of the speaker you would not accurately hear 1.1k and above. A second (or third) smaller driver can then take over to allow continual even dispersion over a wider spectrum of frequencies than that of a single sized driver. This also allows the driver in question to operate within its designed efficiency range rather than trying to replicate frequencies it isn't designed to replicate.

In terms of pro audio, every facet of the industry refers to the established frequency ranges discussed prior in the thread when discussing human hearing and sound replication. There's small discrepancies here and there but there would be little discussion in terms of whether 2k is mid or treble. Whether 2k is mid or upper-mid would be the larger discussion, but it's pretty well established that 2k is within the upper-mid category. Our ear canals resonate between 2-6k, thus the increased sensitivity in this range. Basically - if it hurts, it's usually within the upper-mid spectrum.

Hope this helps!

 

[watersedge1234]

@watersedge1234 - I have no interest in a never-ending semantic argument, and wasn't explicitly "calling you out" or any similar behavior. There's no need for hostility. My point, which it sounds like you very much agree with, is that specific descriptors allow for meaningful discussion. Different contexts *will* use different colloquial descriptors and none are "more right" than the other (regardless of how we may feel about them), and there's no need for drawing up battle lines of opinion either.

To respond to the original point - personally I like a bright sound (and I know this disagrees with many "target response curves" or other "this is the most right way to do things because 'science says so'"), which usually sees high frequencies from 1-2kHz and above boosted.

No hostility at all, it's all in good fun! Enjoy what you like to listen to and forget the rest. All I'm saying is it makes it easier to communicate effectively when we're all on the same page is all. It's hard to decipher what people mean when they say "recessed mids" around the interwebz since it could mean any number of things ):

I think it's a good thing to have these conversations, and I personally came to conclusions that I didn't fully contextualize until just now because of it. Greatly appreciate the links and your approach to this matter, it really put things in perspective for me!

 

[JoePR31]

Yep - this ^^

This helps as well - http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

The very chart you posted a link to shows 2k and above to be associated with treble. I do see where it also says "high mids" between 2k and 6k and then highs...but what we refer to as treble begins at 2k.

 

[Brooko]

The very chart you posted a link to shows 2k and above to be associated with treble. I do see where it also says "high mids" between 2k and 6k and then highs...but what we refer to as treble begins at 2k.

Lower treble for me has always begun around 5-6 kHz, and upper treble at 10 kHz plus. But whatever rocks your boat

 

[obobskivich]

Was reading the new Bob Katz article on InnerFidelity, and he actually touches on this (the broader article is about evaluating headphones and such). You can read the whole article here: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-17-perfecting-perfection

The part of interest:

The fact is that there is no standardized vocabulary of defining a given frequency range. Where does "the upper midrange" lie? Is it 5 kHz-centered? That's where it is for me. For some, the "upper midrange" is around 2 kHz. While I try to be consistent in my terminology my dilemma is that there aren't enough terms to precisely describe all the frequency ranges that interest me.

How do you label the ranges 250-500 Hz, 1-2 kHz, 4-6 kHz, 8-10 kHz, and above 10 kHz? I like to call the frequencies above 13 kHz or so the "air frequencies", for example, because they are above the traditional high treble. Some people lump 4-9 kHz into one range that they may call "upper-upper midrange" or "lower treble". In my book, "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science", I have a chart of frequency ranges and we discover that there are overlaps and differences in how people describe those ranges. So to be less ambiguous I ought to use the exact frequency range values in question. But I like to write enjoyable language so I sprinkle my vocabulary with words instead of numbers! Just remember that when we differ in the frequency language, neither of us is wrong.

Thought of this thread, even though its now a few days old, and figured I'd share.