powertoold
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Posts
- 1,594
- Likes
- 42
Quote:
Sorry about the EyeAmEye confusion if you read his impressions on the front page. I thought EyeAmEye had the MM crossover too, but it ends up he has the ML crossover.
Maybe there is some confusion as to what is a forward midrange. Personally, I think a forward midrange is one where the 350hz-5000hz (vocals -> violins and pianos) range is unnaturally prominent. By unnatural, I am comparing the sound to a live orchestra or jazz performance. I only use live orchestral or jazz performances as benchmarks because they don't use any amplification that can synthetically emphasize a frequency range (for example microphones for rock or vocal concerts). In this comparison, my mention of the distance of Krall's voice was purely for comparison because she is singing directly into a microphone, so the sound engineer can make her voice as "forward" as he wants. Sometimes, the emphasis on a certain frequency range can depend on the recording. In order to minimize the variables as much as possible, I like to use orchestral music, which is also recording dependent, but I can compare it to live performances with no amplification. A forward midrange doesn't simply mean the midrange sounds louder than another range - maybe that's how it sounds live. I think it's difficult to say something has a forward frequency range on an absolute scale.
Also, I don't think I've said anything about the MM's midrange on an absolute scale. All I've done is compare the MM with the ML. I was saying that the ML has more of a forward midrange compared to the MM. There's a possibility I'm wrong about some things, but what I can say with confidence is that the ML has a more forward midrange compared to the MM.
I don't know if I'm making any sense
Originally Posted by Mazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif IIRC others also had that impression from reading the thread (IIRC Hayduke as well as direcow, flargosa). But then Hayduke - after trying both - thought the MM was more neutral. But wquiles has tried both and EQs everything but the mids up a little for the MM but flat for the MM (which sounds like the MM has a little more mids). I think I also mentally filed away Todd's comments that you quoted back on the impressions thread: That could mean a number of things in relation to the low-mids, so perhaps I misinterpreted it. Technically it's NOT a comparative statement with regard to the ML crossover - but if it's not that would mean that the ML crossover is "very warm" or warmer still. There was also: Again, not a comparative statement and slowth hasn't heard the ML crossover (as was recently reiterated). Slowth later clarified it wasn't meant to imply "super pronounced"...and later still that the seal wasn't "that great". And slightly OT, but killkli said the FreqShow had more controlled bass and more restrained treble than the SuperFreqs (which if anything allows more mids to be heard, at least in comparison). Killkli later said he (?) has the MM crossover (and that compared to Livewires the mids were a little more forward - but still not comparative to SuperFreqs.) The treble comment is interesting because I find I want 1-2dB more at the top end with my SuperFreqs, even after I EQ down the offending mids. Then EyeAmEye said ...but didn't say which crossover, and I may have assumed it was the MM. It's very late here in Sydney. Now that I've finished reading the second half of the impressions thread I'll come back and read my posts tomorrow and see if I can make any sense of the situation |
Sorry about the EyeAmEye confusion if you read his impressions on the front page. I thought EyeAmEye had the MM crossover too, but it ends up he has the ML crossover.
Maybe there is some confusion as to what is a forward midrange. Personally, I think a forward midrange is one where the 350hz-5000hz (vocals -> violins and pianos) range is unnaturally prominent. By unnatural, I am comparing the sound to a live orchestra or jazz performance. I only use live orchestral or jazz performances as benchmarks because they don't use any amplification that can synthetically emphasize a frequency range (for example microphones for rock or vocal concerts). In this comparison, my mention of the distance of Krall's voice was purely for comparison because she is singing directly into a microphone, so the sound engineer can make her voice as "forward" as he wants. Sometimes, the emphasis on a certain frequency range can depend on the recording. In order to minimize the variables as much as possible, I like to use orchestral music, which is also recording dependent, but I can compare it to live performances with no amplification. A forward midrange doesn't simply mean the midrange sounds louder than another range - maybe that's how it sounds live. I think it's difficult to say something has a forward frequency range on an absolute scale.
Also, I don't think I've said anything about the MM's midrange on an absolute scale. All I've done is compare the MM with the ML. I was saying that the ML has more of a forward midrange compared to the MM. There's a possibility I'm wrong about some things, but what I can say with confidence is that the ML has a more forward midrange compared to the MM.
I don't know if I'm making any sense