[imackler]

So I've heard a lot of people describe the mids on the triple.fi 10 as recessed.

Does recessed refer to location, like compared to the UM3X, where the mids are "up front"/in your face? And does this same recessed equate to muffled/muted? I was listening to Muse on the triple.fi and his voice sounded so much less clear/articulate/"there" than with my previous Sennheiser IE7s...(although the triple.fis do lots of things better than ie7s.)

And, again neophyte question: Mids are often presented in vocals right?

It is funny how hard it is to find everything you like in one pair of iems...

 

[iponderous]

When I think of a term like "recessed mids", I regard it as a comparative description of the presence or amount of midrange frequencies in relation to high and low frequencies. So in the case of the TF10, you could say that its mids are recessed when compared to its highs and lows, which are more prominent in the overall mix. "Forward mids" is often used by some people to describe the presence of mids in the overall mix, and again I tend to think that its referring to the prominence or amount, although it is also suggestive of location as in "up front".

I wouldn't liken recessed to muddy though. IEMs with "forward mids" can sound muddy too. Muddy refers to a lack of clarity in the sound signature. There may be others here who disagree with my interpretation but that's how I approach it.

 

[Dobber65]

iponderous gave a good explanation. Recessed mids usually means volume relative to bass and treble (think of the letter "U" where the bass is on the left, mids in the middle, and treble on the right, with the mids lower than the bass and/or treble). Muddy mids reflects clarity and definition regardless of volume. You may have a pronounced midrange that is muddy due to any number of factors, or a clear midrange that is recessed relative to the bass or treble.

And yes, vocals usually appear in the midrange of the spectrum for the majority of singers and speakers. This is one of the reasons why our digital phone systems were designed for clarity around the 4 KHz region, although they extended to 7-8 KHz on the high-end. New telephony HD voice codecs are designed to represent the entire sound spectrum more naturally so HD calls won't sound like traditional mobile or home calls.

 

[tstarn06]

Yes, very good explanation. Odd, but no matter how much I listen to the TF10s (stock, but customs coming tomorrow), I never hear muddy. In fact, I hear clear, crisp. I keep trying to compare them with other IEMs I have on hand (RE252, S4, CKS70, etc.) and they never sound muddy.

Is it possible the TF10s actually deliver a more accurate representation of the recording in question than the IE7 (just speculating here, so no reason for a flame war)? I just see these posts about the TF10 being muddy and I don't get it. Just as an FYI, I use the large Sony hybrids with the TF10s.

 

[jaibautista]

Wow. This is the first time I've read such clear-cut explanations comparing forward/recessed frequencies.

Given the replies of iponderous and Dobber65, I can now well say that, indeed, the mids in TF10s are somewhat recessed relative to the other frequencies. This is more notable when listening to live recordings, when I can clearly hear that the vocals are just behind the instruments; when the bass guitar's rolling and the drums banging, the singer seems to be behind these instruments. Nevertheless, what I like about the TF10s is that despite the mids being somewhat recessed, it still retains its clarity; that is, you can still clearly distinguish it from the sound mix.

Many head-fi'ers have lamented such presentation from TF10s. But for me personally, I like it since the vocals are not very near your ears (as far as soundstaging is concerned) and it makes you focus more on the overall sound presentation. I don't know with others, but for me it works.

 

[jaibautista]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, very good explanation. Odd, but no matter how much I listen to the TF10s (stock, but customs coming tomorrow), I never hear muddy. In fact, I hear clear, crisp. I keep trying to compare them with other IEMs I have on hand (RE252, S4, CKS70, etc.) and they never sound muddy. Is it possible the TF10s actually deliver a more accurate representation of the recording in question than the IE7 (just speculating here, so no reason for a flame war)? I just see these posts about the TF10 being muddy and I don't get it. Just as an FYI, I use the large Sony hybrids with the TF10s.

I'd just like to second tstarn06's claim. I hope I will not sound as if I'm a TF10 fanboy (but I'm cool with it, should someone decide to stick that designation on my head

), but TF10s are anything but muddy. Although I surrender that the mids are recessed, it's very clear. I mean, you could instantly pick the mids out of the sound mix.

 

[iponderous]

^ And I third it. What struck me about the TF10 when I first listened to it was its clarity and balanced presentation across the frequency range. Muddy is just not a word that I would associate with it. I'm prepared to concede that the mids are slightly recessed but compared to the other IEMs that I own or have owned, this is the most balanced sounding thus far.

 

[jaw2ek]

In the end, its about balance. Its when I a/b my TF10 with RE0 that I notice how forward the treble and bass are. I know that this is a glass half-full argument, but I do see the bass and treble as being forward, rather than the mids being recessed. And yet its also that a/b-ing that shows how much clearer the RE0 are. I think what people call "clarity" on the TF10 is their very musical presentation, which is why so many others don't like them. I like TF10, although comfort issues are starting to get to me. Thinking about getting the customs done, but I'm broke right now.

 

[imackler]

You guys are all awesome and thanks for the response.

What a couple of you described really hits the nail on the head on what I was hearing. You're right, it wasn't muddy...it was recessed. Like you've all said, there really isn't a lack of clarity, but there is a lack of volume. Dobber65 said, "Recessed mids usually means volume relative to bass and treble...Muddy mids reflects clarity and definition regardless of volume. " These mids I'm trying to decribe are recessed, not muddy. (So do equalizers basically increase the volume on a certain frequencies?)

I'm definitely not bagging on the Triple.fi! Perhaps there are so many people describing them as muddy, because they're are a lot of us first time triple-drivers (because of the recent sales) who don't really know how to use the terminology. (Obviously, including me!) I've definitely never heard such differences in frequency before. Previous to the triple.fis there had been one continuum with extremes, most often toward treble or bass. Now there are clearly three ranges... In a sense, what I may be hearing is more clarity than before, so much so that I notice the mids. And I like it.

 

[Dobber65]

imackler, yes adjusting equalizer settings affects specific frequencies up or down, so adding a bit of mid-range boost to the correct frequencies (or alternately lowering the bass and treble) would bring the mids into focus a bit more relative to volume.

I should note that I am a huge fan of the TFPs, but notice, especially when coming back to them after listening to Shures or Etys, that the mids are recessed in relation to these other IEMs. The mids on the UEs are not muddy, just lower volume, but may hide details inherent in the music.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I notice it after using my Turbines and IE8s also. The UEs still excel at treble detail and good bass, and remain a top-tier IEM. I don't use equalization or an amp currently, so I don't know how these could affect their sound, but other posts are very favorable to amping them.

 

[iponderous]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaw2ek /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the end, its about balance. Its when I a/b my TF10 with RE0 that I notice how forward the treble and bass are. I know that this is a glass half-full argument, but I do see the bass and treble as being forward, rather than the mids being recessed. And yet its also that a/b-ing that shows how much clearer the RE0 are. I think what people call "clarity" on the TF10 is their very musical presentation, which is why so many others don't like them. I like TF10, although comfort issues are starting to get to me. Thinking about getting the customs done, but I'm broke right now.

The REO sounds like a fantastic phone for its price. I may have to invest in one of those.

 

[iponderous]

Deleted due to double post.

 

[rawrster]

interesting..i should compare my TF10 with my RE0 one of these days...

 

[tstarn06]

I just compared mine with the RE-252s I have here, and while the 252s (similar to the RE0 from what I have read), there is something going on with the TF10s that my ears favor over the neutral, laid back sound of the 252s. I don't use an amp, but while the 252s are more detailed perhaps, they are also, to me, much less immersive as a listening experience. I think jaw2ek has a point, but I would not give up the TF10s for the 252s (or probably the RE0 either).

 

[HONEYBOY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ And I third it. What struck me about the TF10 when I first listened to it was its clarity and balanced presentation across the frequency range. Muddy is just not a word that I would associate with it. I'm prepared to concede that the mids are slightly recessed but compared to the other IEMs that I own or have owned, this is the most balanced sounding thus far.

I agree, I think sometimes not having the right vocabulary to describe accurately what we're hearing has something to do with it.