[KamijoIsMyHero]

then if my goal is to have the most accurate music reproduction with a focus on accurate vocals, am I a midrangehead or a neutral lover?

 

[Argyris]

Quote:

then if my goal is to have the most accurate music reproduction with a focus on accurate vocals, am I a midrangehead or a neutral lover?

 
That depends on whether or not you like neutral headphone midrange. If you do, you can be both a midrangehead (in that it's the part of the sound you enjoy the most) and a neutrality lover. In my case, I happen to love neutral headphone midrange for precisely the reason some people dislike it: transparency and lack of coloration. Some people find that boring and like some extra body (lower midrange emphasis) and/or some extra presence (upper midrange emphasis). Different strokes. In the end all that matters is that it sounds good to you, regardless of what classification you fall under.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

well I never understood why people would want coloration if the artist never intended for their music to sound a way other than the way they recorded it, except maybe for bassheads, at least when you have bloated bass you feel right at home when hearing the same songs in clubs with crap speakers

 

[willard]

i've gotten to the point in audio equipment evaluation where i listen most critically to the voice to determine accuracy. i don't know exactly how that high frequency tinkling bell sounds in real life, nor how that deep booming drum actually sounds. the speaker or headphone just might be reproducing it accurately, or not. but i'm certain of what a human voice sounds like. there's no excessive sibilance, for example, in a normal speaking or singing voice. i know mics and mastering makes a difference. who knows what's gone on there. but in general, the more it sounds like a real human voice, the better i like the sound. i do also listen for some flat response at each end of the frequency spectrum, and delight in superior reproduction at these ends. but it's the reality of the voices that i enjoy best.
 

 

[FlatNine]

As a lover of classic jazz and bebop, mid forward is what I want to hear. For jazz, some of the gear that I have that really is well suited for pleasureable listening is: Senn HD650 with TTVJ Slim, Klipsch X10i's with Cowon C2 using the default jazz EQ preset. It is amazing how good that second combo sounds, especially given the price. The Cowon and the X10's combined are less than $500, at least when I got them. They give my bigger rig (the 650's, the Slim, through a 64GB Touch) a real run for the money. Not to mention that the bigger rig cost well over a thousand bucks. I did borrow my friends SE535's recently, and I'll have a set real soon, for Shure. (lame pun intended)

 

[obobskivich]

well I never understood why people would want coloration if the artist never intended for their music to sound a way other than the way they recorded it, except maybe for bassheads, at least when you have bloated bass you feel right at home when hearing the same songs in clubs with crap speakers

I have two issues with this, first is that the "as the artist intended" is a plug-line from the Beats advertising campaign (and quite honestly I don't care what the artist intended, because they're producing art - which is meant to be consumed and interpreted by the viewer, not dictated by the artist), and second is that the "artist" isn't the only person involved in the creative and technical production of a piece of music. The end-result is many people's work.

Oh, and not all PA is bad sound.

i've gotten to the point in audio equipment evaluation where i listen most critically to the voice to determine accuracy. i don't know exactly how that high frequency tinkling bell sounds in real life, nor how that deep booming drum actually sounds. the speaker or headphone just might be reproducing it accurately, or not. but i'm certain of what a human voice sounds like. there's no excessive sibilance, for example, in a normal speaking or singing voice. i know mics and mastering makes a difference. who knows what's gone on there. but in general, the more it sounds like a real human voice, the better i like the sound. i do also listen for some flat response at each end of the frequency spectrum, and delight in superior reproduction at these ends. but it's the reality of the voices that i enjoy best.

 

+1.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Quote:

I have two issues with this, first is that the "as the artist intended" is a plug-line from the Beats advertising campaign (and quite honestly I don't care what the artist intended, because they're producing art - which is meant to be consumed and interpreted by the viewer, not dictated by the artist), and second is that the "artist" isn't the only person involved in the creative and technical production of a piece of music. The end-result is many people's work.

Oh, and not all PA is bad sound.

+1.

I already know this, I am the type to actually check out the engineer and mixer from the cd booklets and see who else they have worked with, once the connections start to come into place, you get a collection of artists that you know or at least expect work that will be just as good

 

[ProTofik]

I guess I belong to this club.

-Phonak PFE with gray filters
-Sennheiser HD600

 

[Overkill Red]

Definitely the FitEar TG!334 for midrange-forward.
I'm definitely a member of this club.
 
You know what they say about women with forward midranges 

 

[eyal1983]

Yeah... we all love our woman's midrange
 
FitEar TG!334 Added.

 

[FlatNine]

Quote:

I have two issues with this, first is that the "as the artist intended" is a plug-line from the Beats advertising campaign (and quite honestly I don't care what the artist intended, because they're producing art - which is meant to be consumed and interpreted by the viewer, not dictated by the artist), and second is that the "artist" isn't the only person involved in the creative and technical production of a piece of music. The end-result is many people's work.

Oh, and not all PA is bad sound.

+1.

 
Totally agree! Two people can go to the same club to see a live performance, and because they sit in different places, can hear things completely differently. Same thing for how recording engineers place mic's. That's why I just love (NOT!) when someone refuses to use EQ on a DAP so that they can "hear the music without color, the way it was intended". That is such an ignorant statement. 10 DAP's with EQ "Off" are going to color the sound 10 different ways. Every piece in the sonic chain, from mic's to board, to headphones all color the sound in one way or another.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Solution: don't use a dap

 

[FlatNine]

Quote:

Solution: don't use a dap

 
Even high end equipment (non-portable) alters the sound in one way or another. If that wasn't true, every brand in the world with EQ set to flat would sound exactly the same.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Depends if you are in the subjective camp, I don't care much for high end stuff offering different sounds, I prefer accuracy up to the limits of human audibility

 

[FlatNine]

Quote:

Depends if you are in the subjective camp, I don't care much for high end stuff offering different sounds, I prefer accuracy up to the limits of human audibility

 
 
My contention is that "accuracy" is a subjective term. Playing the same lossless music file on two completely different setups is going to sound different, even if the EQ is flat. Which one is accurate? Unless someone is present at the recording and/or mixing sessions, they'd have no way to know how something is supposed to sound. The only way to have those tracks sound *exactly* like they did when the final mix was being judged in the control room is to have the exact same equipment as the studio. Even then, it could be different. I've heard an audible change from an amplifier when output capacitors were changed.
 
My point is simply that the common idea of accurate doesn't really exist, and that every piece of equipment changes the sound one way or another, regardless of EQ settings.