[NamelessPFG]

For me, a great midrange presents no veil over the vocals, no texture, and isn't totally stepped on by the bass and treble.
 
At least, that's what my limited experience with a few headphone models has taught me. It became most obvious to me when I got my first Stax SR-Lambda, when there was suddenly this sense of clarity beyond what everyone else had described and it seemed like people were singing out to me, and then when I got an SR-202 setup afterward, where the vocals suddenly took a noticeable back seat and EQing up the midrange revealed this sort of "grain" in the audio that shouldn't have been there.
 
I couldn't rule out the amps due to the bias voltage differences and lack of a dual-bias amp, but it did show me what I really wanted out of a headphone more than anything (alongside general gaming prowess with headphone surround mixes.)
 
I know, it seems shallow to judge the midrange entirely on vocal presentation, but that's the easiest way for me to notice it. I suppose the other way to notice it is to listen if high-pitched or low-pitched notes aren't completely overshadowing everything else, if that's what the source calls for.

 

[davidsh]

Quote:

For me, a great midrange presents no veil over the vocals, no texture, and isn't totally stepped on by the bass and treble.
 
At least, that's what my limited experience with a few headphone models has taught me. It became most obvious to me when I got my first Stax SR-Lambda, when there was suddenly this sense of clarity beyond what everyone else had described and it seemed like people were singing out to me, and then when I got an SR-202 setup afterward, where the vocals suddenly took a noticeable back seat and EQing up the midrange revealed this sort of "grain" in the audio that shouldn't have been there.
 
I couldn't rule out the amps due to the bias voltage differences and lack of a dual-bias amp, but it did show me what I really wanted out of a headphone more than anything (alongside general gaming prowess with headphone surround mixes.)
 
I know, it seems shallow to judge the midrange entirely on vocal presentation, but that's the easiest way for me to notice it. I suppose the other way to notice it is to listen if high-pitched or low-pitched notes aren't completely overshadowing everything else, if that's what the source calls for.

The main part of many instruments frequencies lie in the mid range. Just want to say one thing. There are a difference between good mids and a good mid range to me. Mid range refers to the sound between some 200 and 1500 Hz, and the mids are the representation of the mid range, which in term involves the other frequencies too, relative to the mid range.

 

[Brooko]

Good thread.
 
Interestingly enough, while I'd agree the DT800 has a good mid-range, I wouldn't say it is a great mid-range (can be enhanced by source+amp / tubes).
 
For me, one of the best mid-ranges I've heard has to be the HD600 ..... pure class. 

 

[tdogzthmn]

I've owned most of the headphones mentioned in this tread at one point and the headphone which to me which gets it most right is the K1000 followed by the K240DF.  

 

[NamelessPFG]

Quote:

The main part of many instruments frequencies lie in the mid range. Just want to say one thing. There are a difference between good mids and a good mid range to me. Mid range refers to the sound between some 200 and 1500 Hz, and the mids are the representation of the mid range, which in term involves the other frequencies too, relative to the mid range.

 
Subtle semantics like that always throws me for a loop when it comes to audiophile jargon. I always thought people meant the same thing by the two terms, one being a contraction of the other.
 
Describing sound still isn't an easy thing for me...

 

[planx]

Can't beat planar mids. HE-500 and LCD-2

 

[elwappo99]

Cannot beat a pair of AD2000 from audio technica. Most lush midrange of any headphone i've ever heard. 

 

[davidsh]

Quote:

Can't beat planar mids. HE-500 and LCD-2

 
Agreed  
Personally I don't have the exxperience to say for sure, but with a tube amp, the mids seem spectacular.
Quote:

 
Subtle semantics like that always throws me for a loop when it comes to audiophile jargon. I always thought people meant the same thing by the two terms, one being a contraction of the other.
 
Describing sound still isn't an easy thing for me...

This is also only my opinion, and what seems logical to me. I guess, I forgot to write that.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

@davidsh,
I'm not the OP, I just entered the thread to look for understanding
I'm likely biased towards them since they were my first, decently high-end, pair of headphones. They're just so much better than anything I'd ever used (mostly ~£100 cans). Now I've used them non-stop for 4 (5?) years, apart from sending them on a 6 month repair trip (during which I used HD25's instead). I've never used anything else in the same price range, but my friends own a number of £100-250 headphones and they just don't compare (understandably). I love them, but then, I'm just about to invest in full-size cans of the same price range (for more comfortable home listening), and my opinions might finally have a chance to change . It does look like I'm pretty sold on the AT sound signature, though...

After giving the AT-ESW10 JP another chance, I find I prefer the DT880s to them.
The DT880s just sound fuller and more neutral.............in my opinion.  

 

[vid]

Quote:

Can't beat planar mids. HE-500 and LCD-2

 
Heck, even the ol' KWH HOK 80 that can be bought for like $10 have very enticing mids.

 

[bracko]

A couple of years ago I heard a pair of headphones that really, truly, ephasized midrange. It was a pair of AKG k501, great sounding cans by the way. They were quite bass-light and with somehow recessed and soft treble. If you want to hear some midrange listen to k501

I would really like to buy a pair of k501s but still haven't had an opportunity to find a pair.
 
As someone described, the midrange is where the music is and mid-rangey headphones are often perceived as very musical. Bass and treble is just coloring/seasoing

 

[headphonatic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstark /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
A truly great set of cans (usually $1000+ range) is one that can reproduce each of these ranges with distinction, a "clear" mid-range, "punchy" bass, and "sparkling" treble, without any of the trade off you may see in cheaper cans.

Money doesn't set the standard for sound quality but it does have a say. Many things are taken in to consideration when pricing a headphone, such as design, comfort, ect. which makes up the total cost, still it gives companies an idea. I was going to give you an example, but I'm sure that will result in my "it's my opinion" counterattacks. Back on topic.

 

[zazex]

Smooth, seamless, and true.

 

[jerg]

Good midrange will pop out and bloom. Vocals will be so coherent and real that they immediately induce goosebumps. 
 
Unfortunately I haven't owned / auditioned any particular headphones that do that to any great effect (planars seem to do it better than dynamics, and my guess is stats would do even better). Only ever experienced it with a few speaker setups.
 
The complexity lies in that my concept of good mids pretty much requires that separation and neutrality in the midrange are impeccable, in addition to the basics (smoothness, good decay, good resolution, dynamics).

 

[zazex]

Quote:

Good midrange will pop out and bloom. Vocals will be so coherent and real that they immediately induce goosebumps. 
 
[...]

.
 
Great midrange is a subtle thing.
 
I agree with your description "coherent and real" - but will say that it 'soon' induces goosebumps - IMO & IME it doesn't happen "immediately".