|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: How to get the midrange right ? posted by beppe61 on March 27, 2015 at 02:29:23
In my yout', I really didn't fully understand what he meant. The actual context was with respect to amplification, but the concept is essentially the same. Tubes in that era were superior in getting the midrange right, while SS tended to be better at the extremes. How can you not get the "easy* part right I thought?
It took me quite a while to understand but now I get it. For me that means tube amplification and full range electrostats. I will gladly sacrifice the extremes to get the core of music and voice natural sounding.
Follow Ups:
I was once like you were- as a teen, if its got bottom and top, who cares about the mids!?
Of course, as my hearing (okay, PERCEPTION) of music and sound developed, I learned what that really meant (to me)-
If one were to take away the bottom and top end extension in a system, leaving only the midrange area playing, would it still be believable? Would you lack realism due to the missing low and high content?
I have heard systems (both small and large) that can still sound like a violin or sax is still in the room, at some point between the speakers, sounding VERY lifelike, and passing the "in the next room test" (where, as a listener, you are in the next room and SWEAR there is someone in the other room playing or speaking!). I've also heard systems worth as much as my last house that failed miserably at all of the above as well.
Part of this of course is our own perception. Again, the "opinions are like @$$holes- everyone has one" rule applies- What I might find amazing, you might think is crap; so it's all subjective to each and every one of us.
As usual, YMMV (as will everyone else's)...
Cheers, mate!
Dman
Analog Junkie
who cares about the mids!?
It wasn't so much that I didn't care about the midrange. Rather it seemed that was the easy thing to do. I believed that the difficult challenge was extending the range at both ends.
If one were to take away the bottom and top end extension in a system, leaving only the midrange area playing, would it still be believable?
That's an extreme position that I don't think anyone would believe. I find nothing really missing with a speaker that is only flat to 30 hz. Going down another octave would be cool, but unnecessary with most music. If it only went down to 50 hz with linearity, that wouldn't be so terrible either. Similarly, I find that my old Advents sound eminently musical even if they have very little response in the top octave. That last degree of air and sparkle is nice, but not required for a wide range of music.
and passing the "in the next room test"
I think that goes to the level of coherency and consistency of directivity of a system which I do find very important. Which is why I've been a full range electrostatic fan for nearly forty years. The entire sound field is cut from the same cloth.
There is a difference between getting it 'right' and shining a light on it to make it sound compelling because the extremes are muted.
Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting advice.
I have to say that i have more experience of tube amps than electrostats
and i never listened to a very bad tube amp actually.
The sound was always pleasant. And musical.
Then i listened to some Martin Logan but with SS amps.
Very nice also. I see now that i should have listened to them with tubes.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: