Terry before you get too upset all I was doing was disagreeing with Raul. Understand that one man's passion is another man's poison. I just happen to own those amps so for "my" ears and my pleasure this is the flavor that I prefer. And to Raul to talk about "growing up" ..............
Please, I was NOT upset. However, I was mortified if it were true that I cam across as sermonising, absolutely not my intent at all.
And, if I do come across that way it is MY error in communication, no error on your part to point it out.
And I can see that I managed to get under PP's skin a little too, sorry about that.
It is only audio, and what interests me most atm is the human side, how and why we react the way we do.
Maybe these last few posts are some sort of indication about that??
So, to be completely clear, I was apologising to you all if I came over the wrong way and take it as completely my fault.
I'd define the midrange as somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 10k cycles,
Thanks for that, and I would have thought a rather good illustration of my point, simply because I would not have thought others would have named the same range as being the midrange???? I'll admit this was far outside any boundaries I would thought be mentioned.
As I tried to make clear, my comments were of a general nature, one that encompassed the 'fact' that for starters, we are not usually all talking about the same thing, one persons idea of 'music lies in the midrange' can be very different from the next, hence we are not on the same page at all.
yet, there IS this undefined floating sentiment of 'the midrange is where it is at'.
And, as such, as 'useless' a term or concept as synergy, or prat. If only because we are all talking about different things.
that's all.
again, sorry if it came over the wrong way.
A) My midrange comment was a response to a post that said the extremes of the frequency range were more important than the midrange. I strenuously disagree.
was that what was said? If it was, then I'd agree with you too.
B) While I really don't want to give up anything up to about 15k (the current extent of my hearing) or even 20k (the historical extent of my hearing; hope springs eternal) I will and have gladly sacrificed flat response below 60 cycles for a system that fits my room and life and gives me really good reproduction from that point up. And in most music I'm missing very little.
60 would be a tad bit high for me personally, but I think I get your drift. 35 might be my lowest limit. We can all agree that what fit's our room and waf can have a big bearing on what we can do!!
Still is it true that 'all' you are saying is that 'I want the best reproduction I can get' within my limitations of room and waf etc??
I doubt anyone would disagree with you.
C) The midrange IS where the music is, or at least the lion's share of it.
Well, if you are going to define midrange as 60-10,000 then again, who is going to disagree??
And "the music is in the midrange," being a statement that, while not absolute and not given as such, is based in reality, which means it deserves no connection to PRaT. That was slander on the good reputation of the midrange.
Haha, I know we agree on thoise terms
.
Maybe you missed the point in my post that started all this about the midrange? (something like) 'not that I disagree'. And I DO get it, and agree.
But surely there is merit at times in examining those unexamined things? How else do audio myths get started and flourish.
I see this as merely a different flavour of the usual audiophile things 'valves are better than ss', analog is better than digital' (reverse them all too of course) etc etc. Often at the bottom of them is some unexamined assumption, that's all.
Yet I also wanted to stress just how much the midrange (or treble, or bass) is simply part of the perceived spectrum, it almost has no meaning when taken out of context. And that these things are very dependent on the overall frequency balance.
As bass is the hardest, most expensive or complicated to get right, it is usually the case that that is the part most often missing from a system, and as such is most useful to illustrate how the perception of midrange itself is affected by
changes in the bass.
Last but not least, your turn terry: What on earth does "all frequencies in sync" mean? How did they get out of sync? Poor dears. They must have lost their way...
Tim
maybe poor choice of words?? at the time all I meant was (for example) extreme peaks and dips in the bass induced by the room, and which are normally there in any system. Physics and all that jazz.
But here is the funny thing about bass, correct that and the effects are not limited to the bass region (fr wise), they do extend across the boards. It can be very weird to experience!
But seeing as how you took it up then yes, I can extend that to timing. As you will no doubt be aware, one of the things easily corrected in an active system or with dsp, preferably both! And something that can only be crudely addressed with a passive system, reduced to slanted baffles etc.
As much as i have been 'harping' on frequency, to me the thing that sets systems apart is the timing, not merely time aligning drivers etc, but having all the frequencies arrive in time. Add to that arriving at the proper level, now we are talking.
Taking all that into consideration, and that we are talking about different things usually, what does it mean then when we say 'the magic resides in the midrange"?
