Midrange density is another extremely subjective property, that ranges in indefiniteness with natural. Using the word natural to define it only increases the circle of confusion.
I have seen these words associated with the body of the midrange zone, also some people also use it to refer to a rich midrange. Most times we get the idea of the midrange density just from the bass or treble balance - IMHO it is why the the words can be easily misleading.
Sometimes these words can have a very useful meaning when associated to adjectives in a particular sentence, but IMHO they are not good sound descriptors.
You make some good points, Francisco. My main concern in my post though was to emphasize that both parties can have a point here, that a rich midrange with body and warmth both can be more convincing and can be a coloration, depending on the circumstances.
I agree, toning down the treble often gives you a subjectively richer midrange with more body (and even subjectively more prominent mid-bass), so it is all relative.
