The Best Midrange in the World Right Now



There seem to be a growing number of posts which lament the fact that hi fi has gotten too hi fi, too neurotic, and just doesn't sound good.

As I thought about this, I realized that many of the most enduring, classic audio products (Quads? LS35a's? ARC tube amps & preamps? Apogees?) were noted not for their "transparency", thunderous bass, "resolution" or high frequency "extension".

No, what seems to have stood the test of time was old fashioned, middle of the road MIDrange. Is midrange the best benchmark for our hobby?

In many threads, a mention of midrange seems almost quaint and/or apologetic:

" the classic ________ doesn't have the "resolution" of many of today's products in the $150 to $200,000 category, but it still boasts MIDrange which will put all of them to shame!.."

I find this very curious, as to me, there is no high end without glorious, gorgeous, natural, startlingly lifelike MIDrange.

Please, support midrange.

And tell us: what components or combination of components can still deliver good old fashioned midrange today?
cwlondon

Showing 4 responses by newbee

Well, IMHO, you need a 'musical' midrange in any system just to get your interest. Beyond that equal demands on other frequency ranges might well depend on the type of music you enjoy most. If you like voices dir-range is everything. Those little LS3/5A are (potentially) a musical wonder. If you listen to flutes and recorders you must also have great, natural, upper-midrange and highs. If you like solo piano music from a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand you want great, natural, bass as well as mids and highs. Unfortunately most audio equipment is designed and built to satisfy the needs of audiophiles who are more driven by the abilities of a system to produce a sense of infinite resolution/detail/stereo imaging and impact, all of which have little to do with live music in a natural acoustic.

Personally I'm a piano guy - I want a system that replicates the sound and power of that Bosendorfer as I would hear it in concert. I'll never get it 'cause it can't be made yet, but the closer I can make it sound like one, the more likely I'm to buy the product. Great musical mid-range without equally good bass is for me like having a good looking woman with no bottem end! :-)
Tvad,

Perhaps, but I think you will find there is a difference in the audio experience for folks who are trying to replicate what (they believe) is in the pits and grooves, which is really the only true goal for an 'audiophile', and those folks who want to replicate the sound of live music, as they have experienced it, as best they can in their room. They know it can't be done for a lot of reasons but at least they have a real reference.

Now if your goal is to replicate the sound in the pits and grooves how will you ever know when you have succeeded? Were you at the studio? Do you know what equipment was used? Do you know what the recording engineer did at the mixing board. It seems to me that while this may be a worthwhile hobby its sort of like chasing a very elusive goal. Some of the things that equipment designers do to impress you with the speed of their products involves things such as the rise and decay times.

Great speed, great 'detail', impact, more apparent transparency. Great 'sounding' devises. But, IMHO, what is sacraficed in that type of design is selecting the rise and decay times that are not consonant with the rise and decay times of live music in real space. I think for those folks like Dodgealum (and myself) giving up a bit of what is called detail or transparency in exchange for sound which reminds us of what we hear live is no sacrafice whatso ever!

Personally, I think the pursuit of 'accuracy' and 'transparency' is a pursuit which audio manufacturers eagerly indorse and encourage, especially to those who have no frame of reference from which to judge.

FWIW.
Tvad, I do NOT disagree with your distinguishing between the terms and suggesting that they be properly used.

What I'm talking about is the ability of most average audiophile folks to easily distinguish the difference between true transparency and the sense transparency brought by 'apparent' additional detail (I'm not talking about obvious frequency bending) created by manipulating things such as the rise and fall times in the signal. They can hear more, ergo it must be more transparent.

Think of all of those great reviewers who impress us by saying how impressed they were by component x - they were hearing things from well known recordings (to them) that they had never heard before. Think of the fate of folks who run out and buy these components based on those types of comments. I do and I empathize.

While I agree that using the 'right words' is essential for effective communication, I would be more enthusiastic if these 'words' were used less and the things that constituted these summary descriptions were used far more.

But perhaps I hope for too much in a commercially driven hobby.
Tvad, One of the side benefits of being happy with a 'colored system' is you have a goal which when found allows you to relax and listen to music. Now the search for transparency is, seemingly at least, an endless quest. :-)

We agree.