1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 1169840006

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 tvad

tvad
9,467 posts
 
I can't grasp the concept of sacrificing transparency for accuracy. Since transparency is defined as a lack of coloration, it is then also closer to accuracy than a colored, less transparent component. One begets the other.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
Transparency is not the same as detail according to audio glossaries. A transparent component will neither add nor subtract from the signal. It will be transparent. What you describe is the antithesis of transparency. It is coloration with a goal of heightened detail.

All I'm suggesting is that everyone use the proper definition of these terms when discussing them in order to have a beneficial exchange.

I will say that the professional definitions are also somewhat confusing in that Stereophile's definition of transparency is different that Robert Harley's definition of transparency in his book. Both definitions seem to suggest the same thing, but Harley is more adamant about freedom of coloration, while Stereophile's definition of transparency leaves open the door to coloration as an ingredient in the overall illusion of transparency.

Hell, if the pros can't agree, then how are we supposed to?
tvad
9,467 posts
 
I don't believe it's possible for the average audiophile to distinguish between true transparency and apparent transparency in an unfamiliar system. I believe it'd take me, an average audiophile, many many months of listening and comparing components in my own system to even begin to determine what components have actual transparency and those that have the illusion of transparency. Even then, I don't know if I could truly tell the difference.

For years, one of the primary goals of the audiophile system is transparent playback of the source. So, it doesn't surprise me that this is a quality often highlighted in reviews.

However, I happen to believe that more listeners would be happier with less transparent and more colored playback systems if they were given the opportunity to hear a colored system and a transparent system in the same listening session.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
Kumbaya.
More to discover