• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Does anyone else prefer a dipped midrange?

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
4,029
Location
Pacific Northwest
Here's the measured impact of 22" diameter tube traps in my room, floor to ceiling height, using 1.5" thick fiberglass. Red before, blue after (obviously). The reason I built tube traps instead of panels was to make them more effective at low frequencies where the room needed it most. Can panels be that effective?
1658695651175.png
 

Multicore

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
1,674
Likes
1,766
Back in the day when I had gear with a loudness switch, I would often use it. Not always. I think that's all the evidence I have relevant to your question.

But I always use a heavy V eq on electric guitar amps and I prefer pickups with that coloration too. That, however, is a highly non-linear system and perhaps I like the mid cut to make space for the fat overdriven bass and sparkly overtones that give me so much joy.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
Here's the measured impact of 22" diameter tube traps in my room, floor to ceiling height, using 1.5" thick fiberglass. Red before, blue after (obviously). The reason I built tube traps instead of panels was to make them more effective at low frequencies where the room needed it most. Can panels be that effective?
View attachment 220277
If it’s mostly the bass problem around 100 Hz you want to tackle, then maybe panels placed over the corners as “corner bass traps” can be even more effective than your tube traps?

You have probably seen this before... You can use this Room Mode Calculator to see where in your room the bass build-up occurs.
https://trikustik.at/raummoden-rechner/
The 3D room in that web based program will show you exactly where the room modes are.

Sorry for the OT stuff. :)
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
4,029
Location
Pacific Northwest
If it’s mostly the bass problem around 100 Hz you want to tackle, then maybe panels placed over the corners as “corner bass traps” can be even more effective than your tube traps?

You have probably seen this before... You can use this Room Mode Calculator to see where in your room the bass build-up occurs.
https://trikustik.at/raummoden-rechner/
The 3D room in that web based program will show you exactly where the room modes are.

Sorry for the OT stuff. :)
The biggest problem was the room's bass suckout from 30 to 90 Hz. The tube traps mostly fixed that. They only took a nibble out of the 100 Hz bump. Later, I added RealTraps MegaTraps in the corners to weaken that 100 Hz bump another few dB. Then I applied a bit of parametric EQ (DSP via Behringer DEQ2496) to flatten it further.

Anyway, the point is that tube traps really work! And you can save thousands of $$ making them yourself, especially in the large sizes needed to be effective. Flipping them with reflective sides toward the walls didn't change anything measurable in that graph, but it did perceptually smooth the midrange and obviate the need for the gentle mid dip that I was using.
 

DVDdoug

Major Contributor
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
2,916
Likes
3,831
A few possibilities...

- A smiley face EQ often sounds "more impressive", especially as a first impression.

- Most speakers have a some high & low rolloff and a mid-dip could make it more flat.

- Most of us listen at less than "realistic" levels so the Equal Loudness Curves make it sound like we've turned-down the bass. (Multicore mentioned the old "loudness" switches, which would automatically turn-up the bass as the volume control is turned-down.) The equal loudness curves also show that you may not hear the high-frequency details when listening at reduced volume.
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,632
Likes
2,751
I think the problem is you (maybe ASR generally?....shots fired, BTW :p) are at risk of making a god out of the source material, when the source material is itself a gross distortion of live sound. If you look at points 1 & 2 from my OP, they are objective facts, not my preference. Microphones are unnaturally placed and receiving signals in a way different from our ears, and studios are 9 times out of 10, much more soundproofed than a home living room, so what sounds right in a studio may not in a typical home. These are just two distortions I can bring to mind, likely there are others.

TL;DR If a Stradivarius or Guaneri sounded the way it is reproduced by anechoically flat speakers, then you'd have people running from the concert hall. This may be no fault of the speakers themselves, but...(and also in response to this post by abdo123)

we have to deal with things as they are, not as they would be in a perfect world.
Thing is, sometimes the live sound is terrible and I'd rather have a good recorded reproduction.

Venom in record is, in record terms, terrible; but live is far worse! I love what they play, but in terms of recording quality, well, a monkey with a microphone jumping around the studio will do. Better job.

That is also true for other records I absolutely love like Mayhem's Deathcrush, Hellhammer's Apocaliptic Raids or Sarcófago's Laws of Scourge.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
Back in the day when I had gear with a loudness switch, I would often use it. Not always. I think that's all the evidence I have relevant to your question.

But I always use a heavy V eq on electric guitar amps and I prefer pickups with that coloration too. That, however, is a highly non-linear system and perhaps I like the mid cut to make space for the fat overdriven bass and sparkly overtones that give me so much joy.
Definitely, but that would be captured in any recording and you wouldn't want speakers doubling up the effect with their own V curve.
 

ZolaIII

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,069
Likes
2,409
A few possibilities...

- A smiley face EQ often sounds "more impressive", especially as a first impression.

- Most speakers have a some high & low rolloff and a mid-dip could make it more flat.

- Most of us listen at less than "realistic" levels so the Equal Loudness Curves make it sound like we've turned-down the bass. (Multicore mentioned the old "loudness" switches, which would automatically turn-up the bass as the volume control is turned-down.) The equal loudness curves also show that you may not hear the high-frequency details when listening at reduced volume.
FR060004-TONE.gif
Old bass/treble equal loudness normalization can be manually used to fix such problems. Old NS10M will sound fantastic at 86~87 dB LPS (as mesured @ 1W into 8 Ohm's) with bass +2 and treble - 4 for example. It's important to understand the cross point at 750 Hz.
 

beagleman

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
1,156
Likes
1,576
Location
Pittsburgh Pa
It is definitely a "thinner" body of the voice. I think that is making it clearer. But unnatural sounding and tiresome in the long run, IMO. This goes also for female voices I've listened to. Why? I don't know really, other than I've stumbling on the 1-5 kHz region for more than 20 years of DIY speaker building. I have reached a good balance now.
Exactly!
My now gone speakers had a dip in that area and at "first" sounded less forward when compared to a pair that were mostly flat in that area.

Long term, the dipped ones sounded FAR better and more realistic. The more flat ones got tiring over time.
I used Suzanne Vega to compare. Fairly sparse sounding stuff, and the dipped speakers at first were a bit boring and not like she was "Right there" sounding. But at first listen the more flat ones were "Impressive" and she sounded almost real.

Over a half hour or even less it reversed as far as what sounded "listenable" and realistic.
 

terryforsythe

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 4, 2022
Messages
395
Likes
335
Long term, the dipped ones sounded FAR better and more realistic.
I think this is very subjective, and will vary from recording to recording, a lot depending on the taste of the person(s) who is did the mixing/mastering of the recording, the acoustics of the room, and the equipment.

I have a miniDSP SHD with DiracLive, and I have played with equalizing my setup quite a bit. E.Q. settings that sound good to me on one recording sometimes do not sound good on other recordings. After much time spent measuring, listening and tweaking my settings, I have settled on two primary settings that I can jump between with the push of a button on the remote: one is flat as measured at the listening position and one follows the Harmon curve. The Harmon curve does not just knock down the midrange, but instead has a gentle downward slope from the bass region to the treble region.

I have found that on some recordings I prefer a flat response at the listening position, and voices sound the most natural TO ME with my setup in my room. On other recordings (probably more recordings) the flat setting sounds overly bright and unnatural. For those recordings the Harmon curve sounds better to me. Still, I found other recordings don't sound their best with either one of those settings, but I didn't bother saving E.Q. settings for individual recordings.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,421
Likes
2,406
Location
Sweden
I think this is very subjective, and will vary from recording to recording, a lot depending on the taste of the person(s) who is did the mixing/mastering of the recording, the acoustics of the room, and the equipment.

I have a miniDSP SHD with DiracLive, and I have played with equalizing my setup quite a bit. E.Q. settings that sound good to me on one recording sometimes do not sound good on other recordings. After much time spent measuring, listening and tweaking my settings, I have settled on two primary settings that I can jump between with the push of a button on the remote: one is flat as measured at the listening position and one follows the Harmon curve. The Harmon curve does not just knock down the midrange, but has a gentle downward slope from the bass region to the treble region.

I have found that on some recordings I prefer a flat response at the listening position, and voices sound the most natural TO ME with my setup in my room. On other recordings (probably more recordings) the flat setting sounds overly bright and unnatural. For those recordings the Harmon curve sounds better to me. Still, I found other recordings don't sound their best with either one of those settings, but I didn't bother saving E.Q. settings for individual recordings.
It is subjective, but also one need to know what the EQ is used for. I do not adjust anything relating to the "Harman in-room curve", since this is not the purpose of that curve. I only adjust for room problems below 250 Hz.

The 1-5 kHz "compensations" due to stereo triangle and comb filtering is a different issue and not very much studied with respect to preference.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
I think this is very subjective, and will vary from recording to recording, a lot depending on the taste of the person(s) who is did the mixing/mastering of the recording, the acoustics of the room, and the equipment.

I have a miniDSP SHD with DiracLive, and I have played with equalizing my setup quite a bit. E.Q. settings that sound good to me on one recording sometimes do not sound good on other recordings. After much time spent measuring, listening and tweaking my settings, I have settled on two primary settings that I can jump between with the push of a button on the remote: one is flat as measured at the listening position and one follows the Harmon curve. The Harmon curve does not just knock down the midrange, but instead has a gentle downward slope from the bass region to the treble region.

I have found that on some recordings I prefer a flat response at the listening position, and voices sound the most natural TO ME with my setup in my room. On other recordings (probably more recordings) the flat setting sounds overly bright and unnatural. For those recordings the Harmon curve sounds better to me. Still, I found other recordings don't sound their best with either one of those settings, but I didn't bother saving E.Q. settings for individual recordings.

Have you done any measurements with a short window above 500 Hz to make sure how your speakers direct sound performs above that point?

According to the “experts”, you should aim for a flat direct sound for your speakers from around 500 Hz and up (no matter how that looks like in a normal room curve measurement), because the direct sound will be the dominating thing you actually will hear at the listening position.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
According to the “experts”, you should aim for a flat direct sound for your speakers from around 500 Hz and up (no matter how that looks like in a normal room curve measurement), because the direct sound will be the dominating thing you actually will hear at the listening position.
An in-room measurement of a monopolar speaker should not be a straight line. Unless you meant anechoic.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Can anyone proffer other suggestions as to why one may preferred a dipped midrange, that is not related to personal preference.

Does anybody else want to fess up to feeling similarly, that they prefer a bit of a dip, anyone feeling brave...?

Absolutely with older classical recordings. A bunch or 1980s pop recordings are all midrangey and squawky. That's why a decent midrange or 'presence' control is really useful.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Again, Toole says there is a flaw with stereo. A ”flat”speaker preferred in mono will sound different in stereo. The solution according to Toole is to go multichannel. For stereo you are left with uncertanties in the 1-5 kHz region. There is nothing in Tooles book that contradicts this fact.

Who listens in mono? I mean seriously. Nobody. That's the 'flaw' with that logic.
 

sigbergaudio

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
2,639
Likes
5,397
Location
Norway
Have you done any measurements with a short window above 500 Hz to make sure how your speakers direct sound performs above that point?

According to the “experts”, you should aim for a flat direct sound for your speakers from around 500 Hz and up (no matter how that looks like in a normal room curve measurement), because the direct sound will be the dominating thing you actually will hear at the listening position.

Reference?
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,839
Likes
5,766
, because the direct sound will be the dominating thing you actually will hear at the listening position.
That depends on the distance,look at the charts in Genelec,etc,over the recommended near/mid field it's the reflections that dominate.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
An in-room measurement of a monopolar speaker should not be a straight line. Unless you meant anechoic.

I mean anechoic measurements of the direct sound, or measurements done outside far from walls, or measurements inside a room far from walls with a very short measurement window to minimize the reflections from the room.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
That depends on the distance,look at the charts in Genelec,etc,over the recommended near/mid field it's the reflections that dominate.

I’m talking about a normal listening distance that suits the speakers of choice.

With that kind of distance, the direct sound will be the dominating thing you will hear over about 500 Hz. What the measuring microphone picks up from 500 Hz and up is not representative of what we hear at the same distance, what dominates is the direct sound, and we should just be adjusting the deviations of the response curve of the speakers themselves.

So... How the midrange seems to be, looking at a regular “house curve” measurement doesn't have to be representative of how we hear it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom