After testing a few different speakers, I have come to the conclusion that I don't like a completely flat midrange, I find it to sound unnatural and somewhat boosted to my ears. I am trying to compile a list of reasons why this might be, that aren't related to personal preference, here are some I have come up with:
1. A lot of, particularly older, classical music is recorded with a midrange boost, because of microphone placement (according to Linkwitz), so a flat speaker sounds boosted
2. Listening in an untreated room. Perhaps recordings mastered in a heavily treated studio will sound boosted in the mids when transferred to a typical, untreated room?
3. Listening in the nearfield. It just seems much more relaxing/natural to have a dip when the speakers are within 1m of you. The same dip was appreciated at distances of 3m or more, but a somewhat shallower dip may be preferred at these distances.
4. This one is a bit of speculation - perhaps the monitors used in many studios are, more often then not, not completely flat themselves, so too much midrange is present on the recording, leading to an overemphasis of mid frequencies when reproduced on a flat loudspeaker
I am struggling to wrap my head round why a dipped speaker would sound better, when Toole says that a flat speaker is preferred. I understand that people will say this is purely a case of personal preference, and maybe so, but ultimately my reference is the naturality of sounds. Typically as pertains to a violin, cello, piano and so on and it is here where a dipped mid seems to better emulate the sound of these instruments. I especially have difficulty listening to a completely flat midrange as the volume increases, it just seems too prominent, taking on a telephone like quality.
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...?
1. A lot of, particularly older, classical music is recorded with a midrange boost, because of microphone placement (according to Linkwitz), so a flat speaker sounds boosted
2. Listening in an untreated room. Perhaps recordings mastered in a heavily treated studio will sound boosted in the mids when transferred to a typical, untreated room?
3. Listening in the nearfield. It just seems much more relaxing/natural to have a dip when the speakers are within 1m of you. The same dip was appreciated at distances of 3m or more, but a somewhat shallower dip may be preferred at these distances.
4. This one is a bit of speculation - perhaps the monitors used in many studios are, more often then not, not completely flat themselves, so too much midrange is present on the recording, leading to an overemphasis of mid frequencies when reproduced on a flat loudspeaker
I am struggling to wrap my head round why a dipped speaker would sound better, when Toole says that a flat speaker is preferred. I understand that people will say this is purely a case of personal preference, and maybe so, but ultimately my reference is the naturality of sounds. Typically as pertains to a violin, cello, piano and so on and it is here where a dipped mid seems to better emulate the sound of these instruments. I especially have difficulty listening to a completely flat midrange as the volume increases, it just seems too prominent, taking on a telephone like quality.
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...?