I am wondering how the midrange quality of the M50 compares to the M60?
Would there be a huge difference between the two at low to medium listening levels?
Thanks.

If you can wait a few days, I will be able to give a report on that very subject. I bought the M50s about 2 weeks ago and although I like their sound, I believe the midrange is slightly deficient. (perhaps I have just gotten way too comfortable with my Sony APM-55 3-ways). Anyway, I have ordered the M60s (had a good conversation with Joe in the audio department about this) and I plan to compare them and ultimately send back the ones that I dislike. I did a lot of mental flip-floping to begin with over which pair to order - and decided to try the 50s - mostly because they are slightly smaller and weigh about 10lbs less. I am hoping that the 60s will make me really happy. After all, I don't have to many other choices (80s??).

Will keep you posted - so you will have to check back in about 5 -7 days.

Randyman

I hear this term mid-range alot. Can anyboby describe what it sounds like?

The midrange is all the frequencies from 160hz to 1300hz.

I have the M50s in my HT system, but I also listen to music in stereo. I think the mids from the M50s are very full, accurate and pleasant. I can't compare them to the M60s, but they compare favorably to the M3s and I think the mids are much better than those from the M22s.

2x6spds,

Are you listening to them in Large or Small mode? I'm wondering how the M50's would handle music reproduction without a sub. I wouldn't think the midrange wouldn't be as good because the woofers are busy trying to produce bass AND midrange frequencies at the same time.

What is your thoughts on that?

I use the M50s with an Onkyo 797, Velodyne 10" CT100 sub, Merak MC6H center, Merak MT66 rear surrounds, and Mission 77ds back surround speakers, driven by a separate Denon PMA 500V 2 channel amplifier.

In stereo mode, the Onkyo drives only the M50s and the Velodyne sub. I haven't tweaked the cabling of this system, but it sounds great in either stereo or 7 channel (6.1?) mode.

I haven't done a sit down (run up and down the stairs) comparison between the upstairs Onkyo/M50 system and the Antique Sound Labs MG S1 15 DT/M3 stereo system downstairs, but interestingly, I think they're comparable in musicality. The M3s are wonderful - quick, acurate, lush especially driven by a nice tube amp. The M50s have the same qualities but sound, well, bigger. The mids are still sweet, the highs tinkle and the bass is certainly bigger, although since each system has a nice sub, they both make terrific, tight bass. For HT, I think the M50s are superb. It would be hard to imagine speakers that sound much better than the M50s - although they might be improved by some ultra quality satelite tweeters stuck on top.

I know they sound better than the Infinity Composition Overture 3 speakers with 500 watt amplified subs I used to have. Heck, the M3s sound better than the Infinities did.

Ooops. forgot to answer your question. Currently set to Large, but open to suggestions.

2x6spds

This brings a very interesting question that Anonymous refers to. Will the M50's, or any other speaker, have a worst midrange when trying to produce more bass?
I suggest you try your M50's set at small, just to see what happens. The midrange might open if the answer to my question is, yes, midrange will be compromised when trying to play more bass.

let us know! I'd love to find out how this will change your sound

To anonomyous and HOLOGRAM

I guess everybody (including so called experts) has an opinion on where the frequency ranges are for what is described as "mid-range" My understanding is that this term pretty well covers the bulk of the frequency spectrum where the human voice falls (generally 350 - 3500 hz) I understand some will dispute that mids don't go that high, but the human ear is most sensitive to these frequencies (and for good reason - again, its the voice spectrum)

Since our ears are so tuned to these frequencies, many tend to judge a speakers faithfulness at music reproduction based on this (and thus the slant of many British built speakers). No one is the same - and what we listen for is different. So what sounds good to me may not be so good to you. (I prefer a speaker with a more "forward" reproduction of the mids).

So to try to describe what mids sound like is similar to describing a color to someone with no sight. To me, they really don't have a description as much as a feeling or emotional response from within.

Sorry - didn't mean to get so heavy.

Still waiting for my M60s to do my direct comparison.

Well, you were right. Changing the speaker selection for the fronts from large to small substantially improved the sound. I fiddled with the cross over setting on the sub (raised it) and will check the manual for the Onkyo 797 to see if there is a cross over control in the receiver as well. The sound is even more open now. Bigger. Thanks.

Randyman
More info on "midrange" and other audio terms can be found on the STEREOPHILE Audio Glossary website by J. Gordon Holt.
I believe it is important when talking audio we all use the same terms and meanings that have been used by audiophiles for many years. http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?50:0

HOLOGRAM,
Appreciate the site link. Really good info. Had not seen it before. Again, as I stated (and I do not want to start an argument here) different folks have different definitions or opinions about this. The Recording Institute of Detroit has a different take on what frequencies the midranges are - and you can visit their glossery site here: http://recordingeq.com/reflib.html

Personally I am confused as to why frequencies so low would ever be considered "mid-range". When you consider the (so called) normal spectrum of human hearing 20 - 20,000hz, the middle would be 10,000hz. And even if you consider that most prime music frequencies (not harmonics or transients) are created below 10,000 (and we use that number as the top end) then the mids would be at 5,000hz.

To me it doesn't really matter too much what they are called as much as how we percieve them. But a common language (with understood definitions) for communication is beneficial for all and we should strive for that - so I have no problem with using the one from "Stereophile"