People complain about lack of bass, not enough mid range. Solution?

Increasing the mid bass is going to detract from the "clarity" of the recording - all other things being equal. I had a recording studio for 10 years and I think any recording engineer would tell you that managing the mid bass in a recording is critical. If you have an equalizer just try bumping up the EQ from about 200 hz to about 600 hz and you will hear muddiness.

The point here is that when you change the frequency response of your system it's not unusual to hear unintended consequences.

OP People complain about lack of bass, not enough mid range. Solution?

You mean the sound of the original music. We don’t want any more bass or mid than the original sound. It won’t be a nice sound.

What we want is the recreation of the original sound. The orig has enough bass and mid. The orig sounds always beat the reproduced sound which is the processed original sound.

All equipment and cables degrade the sound. Therefore, the source is important which is a start of signal chain. If the source didn’t get the orig signal right, rest don’t have any chance.

I know all expensive and cheap CDP, DAC, Streamer include $100k CDP and DAC combo destroy the orig signal and sound un-natural as usual. All new technologies damage the orig signal/music more than old ones. Yes. New tech sounds better than old tech at glance with ------------------ a destroyed signal. In other world, old tech can sound better with a good orig signal.

I think my humble system (modded Oppo BDP-95) sounds better than many (if not all) so called $million greatest system in the world. I modded my Oppo 95 which preserve the orig signal.

I live recorded below video to compare with one of best sound systems. My system is playing downloaded MP4 (worse than MP3) and MBL is playing a master tape.

The best way for good bass/mid and satisfy our sound quest is getting the orig signal and make the orig sound. Alex/WTA

Orig music

MBL system

After you have co,pleted the room’s acoustical treatment, bi-amping, real bi-amping with a line-level crossover before the power amps can make a huge difference, both in allowing amp matching (transistors low, tubes high, e.g.) but in dynamic range - up to 6dB.

Another improvement, arguably the most audible, is the improvement of LF control due to the elimination of any low-pass series inductor(s) from the passive crossover. Never was that made more clearly than when Henry Kloss introduced the rare-as-hens-teeth Powered Advent. A stunningly competent speaker, on comparison with its passive stablemates, the advantages of bi-amping were immediately apparent. Much tighter, more impact full bass, a clarity previously nonexistent in the midrange, and the overall voicing of the Advent - neutral to slightly warm, no nasalness or honking on vocals or midrange - still intact.

Upstream from that, the spendy ADS 1020 Tri-amped 12" 3-Way, put on a masters class in what a box speaker could do.

Bi-amping Altecs and JBLshas been a standard practice in studio, theater, and live sound since at least the late 1960s.

And finally, the Magneplanar Tympni III, preferably powered by ARC tube gear, set a high-water mark in soundstaging and resolution few speakers today even approach.

That was 50 years ago, so bi-amping is not news. And whenever I see a manufacturer introduce a new bi-amp speaker, I do tend to sit up and take notice.

But there is a problem. I see lots of people thinking they are biamping by using two amps and running into an existing speaker’s passive crossover biwire connections. That absolutely is not bi-amping. It is just the most expensive form of bi-wiring. It is pointless and wasteful, as it accomplishes none of the goals of bi-amping, yet still manages to double the price of amplification. It feeds full range signals to the high end, where the passive crossover is left to absorb the LF energy and doesn’t remove the series resistance that destroys LF damping, and because it doesn’t separate LF and HF, into separate loads, it does nothing to increase a systems dynamic range.

So, done right, bi-amping can be great, and I am a big fan.

My hifi room is "treated" by the stuff in it, thus allowing the "room sound" I prefer, and note the only "proper" speaker setup is the one that sounds best to you. I don’t think bi-amping is useful or necessary for home audio as to truly pull it off (as stated above) you need a crossover ahead of the amps to drive directly to the drivers, and almost nobody bothers to do that except in live sound powered array speakers maybe. Also true bi-amping is a wonderful way to blow up a tweeter...trust me...I bi-amped my beloved old A7s for years in PA use...Kustom made a great mono PA bi-amp in the 70s with 100 watts for the horns and 200 for the bass bins. Plenty loud for most any occasion.

So I'm thinking of bi-amping my B&W 602s2 bookshelf from a Rotel RB-850 5 channel amplifier. As I understand I use my bi-wire Audioquest cables by plugging it into the left main and left surround and the same with the right. What I'm reading here it's a waste of time. Am I chasing a ghost?