While most agree on the basic meaning, destinctions need to be made about the 'degree' of warmth (pun intended). I think a lot of confusion arises in the inference of the amount of warmth being described and because audiophiles do not have an exact universal definitin. As has been said, it's like trying to describe the smell of an onion or any smell. In general, live music can be described as being warm, as in alive and rich with tone. On the other hand one can describe a system as being 'warm' meaning it is too warm and not natural sounding. The more one listens to various types of live unamplified music, the more one appreciates 'warmth' (rich tone) as being closer to the truth. High frequencies and detail decay faster as distance from the source increase (including many of the attributes the OP indicates). A lot of music is closed miked which captures more high frequency energy and detail
(depening on the recording engineer and mastering of the recording), than a listener in that venue might otherwise hear, making a 'warm' system sound more real with many recordings. The more one listens to different types of live music, with different types of instruments, in different spaces, the more one realizes 'the sound' is always different, yet there is usually always that warmth of tone. Since this is a universal quality of live music, it makes sense to strive for this quality in a system. As always, it's a matter of one's perspective and is just one more aspect that makes this hobby so much fun! |
Jeff,
I don't think Mrtennis is wrong, the definition he gives for warmth is correct, the point is it's a matter of usage and of degrees. His definition describes a sound that is too syrupy, rather than using it to describe the 'truth of timbre' he used to describe live music. Some might call the truth of timbre of live music 'warmth' (rich body) as you and I do, others may call it neutral and only use the term 'warmth' to describe a sound that is not neutral. That's the difficulty we face in describing sound that can create long threads of angst. To complicate things in absolute terms, the further you are from the source of live music, the 'warmer' the sound will be perceived. One must decide what listening position in the hall are you trying to re-create with your system. Some like mid hall, others like the perspective of the microphones hanging above the performers. There are lots of factors to consider. Building a system that gives you the smallest compromises on the factors you value most is not "tough", its what makes this hobby fun! |
Definitions will only get you in the ball park. Its about communicating effectively. This is the difference between a good equipment reviewer and a lesser one. Audiophile terms help, but the good reviewer gives you a better sense of the sound through better descriptions and context. |
Bryon, warmth is additive property and it is also subtractive and is a component of a neutral sound. An analogy using the most common meaning for the word warmth would be to take your ideal room temperature, say 70 degrees. This would be your 'neutral'. By subtracting warmth you would cool the room, by raising the temperature you would warm it. The same is true for reproduced sound when the term warmth is used.
Learsfool, we are in agreement, just misunderstanding the terms we are using. While we both agree studios are typically dead sounding, i.e. lacking reverberant sound, the source of the sound and therefore the fundamental frequencies of the live sound do not change therefore the 'body' and 'warmth' of the sound remain. With the absence of reverberant sound there is no 'air' or room ambience this defines the term ‘dead’ (giving recording engineers maximum possibilities in tailoring the sound).
Taking the opposite extreme, in a space with nothing but hard surfaces, the fundamental frequencies created by the source again do not change, the source is still ‘warm’ but the multiplying of frequencies bouncing off room surfaces (the specific frequencies and resulting ‘sound’ are dependent on the reflective qualities of the surfaces and the size of he room), giving a sound that is too ‘live’.
Interestingly, sounds in an anechoic chamber are as ‘pure’ as one could get because they are not influenced by room boundaries. We are not accustomed to being is an anechoic chamber so the sounds we hear in them sound eerily unnatural but in actuality they are as ‘perfect’ as possible, composed of the same frequencies and proportions as created by the source, we are just so used to the addition of reflected sound. So knowing no recording is ‘perfect’ this leads us back to the big question; What are we trying to achieve with our systems? I say, ‘If it sounds good, do it!’ |
Bryon, exactly. It’s like using the word ‘blue’ to describe a color. It only gets you in the ball park unless you describe the hue, intensity (value), contrast, gradation etc. in known terms. In my experiences warmth is relative and is dependent on context. To complicate things, as system accuracy improves and smaller differences become larger, not everyone describes these differences in the same absolute terms. A neutral system compared to a sterile system will sound warm(er) and can be described that way as more natural, neutral etc. A system can be neutral but as a requirement must have warmth. Because accurate tone can be difficult to describe, the word warmth is helpful in describing the accuracy of that tone. "The sax was warm and round sounding, as if it were in the room." could be an acceptable statment. Of course the term can also be used to describe a system that is too warm.
Ambient information, or ‘air’, which is key in recreating the recording space is not necessarily the same as warmth. A sterile system can and frequently does have lots of ambient information, but lacks body or warmth.
Recording studios can and usually are 'warm', dead maybe, designed to lack reverberations to control the sound, but not usually characterized as cold. Great pains are taken to control studio acoustics.
All instruments, some more than others have a degree of directionality, so your listening position in relationship to them (distance and direction) will affect the sound perceived. The same is true for microphones. Close miked sources can have more high frequency energy than you would hear from a normal listening position. In addition, the proximity effect of microphones increases bass response of the signal the closer you place a mike to a source like a guitar or vocalist. A lot of singers like this effect as it adds richness to their voices. When you hear a studio singer, you are usually hearing it from the perspective of the singers mouth on your nose (where the mike would be), being played through speakers in front of you. Hardly a 'natural' situation. Instruments, room acoustics, microphone and equipment selection and placement, multi tracking, all manner of tweaking and manipulating the sound after it is captured, and lots more must be accounted for in the recording process to create a recording to give what they hope you consider a natural sounding perspective. In general, its unrealistic to think a recording would ever be heard exactly that way live. Although it’s amazing it works as well as it does...well, sometimes anyway. |
Leersfool, yes, the use of terminology is fascinating. Both Bryon and I are in agreement that warmth does have to do with frequency response and harmonic structure as in ‘warm tone’. Although ambient information or ‘air’ is usually a description of room reverberations, live vs dead, and is commonly used to describe this as a separate quality from warmth. You can have a warm sound with little or no ‘air’ or ambient information. Likewise you can have a cold, thin, bleached out sound with lots of ‘air’. A sound in an anechoic chamber dies quickly after it stops as result of the lack of ambience or ‘air’ but its propagated composition including warmth remains wholly intact until it is absorbed. In a highly reflective ‘live’ room, the character or warmth would change as the additive layering of certain reflected frequencies would ‘color’ (sorry had to use it :) ) the sound. Audiophiles do use the word ‘color’, as you may know, to describe a systems ability to resolve different timbres, as in “listen to the tonal color”. Crazy hobby huh?
Chazro, the Spendor S100’s are great speakers. Yes, on the warm side of 'neutral' but they are music lovers speakers. |
Hi Learsfool,
That was a great post because it shows how ones perspective in approaching sound affects their perception of it. I have a friend who was a professional musician for years and is now a music teacher in a public school system. He is not an audiophile, nor does he have a high end system. One day I had him over to listen to my system and was taken back by his reaction to the first cut I played which was “Wow, what a wonderful job the produced did on that”. Not; What a nice stereo, speakers, cables, or record cleaning fluid…” his perspective was from the challenges a producer would have in proportioning and capturing the sound.
I think I agree with this statement but I’m not quite sure what you meant by; “You seem to be equating "warmth" with the sound of the instrument itself, not merely as a characteristic of it.” I see it in practical terms as being one in the same, ‘warmth’ being a descriptive component of the sound.
If live music were only composed of primary frequencies this statement would be true; ‘For a musician thinking about his sound, the "warmth" of it has nothing to do with the frequency being produced, but has to do with the "color" of the sound, or in audio terms, proper reproduction of timbre, not frequency response.” However, live music is not just primary frequencies but a combination of lots of different overtone frequencies that create harmonic structure, warmth, tone, and timbre. Of course a musician’s actions will have an effect on tone. I am wondering, due to your perspective as a musician, if musical terms like playing with ‘warmth’ might be mixing a bit of the performance aspect with the sheer descriptive terms of the sound. For instance could playing ‘with warmth’ also refer to ‘playing with emotion’?
We agree that when referring to reproduced sound, the frequency response of the system DOES have an effect on timbre, warmth, tone, body, etc. I also agree with you that a system can ‘measure flat’, but still not sound good. I know a lot of guys like to use specifications to ‘grade’ the worthiness of components. The last time I used specifications to purchase equipment was when I bought my first system lots of years ago. The problem is components don’t perform the same in a real world system as they do on a bench. Specifications can be helpful in getting you into the ball park of good sound, but the final judgment should be your ears. In addition, specifications only describe certain operating parameters. There are no tests for many of the qualities we value in sound. System matching within a budget – no matter how big - becomes the challenge. The bad sound you hear in dealers showrooms is probably a result of this, but to give the benefit of the doubt it might just be the equipment is not broken in.
I would agree that ‘air’, or room ambience is primarily high frequencies, but in reality all frequencies are reverberating to create a sense of space. The reverberant qualities of the room, and the recording techniques will determine the type and amount that is recorded, which give the recording its clues to the type of room. There are rooms that sound muddy, bright, boomy, etc due to the size, shape and reflective character of the room. Think cathedral and intimate jazz club, both can have ‘air’ but they are very different - just another wrinkle in trying to put sound into words.
Trying to describe sound can also be tough because there are so many factors that make up sound – so many electronic, recording, and playback artifacts than can change the sound in ways one would never hear in nature. In addition, there are always multiple effects happening at the same time, all to varying degrees. Listening is a skill just like anything else that can be developed. Most audiophiles develop their sense of hearing over time by using a variety of components and systems and by listening to live, un-amplified music as a reference. I have always wondered if Billy Joel is an audiophile after he sang “You can catch the sound from a story in a magazine”. |
Leersfool, I wrote;
“However, live music is not just primary frequencies but a combination of lots of different overtone frequencies that create harmonic structure, warmth, tone, and timbre."
You repeated this as;
“There are a couple of problems with this. First, there is no such thing, if we are speaking of acoustic instruments, as live music composed only of primary frequencies.”
It sounds like you are in agreement so I don't understand the problem.
Your second point is conflicting. You wrote;
“Second, when a musician alters the color of his sound, this does NOT change the frequency, including the overtones…”
“Now, if the player’s tone is not pure…this CAN (emphasis added) mess with the overtones…musicians sometimes deliberately bend notes on purpose.”
“I am talking about much more subtle changes of timbre. But the main point is that the musician CANNOT (emphasis added) change the natural overtones produced by the frequency being played.”
Conflicting, but I think you may in agreement. Simply, if it sounds different it is. A pure sine wave and a pure square wave with the exact same frequency will have the same pitch, but sound completely different. The frequency only describes the pitch, the waveform describes the sound and all its components i.e., overtones, harmonics, tone, color, warmth, and every other character of the sound all mixed together.
A player can change the ‘sound’ of an instrument depending on how they play it, some instruments more than others, which will change the components of the waveform, but not necessarily the frequency of the waveform. An example is trumpeter using his hand to mute his trumpet, but he could also change his technique i.e., lip position, airflow, etc. to change the sound all at the same frequency. You cannot have a different ‘sound’ without changing the structure of the waveform. Excluding any external factors like room acoustics, these are player induced. It is impossible to change a sound without altering components of the sound and the waveform, so tone, color, warmth, etc. are part of the sound itself. |
Onhwy61, Yes, audiophiles used the term 'warmth' before the 'advent' of digital. :) |
Learsfool you wrote; "As I have tried to explain, the actual overtones do NOT change"....and; "Al, you are probably correct about the amplitude of them (overtones) changing". If they change amplitude, they change the sound and waveform, change is change. If a musician strums an open chord on an acoustic guitar, then the musician places his hand on the bridge and strumms the same chord it would sound different because the frequency and amlpiude of the overtones have changed due to the damping effect of the musicians hand. It's basic acoustics.
All halls, venues, rooms have thier own sound.
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/concerthallsvenues/ss/bestconcerthall_6.htm
Often they are modified to improve thier sound.
http://www.saflex.com/pdf/Saflex%C2%AE%20Acoustic%20-%20Chicago%20Symphony%20Orchestra%20Hall.pdf |
Almarg, Thank you for your explanation. I am in full agreement. By changing overtones you change the shape of the wave and the resulting sound. The most basic example is the sine wave and square wave at the same frequency.
As the OP indicated there are many factors that can contribute to the perception of warmth, none ‘better’ than the others. Some types can be good when they compensate for deficiencies elsewhere is a system, everything is a synergistic balancing act.
The term ‘warmth’ can be used to describe sound as being additive, subtractive, and a component of a neutral sound. Scientists who study such things will tell you that there is no such thing as cold, only the absence of warmth. An analogy using the most common meaning for the word warmth would be to determine an ideal room temperature, say 70 degrees. This would be your 'neutral' or live sound reference. By subtracting warmth you would cool the room, by raising the temperature you would warm it, but the ideal would still possess ‘warmth’. We can apply the term ‘warmth’ to describe a range of sound in the same ways. If a sound is cool, it lacks warmth and is unnatural. If it sounds neutral it has just the right amount of warmth and sounds natural or neutral. If it sounds too warm, then it is unnatural. Warmth can be used to describe naturalness of timbre.
We agree on the basic sonic character of ‘warmth’, but being an adjective, it can be used to describe a wide range of that character, both very minute, and very large differences. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the person using the word to ensure that the description of the degree of warmth is understood by the audience. The exact definition of any word will never overcome sloppy usage. |
