assuming "benign" acoustics, has anyone attended a concert , especially orchestral or other ,in which instruments were unamplified and used the word "warm" to describe the sound?
naturalness of timbre and warmth are not identical.
warmth represents some relationship between the presence of high and low frequencies.
lower frequencies usually are associated with the perception of warmth, but the 72 posts dealing with the subject, evince some disagreement, so how can advise be given if there is no accepted definition ?
i have defined the term in frequency response characteristics, and yes , i believe warmth is a deviation from neutrality. that is a recording which sounds warm has probably been "equalized" by a recording engineer.
thus i disagree with byron regarding warmth as a coloration. its an opinion consistent with my definition. |
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. |
02-11-11: Learsfool
I know we hashed this out on your neutrality thread already, but I still cringe when I read someone assuming that "warmth" must be an "addition" or "coloration." I still vehemently disagree with this. For me, again because of the types of music to which I listen, if "warmth" is not present, that is a definite "subtraction," and therefore an inaccuracy. MUST NOT...TALK...ABOUT...CAN'T...STOP MYSELF... Ok, I'll break my own self-imposed moratorium on discussions of neutrality just long enough to say... RE: "ADDITIONS" I never assumed that warmth, as heard at the listening position, is NECESSARILY an "addition." To state the obvious, what is heard at the listening position is both the recording and the playback equipment. If you hear warmth at the listening position, it may be coming from either or both. If the warmth is on the recording, and you hear it at the listening position, then the playback system is accurate with respect to warmth. Hence it is not an "addition." If, however, warmth is NOT on the recording, but you still hear it at the listening position, then the playback system is NOT accurate with respect to warmth. In this case, warmth is an "addition" to the signal introduced by the playback system. Having said that, I have recently come to believe that some "additions" to the signal introduced by the playback system, while inaccuracies relative to the recording, may nevertheless be MORE accurate relative to the live event. That is because, both deliberately and accidentally, the recording process often REMOVES characteristics like warmth from the recording. Hence the ADDITION of warmth by the playback system actually makes the sound at the listening position closer to the sound of the live event. That was the point of my first post on 2/8. RE: "COLORATIONS" If the playback system adds warmth to the signal, then in terms of accuracy to the recording, it is a coloration, understood as a consistently audible inaccuracy introduced by the playback system. But again, the addition of warmth to the signal may NOT be a coloration in terms of accuracy to the live event, in circumstances where the live event was warm, but the warmth was removed during the recording process. RE: "ADDITIONS" + "COLORATIONS" The addition of some playback colorations, like warmth, can be a way of hearing at the listening position, a sound that is more accurate to the live event, even though it is less accurate to the recording. And, FWIW... This is an adjustment to, but not an abandonment of, the position I took on the neutrality thread, where I suggested that efforts to maximize neutrality (i.e. the absence of playback colorations) tended to make a system more enjoyable, at least to me. I have reached the point where my efforts to increase neutrality by removing audible playback inaccuracies have ceased to result in greater gains in enjoyability. I now feel that the introduction of a SLIGHT playback inaccuracy, in the form of additional warmth, might make the system even more enjoyable, by expanding the range of recordings that sound excellent on the system. Bryon |
@ Learsfool: Careful with Cary. That's the foggy yet non-linear sound which I couldnt deal with. Prima Luna varies from model to model, some are pretty good, some are thin and beamy.
@Bryon: worry not about the mod, if you extract the stock cap carefully you can always fit it back in with no issues.
If the old caps are professionally put back in it with care will not affect the resale value, at least IMO
It's the $$$ on labor and the expensive cap that you will lose.
I may sound like a broken record but dont change out the amp. Borrow a tube preamp from someone and try.
|
Lots of good posts here! @Bryon - Johnson is correct that many currently produced tube amps are not warm at all. In fact, the trend seems to be the opposite. Many companies are now making much more high-powered tube amps, so people don't have to change speakers to use them. In that respect, it makes sense. However, with the added power comes added brightness and a loss of warmth. Johnson's Audio Research example is a good one, another American company doing this is Rogue Audio. If you want a modern tube amp company that has a warmer sound, I would suggest PrimaLuna or Cary.
@Newbee - excellent post about decay. Agree 100%. This is one of the major reasons why many of us musicians prefer tube amps.
@Hifibri - I think we are still not quite understanding each other. You wrote "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."
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. That could only happen with electronically produced (and then electronically altered) music. Second, when a musician alters the "color" of his sound, this does NOT change the frequency, including the overtones within the sound - these overtones are determined by the frequency being produced, not by anything the player is doing. Now if the player's tone is not pure (is a little or a lot unfocused), this can mess with the overtones that are produced, as the intonation will be off. But usually only jazz musicians sometimes deliberately "bend" notes in this way on purpose. This isn't done in classical performance. I am talking about much more subtle changes of timbre. But the main point is that the musician cannot change the natural overtones produced by the frequency being played. This can be done to a recording of an acoustic instrument electronically, of course (something that digital processing is frequently guilty of) but that is not what we are talking about here.
@ Bryon again - I know we hashed this out on your neutrality thread already, but I still cringe when I read someone assuming that "warmth" must be an "addition" or "coloration." I still vehemently disagree with this. For me, again because of the types of music to which I listen, if "warmth" is not present, that is a definite "subtraction," and therefore an inaccuracy. Measurements be damned! :) I guess this has alot to do with your question about caring more about reproduction of the recording or the actual event. |
Hi Mapman - Before I owned the Focals, I owned Dynaudio speakers for several years. They did have a warmer sound than the Focals, as you point out. But ultimately I concluded that their "house sound" is somewhat too colored for my tastes. I have not heard the Confidence line, however, which might change my mind about that. I have heard the Sapphire, which was pleasing, but a bit underwhelming for the price. I know lots of folks love the C1, but I can't get past its looks, which is shallow of me, I know.
This all raises another question I've been wondering about, namely: Is there an inherent advantage in warm speakers with neutral electronics or warm electronics with neutral speakers?
I have a slight bias toward the latter - warm electronics with neutral speakers - but it's based on nothing more than the intuition that warm speakers diminish resolution more significantly than warm electronics. I guess that's based on the suspicion that the source of warmth in electronics - harmonic distortion - is inherently less destructive to resolution than the sources of warmth in speakers - uneven frequency response, underdamped drivers, driver coloration, and cabinet resonance. I am happy to be wrong about any of that. If I am wrong, and if I choose to pursue greater warmth, then I will have to consider other speakers. Unless...
I should mention at this point that I'm also considering modding the crossovers in my Focals, with the hope that it might increase the perception of warmth, or at least diminish the perception of "coolness." Johnsonwu, who posted above, has already given me some good advice about this type of mod. But I don't want to proceed until I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep the speakers, since it might affect the speaker's resale value.
Lots to consider.
Bryon |
Well, the Audiogon site seems to be a bit fickle when it comes to hyperlinks. So here's the definition from J. Gordon Holt, the man who probably put this language in our lexicon:
"warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain part of warmth is musical sound."
"dark A warm, mellow excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clock-wise tilted sound across the entire range so that the output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light".
"light Lean and tipped up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark". |
I've heard some Focals and like them very much.
I've heard their profile line in a/b comparison to Martin Logan off a Krell integrated. Surprisingly similar sound. But nothing warm about the sound I heard at all!
Dynaudio is the best line I am familiar with for building a system that has resolution but also just the right slightest dash of inherent warmth.
My Dyns provide nice "warmth" and detail whether run by my Bel CAnto ref1000m monblocks (Class D Icepower) or off my vintage Yamaha receiver in my second system, a line which I have never heard anybody refer to as "warm'. |
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”. |
02-11-11: Johnsonwu
Many confuse foggy muddy systems that can only play one or two of Carol Kidd's ballads as the ultimate warm systems.
Making a system foggy and rolled off masks the lack of dynamic linearity, stability, and distortion from transients. Johnson - This expresses one of my concerns with changing amps. My current amp, a Pass Labs XA30.5, suffers from none of these problems. It also raises a larger issue, which has been in the back of my mind, but has not come up yet on this thread: Whether the use of an "additive" approach necessarily entails the diminishment of resolution. I suppose it depends on what type of addition you're talking about. If the addition is low order harmonics, as you get with many tube amps, does that necessarily entail the loss of some resolution, however slight? To be clear, even if the answer to this question is 'yes,' it doesn't eliminate the use of a tube amp from consideration. To me, resolution is a priority, but not the only priority. I would be willing to sacrifice a small amount of resolution to increase my system's warmth. But I would certainly not want to find myself with a sound that is so warm that the system's resolution was diminished in the ways you are describing. That doesn't sound appealing to me at all. A tube dac is among the several options I'm considering, though there are those who doubt that that approach will result in much additional warmth. 02-11-11: Newbee
IME, the most critical time element is adequate decay. Too short a decay and the tone loses natural harmonics and sounds bright/clinical. May help superficially in creating the sense of a large soundstage, but in the long run fatigues. Too long a decay and the sound becomes muddy. This is a good observation, Newbee, and something that hasn't been discussed much so far. I agree with you that systems that cannot adequately portray the decay of notes sound less warm. I never thought my system suffered from this problem, but maybe I haven't given that enough thought. I have heard systems that do a better job than mine with this subtle but significant characteristic of time domain behavior, and like you, I find that it contributes greatly to a sense of realism and beauty. Questions: What design features of components, or component interactions, contribute to a system's ability to adequately portray the decays of notes? Are tubes inherently better at this? Is it affected significantly by the speaker driver's Q and/or the amp's damping factor? Anyone? Bryon |
I put a space heater in my listening room.
Seriously, I associate good warmth when I hear it with good clarity and detail in the mid-range. If I listen hard, I might detect some "warmth".
On teh other hand if all I am thinking is "gee that sounds really warm", I am probably dealing with something that is adding a pleasant (with some kinds of music at least) but not natural emphasis to my midrange. This is bad warmth to me. |
FWIW, I think someone has already touched upon one of the critical elements to the appearance of warmth in a system with balanced tone, that is the proper rise and decay of the signal without which balanced tone becomes meaningless.
IMHO proper rise and decay times, when everything else is right, is what makes good recordings sound more like the natural sound of instruments. Unfortunately this is not achieved by any add on processor, you have to get it designed into your components.
IME, the most critical time element is adequate decay. Too short a decay and the tone loses natural harmonics and sounds bright/clinical. May help superficially in creating the sense of a large soundstage, but in the long run fatigues. Too long a decay and the sound becomes muddy. Rise time is important too, but just less so I think, except for the effect it has on those instruments which have a fast/sharp rise, such as percussion instruments.
It might be important to consider how the natural harmonics of an instrument occur in the first place and what constitutes harmonics as the term applies to an audio system.
I'm not so sure equalizers or tubes are the method to be used to obtain 'warmth' if that term is not to be equated to frequency response or tonal balance. But, if your system lacks adequate rise and decay tubes and equalizers etc may be the only way.
Just a thought Bryon. |
Bryon,
Many confuse foggy muddy systems that can only play one or two of Carol Kidd's ballads as the ultimate warm systems.
Making a system foggy and rolled off masks the lack of dynamic linearity, stability, and distortion from transients.
A tube power amp may not necessarily be warm. Listen to the recent Audio Research amps. They are anything but warm.
I listened to a pair of Electra 1027Be's a few years ago with Chinese Cayin gear and they didn't sound bad at all.
I don't think they aren't tube-friendly.
I really think you ought to try a tubed DAC and a tube preamp. Just borrow a tube preamp from a friend and see if it gets you the sound you want. |
02-10-11: Learsfool
...you can have a system that measures very well in the frequency response that still sounds very cold (or doesn't resolve timbre correctly) - I have heard many of them in dealer's showrooms - so that is why I do not equate "warmth" with frequency response. Harmonic structure does come much closer to my conception. Learsfool - I agree that a system that measures well in frequency response can nevertheless fail to sound warm. In other words, balanced frequency response isn't a sufficient condition for the perception of warmth. But that doesn't mean that balanced frequency response isn't a necessary condition for the perception of warmth. I suspect that, to be perceived as warm, a system must have a balanced frequency response, within some range. (BTW, I don't think "balanced" is necessarily the same thing as flat.) I think that bright systems, or systems with very little bass, are less often perceived as warm. And I think that systems with elevated upper bass and/or lower midrange are more often perceived as warm. In addition, Al pointed out how anomalies in frequency response, like those created by comb filtering, might conceivably diminish the perception of warmth. Taken together, these considerations seem to suggest that there is a link between frequency response and the perception of warmth, even though, as you point out, some systems that measure well in frequency response nevertheless fail to sound warm. This is not just about semantics or logic. It's about HOW TO GET warmth in your system, when you don't have it. If warmth is both a matter of frequency response and harmonic content, then manipulating one of those variables could presumably contribute to the perception of warmth. RE: The use of frequency response to increase warmth. I think efforts to balance frequency response are a good idea, whether it's done with tone controls, eq, or room treatments. I use all three, but would still like some additional warmth. One way to get it, in light of the observations above, might be to elevate the upper bass and/or lower midrange of my system. But I'm not a big fan of this idea. I tend to experience systems with elevated upper bass/lower midrange as uneven, slow, thick, or unresolving. RE: The use of harmonic content to increase warmth. I think this is a much better idea. The obvious way to add harmonic content is to add tubes, as several posters have pointed out. Unfortunately, in my case, that would mean changing both my amp and my speakers, since my speakers aren't very tube friendly. That could get expensive, but I'm considering it. Bryon |
Hello Hifibri - I guess I am still struggling with your use of the term "warmth", after reading your latest post. You seem to be equating "warmth" with the sound of the instrument itself, not merely as a characteristic of it. 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. Now of course, if a system has frequency response issues, it probably won't resolve timbre correctly, so I guess I can see why you would directly associate the two. However, I would still maintain that you can have a system that measures very well in the frequency response that still sounds very cold (or doesn't resolve timbre correctly) - I have heard many of them in dealer's showrooms - so that is why I do not equate "warmth" with frequency response. Harmonic structure does come much closer to my conception.
Your definition of "air" is also different from how I have sometimes seen the term used here before - some on this board seem to associate that term exclusively with high frequencies. I like your definition better, and I agree that it is a separate thing from "warmth," though it will have a huge effect on the perception of it. |
FYI:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-reverse-glossary-part-1 |
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 Bryon and Hifibri - both of your last posts have fascinated me. I did not realize that audiophiles used the term "warmth" in quite the way you both describe - specifically, equating warmth with the body of the sound, as Hifibri put it, or with the frequency response/harmonic content of it, as Bryon put it. To me, the body of the sound is quite separate from the "warmth" of it, though of course it will have a significant effect on the perception of "warmth." And certainly "warmth" is not equated with frequency response in my mind. I won't go into it in any boring detail here, but musicians work very hard on the relative "warmth" of their tones depending on what sort of passage or what composer we are playing. We work for as many different shades of color we can get, and all of these would have varying degrees of "warmth." So I guess I am using the term much more in the sense of "color" than you are (another reason why I strongly dislike the negative connotations in the use of the audiophile term "coloration").
Hifibri, you are correct that we are basically in agreement, then, if I have understood your post. However, I would still argue that a recording studio or other "dead" space will most certainly have a very significant effect on the perceived "warmth" of the sound. In such a "dead" space, no matter how "warm" a tone the player creates, the fact that it almost immediately dies away has a huge effect on the perceived "warmth." This would have nothing to do with frequency response or harmonics, but the "deadness" of the space. You are correct, of course, in what you say about the anechoic chamber, but I think it should go without saying that no one would ever want or expect music to be either created or listened to in such an environment. So I of course agree with your ending - if it sounds good, do it! This, of course, will be different for every individual.
So yes, Bryon, I would argue that a "dead" listening room is indeed a detriment to "warmth." In fact, I think we have actually had this conversation in a slightly different context elsewhere. As we all know, the same equipment can sound very different in different environments, and this is the biggest reason why, IMO. |
Terrific dialog, well done fellas! While I understand what's been said, my experience has been a simpler one. I bought a pair of Spendor S100's in 1990. At the time, my system was solid-state driven. I was able to audition a pair of (at the time) very highly praised Thiel 3.5's at my home also. To me, comparing the Thiels to the Spendors was the epitome of 'warm' vs. 'analytical'. Again, everyone hears differently, but for me, those Thiels were unlistenably strident (apologies to Thiel fans!). Whenever I switched back to the Spendors it was such a relief! I still own the Spendors, my system has changed over the yrs to all-tube so I'm feeling warmer and fuzzier all the time!;) IMO, the Spendors lean towards MY understanding of 'warm' sound regardless of signal source. So perhaps the answer of how to get 'warm' sound can simply be to try a different set of spkrs. |
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!’ |
02-08-11: Hifibri
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. 02-08-11: Learsfool
Great pains are usually taken indeed, but almost never to make it "warm." In fact, quite the opposite - the engineers want the room to be as dead as possible... I guess the issue here is whether "deadness" and "warmth" are mutually exclusive characteristics. Personally, I have mixed feelings about that. Over short distances, a dead room can preserve both the frequency response and the harmonic content of an acoustic instrument or voice, both of which are elements of "warmth," as I understand it. Over longer distances, dead rooms will typically attenuate high frequencies more rapidly than other frequencies. What that does to the perception of warmth is a bit paradoxical. It seems like the attenuation of high frequencies might increase the perception of warmth, since it will result in a comparative emphasis on midrange and low frequencies. But dead rooms also remove reverberation, which, as Learsfool and Al pointed out, is an important element in the perception of warmth. If that's true, then dead rooms, at longer distances, may not sound warm after all. Learsfool - It's clear that you feel that a dead recording room is a detriment to the perception of warmth. I wonder whether you feel the same way about a dead *listening* room? Bryon |
hi byron:
my idea of establishing definitions of audiophile terms is to define them using objective terms.
in this case, the word "bright", refers to an elevation in frequency in the upper mids/lower treble. so i would say a n audible peak (2 db +?) in the range 1000hz to 5000 hz might suffice. it could be narrowed down and defined more precisely by selecting different deflection points.
the point is my definition, even if it is inaccurate is an attempt to clarify, using terms which are replicable, what is experienced by a listener.
perhaps the range should be 3000 hz to 5000 hz. certainly frequency response can be measured in a room.
it would interesting to see under what circumstances, i.e., what frequencies, correspond to reports of brightness. while definitions could be objective, perceptions may differ as to the occurrence of brightness, creating a problem. |
I like the contrinuum someone put down between analytical and warm and syrupy, though in truth, you could use other terms at each end. Like many respondents on this thread, I like a sound on the warm side of neutral too. I take it to mean richer harmonics, with a full rendition of a note, not the leading edge alone.
I think I get this from tubes, somewhere in the system. I can't think of an all solid state system I have really enjoyed.
A subject I can't remember being discussed, although it's fundamental, is just what should a perfect, audiophile sound be? Yes I know one talks of being nearest to a live sound, but a system that reproduces one type of live music well, may not for another. Do systems always reproduce a jazz quartet and symphony orchestra optimally.
If you like a warmer than neutral sound, are you betraying audiophile ideals. Should you proverbially have your badges of rank torn off and sword broken.
Ultimately of course, it does'nt matter one bit what others think. If it sounds good to you, it is good.
If you want an example of a fundamentalist approach to this hobby, it is Arthur Salvatore. I enjoy his website enormously, but reading it, you realise that for some, there is only one path to enlightenment |
I would like to comment on one thing that Hifibri said - while I agree with pretty much all of the rest of the post, I would disagree with this part: "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. "
Great pains are usually taken indeed, but almost never to make it "warm." In fact, quite the opposite - the engineers want the room to be as dead as possible, as they want to totally control the sound not only of the room itself, but even more importantly (and objectionably, to us musicians), of the actual instruments/voices. This is true not only of small studios, but also of the big studios in Hollywood and London. Some very famous musicians truly detest what some engineers do to their sounds in the studio, including in the top movie studios.
By the way, this does not necessarily mean that the resulting sound is bad; but although it may have cool effects, and the recording itself made and edited and mixed very well, it usually has very little to do with what the musician actually sounded like (although for the vast majority of pop singers, for instance, this is actually a very good thing, and they love it).
Also, this is not to say that the studio cannot be made to sound more like a real performing venue - once I had the pleasure of playing with an orchestra I was in with Georg Solti in Abbey Road studios (it was a one-off rehearsal in a training orchestra), and most of the deadening treatments in the room were pretty much removed for the purpose. And this is sometimes done for big budget films where the score is an even more than usually important part of the film. But what I am saying is that this is never done for the overwhelming majority of studio recordings - if they wanted it to sound like a concert hall, they would record in one. Usually, the room sounds so cold and dead that it is actually hard to hear your fellow musicians - the sound dies almost as soon as it leaves the instrument. Of course, normally there is a click-track going on in earphones you are wearing anyway, so there is very little sense of ensemble in any case. And of course, it is usually a much smaller ensemble than a full orchestra, but that just gives the engineer that much more control over his production.
Bryon, some of this also relates to your Recording Accuracy/Event Accuracy thing. Obviously, I am almost always much more interested in the latter than the former, with the type of music I perform/listen to. But if one listens either entirely or at least primarily to electronically produced music, then all of the above is nowhere near as big of a deal (if not practically irrelevant!). It is certainly a hell of alot easier for engineers to manipulate the sounds of electronic instruments exactly how they want to. |
02-08-11: Mrtennis
it would facilitate communication if there were "standard" definitions for terms frquently used in discussion so that each of us would not have to qualify or explain the denotation or connotation of terms used in a sentence...
this is especially the case when some one asks for advice regarding an aspect of sound, such as "bright" and the posters would understand to a large extent, what was meant by the term. I agree with you, Mrtennis, and I think you've identified another term that is often in need of clarification, namely 'bright.' Some people use it exclusively to refer to frequency response, but other people seem to use it more loosely to include anything they don't like about high frequencies, like shrillness, grain, glare, etch, etc.. Of course, all of these terms are imperfect descriptors of what is actually heard. But the subtle differences among them are often significant, as they can suggest different diagnoses of the problem, and therefore different remedies. FWIW, what I find particularly valuable is any effort to correlate subjective terms like 'warm' or 'bright' with the objective characteristics to which those terms could refer, which was part of my motivation for beginning this thread. Correlating subjective descriptions with objective characteristics not only might help facilitate communication among audiophiles, but it might also contribute to our understanding of why some systems sound more like real music than others. Bryon |
One thing I’ve noticed about the various characteristics that go by the term ‘warmth’ in the context of playback is that most or all of them seem like ADDITIONS to the signal. For example, ADDITIONAL low order harmonics, ADDITIONAL lower midrange/upper bass, ADDITIONAL ambience provided by the listening room, and so on. Strictly speaking, any additions to the signal (other than gain) are deviations from accuracy. For that reason, I think many audiophiles, myself included, are tempted to eschew them. But lately I've been having second thoughts about that attitude. I’m starting to wonder about the relative merits of the following two characteristics: 1. Accuracy to the recording 2. Accuracy to the recorded event The relative merits of accuracy-to-the-recording vs. accuracy-to-the-recorded event has periodically occurred to me ever since, on the neutrality thread, Al wrote this: 12-02-09: Almarg
A perfectly accurate system…would be one that resolves everything that is fed into it, and reproduces what it resolves with complete neutrality. Another way of saying that is perhaps that what is reproduced at the listener's ears corresponds precisely to what is fed into the system.
Which does not necessarily make that system optimal in terms of transparency. Since the source material will essentially always deviate to some degree and in some manner from being precisely accurate relative to the original event, then it can be expected that some deviation from accuracy in the system may in many cases be complementary to the inaccuracies of the recording (at least subjectively), resulting in a greater transparency into the music than a more precisely accurate system would provide.
Which does not mean that the goals of accuracy and transparency are necessarily inconsistent or in conflict. It simply means, as I see it, that the correlation between them, although substantial, is less than perfect. Al makes his point about accuracy in terms of neutrality vs. transparency, in keeping with the nomenclature of that thread, but it is essentially the same distinction as accuracy-to-the-recording vs. accuracy-to-the-recorded-event, or Recording Accuracy vs. Event Accuracy, for short. I agree with Al that Recording Accuracy correlates with Event Accuracy, but not perfectly so. In other words, I now believe that efforts to maximize Recording Accuracy sometimes come at the expense of Event Accuracy, which is a viewpoint that, I suspect, more experienced audiophiles tend to adopt, but has taken me some time to appreciate. A turning point for me was an observation that Albert Porter made in an old digital vs. analog thread, which I read only recently: 09-12-08: Albertporter
The digital (or analog) master tape is not the issue here, the CD format is.
If any of you could hear a master digital tape (or hard drive) and compare that to CD or LP, you would realize how much we've been screwed. The problem with digital is when that great master is "moved" for public distribution…
Moving that master digital signal from one place to another and from one sample rate to another does it so much harm it cannot be repaired. Then to make matters worse, our only choice is an outdated format that's too low a sample rate to replicate what was on the master…
With CD, you get a severely downsampled format that's only a shadow of what could be if the format had evolved this last 25 years. This observation resonated with me, as I have had the experience of recording, editing, and mixing with high quality professional equipment, to create a master recording I was proud of. I then watched - dismayed - as my master recording was compressed, downrez'd, and finally, transferred to its delivery format. Even on a very high quality playback system, the delivery format's recording was a shadow of its former self. Albert Porter’s observations about CD recordings undergoing this process of diminishment as a matter of routine procedure highlights the many respects in which the recordings available to consumers deviate dramatically from their master recordings, to say nothing of how the master recordings themselves deviate from the recorded events. Taken together, both deviations create a gulf between the live event and its consumer playback, a gulf that some audiophiles try to fill with ADDITIVE measures. And that brings me back to the point of this post... It now seems to me that the use of ADDITIVE measures can be a means of filling, to whatever extent possible, the gulf between the live event and the (in many cases) extremely diminished recordings available to consumers. IMO, that provides a plausible rationale for sacrificing a small measure of Recording Accuracy for the sake of potentially greater Event Accuracy. Put another way, it provides a rationale for the ADDITIVE approach to playback. Just which types of additions are the right ones is another matter entirely. Bryon |
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. |
it would facilitate communication if there were "standard" definitions for terms frquently used in discussion so that each of us would not have to qualify or explain the denotation or connotation of terms used in a sentence.
there are many words that are so frequently used, such as warm, rich, lean, thin, bright, wide sound stage, deep sound stage, out of phase, and other familiary used words.
while systems are different, as our ears , brains ad preferences, terms could have a shared meaning so that in the context of a stereo system, the meaning would be clear.
how to do this ??
i suppose someone could propose a list of terms and their definitions and then those definitions could be discussed until there was an acceptances of a definition.
i think there are more experienced audiophiles than muyself who could propose a definition of the terms i alluded to above, but if asked, i would be willing to provide a definition.
i don't consider myself an authority and if someone wants to offer definitions i think such an undertaking would be greatly appreciated.
this is especially the case when some one asks for advice regarding an aspect of sound, such as "bright" and the posters would understand to a large extent, what was meant by the term.
this discussion of warmth illustartes the differences in connotation that each of us use when saying the word "warm".
i think precision and clarity would ad directness and eliminate the necessity for explantions. |
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. |
|
02-05-11: Tmsorosk
Warmth is an added artifact of electronically produced music. A properly tuned acoustical instrument should not have the added warmth that you hear on many systems. 02-07-11: Frogman
Music that approaches the sound of a live performance is, by definition, warm. It’s interesting that some folks experience live acoustical music as "warm," while others do not. Maybe that’s a consequence of how people hear differently. On the other hand... I suspect that it’s a consequence of how people understand the conceptual metaphor of 'warmth.' Many metaphors have a systematic structure and consistent rules of use. But this thread seems to highlight that, for the metaphor of 'warmth' in audio, there doesn’t seem to be a systematic structure or consistent rules of use. It's no wonder, then, that consensus on the issue of warmth is difficult to achieve, since there is reason to believe that, much of the time, people aren't even talking about the same characteristic. Bryon |
Mrtennis 02-07-11: So, you are saying that a tube amp would have a different frequency response than a ss amp, when driving an electrostatic speaker. Yes. The ss amp will produce a brighter and more extended top end than the tube amp with an electrostatic (which may or may not be preferable, depending on the particular components, the room, the listener, etc). The same ss amp will produce a weaker and less extended top end than the same tube amp, when used with dynamic speakers having an impedance curve similar to Bryon's Focals. In other words, one amp can be either more bright or less bright than another amp, depending on the speaker that is being used! Would you expect the difference to be as much as 5 db difference at frequencies exceeding 3 db, or what difference in spl would you expect and at what frequencies It depends on the damping factor/output impedance of the tube amp, and the impedance curve of the speaker. I did a quick calculation based on the impedance characteristic of the original Quad ESL, and based on a 2 ohm output impedance (damping factor 4) for the tube amp, and a 0 ohm output impedance for the ss amp. The ss amp in that case would be about 6db stronger in the 15 to 20kHz area than the tube amp. The 6db number would be smaller if the damping factor of the tube amp were higher. How might the frequency response change if the amp was a hybrid (tube input stage), such as the aria amp, designed by mike elliot? I have quad esls and am considering the aria wt 100. It has a tube front end and bipolar transistors. With respect to the effect we are discussing, that amp would behave the same as a purely ss amp. What counts is the type of output stage, which is ss in this case. Consistent with that, the amp has a damping factor of 44 according to the specs shown in this review. An important consideration with many electrostatics, also, is that the amp not be weak in terms of its current capability, because current requirements will be increased as a result of the capacitive nature of the speaker's impedance. The WT100 certainly appears to meet that requirement, based on the specs and description shown in the review linked to above. Learsfool -- just saw your comments. Thanks! Your perspectives on these kinds of questions are always particularly valuable. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Bryon and Al - Al, you interpreted my comments exactly right, and clarified/elaborated them nicely with your discussion of hall ambience. Bryon, I am not so sure, though, that it has as much to do with distance from the performers in the hall, other than to state that to be too close is not ideal, as the sound will definitely be brighter. And sound does generally travel up and back in a good hall, so that the "nosebleed" seats in many halls are actually the best ones. However, the latter is not always true, often mezzanine seats, or seats in the middle to the back of the floor are best (as long as they are not under an overhang, then they are definitely the worst).
As to the question of whether or not something recorded in a studio can be "warm," that is a much more interesting issue. The studio itself is of course a very cold, dead space. I would say that the vast majority of the time, studio recordings that sound "warm" have been altered with digital reverb, etc. - studios are the playgrounds of the engineer, for sure. And while Al may be right that close miking can result in some good studio recordings of certain instruments, this is IME not usually the case - normally close-miked recordings of acoustic instruments do not sound very good, if by good we mean "real." This, to me, is sort of equivalent of sitting too close in a concert hall. I guarantee you that whenever an engineer puts a mike too close to an instrument, the player tries to move it as far away as he can get away with. |
hi almrag:
so, you are saying that a tube amp would have a ddifferent freequency response than a ss amp, when driving an electrostatic speaker.
would you expect the difference to be as much as 5 db difference at frequencies exceeding 3 db, or what difference in spl would you expect and at what frequencies ?
how might the frequency response change if the amp was a hybrid (tube input stage), such as the aria amp, designed by mike elliot ?
i have quad esls and am considering the aria wt 100. it has a tube front end and bi polar transistors. |
You're right. What was I thinking?!? |
|
Once again, more proof of the need for a better audiophile vocabulary; one which, if it is to have any real meaning, needs concensus. A good place to start is, ironically, outside the audiophile world; in real world vocabulary. How often do we say something like :"Joe Toob is a warm person", or "John Fett is not a very warm person, he is cold". When we say these things, are we referring to anything having to do do with frequency response? Probably not. We are probably referring to wether a person is amiable or not. I think the term warm, in the audio context, is being misused, and has more to do with a components ability to draw you in, and let you get involved with the music. Frequency response certainly plays a role, but I think more impotant in determinng a component's "amiability" is the texture of the sound it makes. This can be independent of perceived brightness, or darkness. I have heard components that sound way too dark, and thick through the midrange, but are also very dry sounding. Conversely, I have heard some that I would consider way too bright sounding, but are also very liquid sounding. Texture. Micro dynamics ability is the other key factor. That is where a component's ability to convey a performer's expressive qualities lies; the warmth of the performance.
Music that approaches the sound of a live performance is, by defintion, warm. The sound of live music runs the gamut as far as wether it sounds shrill, bright, dark, etc. It is the human element that makes it warm, or not. What gives music that hard to describe texture, and dimensionality is the human body attached to it. |
02-06-11: Almarg
“Woodiness,” “body,” etc. are for example certainly important aspects of warmth, and their successful reproduction involves capturing the fine detail and harmonic balance of the instrument. That in turn can be expected to be compromised as distance increases. On the other hand, massed strings, to cite another example, can sound overly bright at close distances. As was noted above, high frequencies will be attenuated more rapidly as a function of increasing distance than low and mid frequencies. This is a good point, Al, and it makes perfect sense of the idea that, in at least some cases, warmth increases as the distance of the listener to the live event increases. That would explain the correlation you observed between recordings with ambient cues and those with warmth. On the other hand, it also seems to suggest that, for smaller scale performances, warmth might DECREASE as the distance of the listener to the live event increases. So maybe there is reason to believe that a common characteristic of warm recordings is that the distance of the microphone to the live event is “proportional” to the scale of the event being recorded. That idea makes a lot of sense to me. Also, reflected energy will be subject to frequency response contouring as a result of both the greater distance it travels before reaching the listener or the mic’s, and the acoustic properties of the reflecting surface. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, summation of reflected energy with directly captured sound will result in comb filtering effects. The first of these points is more or less what I meant in the OP by item #5, which I called “room resonance,” but would probably more accurately be called simply “room acoustics.” Having said that, it never occurred to me that comb filtering might be a detriment to a system’s warmth. That strikes me as a plausible idea, since the destructive interference of comb filtering effects could conceivably result in a kind of "harmonic thinning,” which might very well be experienced as a lack of warmth. An insightful observation, Al. Bryon |
... When I think of “warmth,” I tend to think of a sound that is “intimate” or “immediate.” In other words, I think of a high ratio of direct to indirect sound, which would typically correspond to listening to a live event from a relatively close position. But that may be an idiosyncratic association on my part. Like you, Hifibri seems to have the OPPOSITE association.... This makes me wonder whether you, or Hifibri, would say that studio recordings (i.e. those with few or no ambient cues) can’t sound warm? Others can undoubtedly speak to that more knowledgeably than I can, in part because most of my listening is to classical music that has been recorded in halls. But I would say that depending on the instrument, and on what is being played and how it is being played, warmth can in many cases certainly be captured and reproduced via up close miking in a studio. While at the same time it can often be better captured in a hall via more distant miking. The key to that apparent paradox, it seems to me, is that warmth is a multi-faceted concept, as this thread makes clear. “Woodiness,” “body,” etc. are for example certainly important aspects of warmth, and their successful reproduction involves capturing the fine detail and harmonic balance of the instrument. That in turn can be expected to be compromised as distance increases. On the other hand, massed strings, to cite another example, can sound overly bright at close distances. As was noted above, high frequencies will be attenuated more rapidly as a function of increasing distance than low and mid frequencies. Also, reflected energy will be subject to frequency response contouring as a result of both the greater distance it travels before reaching the listener or the mic’s, and the acoustic properties of the reflecting surface. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, summation of reflected energy with directly captured sound will result in comb filtering effects. So it would seem that optimal reproduction of recordings that are produced in a concert hall, at least, would involve drawing a balance between preservation of detail and harmonic balance on the one hand, and either reproducing hall ambience and distance effects correctly, if present in the recording, or enhancing them, if they are not present but should be. There would seem to be no easy answers .... Best regards, -- Al |
The output impedance of an amp has to do with the damping factor. True. Damping factor is usually defined as output impedance divided into 8 ohms. It has no relation to treble response. Not true, in the case where speaker impedance is significantly different in the treble region than at lower frequencies. If you look at the impedance curve that I linked to for the Focal Electra 1037Be, which I am assuming is similar to the impedance curve for Bryon's 1027Be, you will see that it is around 5 ohms in the bass and lower mid-range, and generally upwards of 10 ohms in the upper mid-range and treble region. That kind of impedance characteristic is not uncommon, btw. For a given input voltage, an amp having negligibly small output impedance, such as most solid state amps, will maintain an essentially constant output voltage into that impedance as a function of frequency. Based on Ohm's Law, that will result in twice the amount of current and power being supplied into 5 ohms compared to what would be supplied into 10 ohms. A tube amp, having relatively high output impedance, will not behave that way. The voltage that it "tries" to output will divide up between the speaker impedance and its own output impedance, in proportion to the ratio of those impedances. Therefore for a given input voltage to the amplifier, the amount of power that is delivered to the speaker at low frequencies will be smaller in relation to the amount that is delivered at high frequencies, compared to what a solid state amp would deliver. That will result in an over-emphasized treble. If I recall correctly you have electrostatic speakers, which would interact with amplifier output impedance in exactly the opposite manner. The impedance of electrostatics decreases at high frequencies, so a tube amp would provide a treble response that is under-emphasized relative to what the response would be with a solid state amp. Best regards, -- Al |
the output impedance of an amp has to do with the damping factor. it has no relation to treble response.
i own a tube amp and there is no peak in the treble or dip in the midbass or lower midrange.
consider the cj mv 125. that amp would hardly be considered bright or lean. yet when compared with ss amps its damping factor is much lower. |
Following up on my previous post... 02-06-11: Almarg
I certainly do not think that replacing your XA-30.5 with a tube amp would be the right approach. I say that partly because of the Pass amp’s outstanding reputation, but also because, assuming that the impedance characteristics of your 1027be’s are similar to those of the 1037be, the higher output impedance of a tube amp would result in increased treble emphasis and de-emphasized lower mids and bass, counter to what you are trying to achieve. I had the same thoughts, Al. If my speakers were a little more friendly to tube amps, then I would seriously consider replacing the Pass amp (even though I like it quite a bit). So, if I want to add a tube amp to the system, then I would need to consider replacing my speakers as well. I don't have any great objection to changing my speakers either, except for the cost associated with it. Like all crazy audiophiles, the only other speakers I think about are considerably more expensive than what I currently own. :-( If possible, I would like to explore ways of adding warmth to the system that don't involve such large (and expensive) changes. Bryon |
02-06-11: Stanwal
I would add that I find soft dome tweeters "warmer" [whatever that means] than metal domes...The metal domes seem wonderfully detailed and accurate but somewhat "cold". I agree with this impression, Stan. Before hearing the beryllium tweeter in the Focals, I had never heard a metal dome tweeter that appealed to me, including those used in top notch speakers like Wilson. To my ears, the beryllium tweeter doesn’t sound inherently "cold" (though I have heard it give that impression when paired with certain upstream components). Having said that, it doesn’t sound inherently “warm” either. So while I suspect that, for this issue, the tweeter isn't hurting, I agree with you that it probably isn't helping either. 02-06-11: Almarg
The one thing that occurs to me that has not yet been mentioned, and which I think factors into "warmth" significantly, is hall ambience, or the lack thereof. This had not occurred to me, Al. I suppose part of the reason is that, when I think of “warmth,” I tend to think of a sound that is “intimate” or “immediate.” In other words, I think of a high ratio of direct to indirect sound, which would typically correspond to listening to a live event from a relatively close position. But that may be an idiosyncratic association on my part. Like you, Hifibri seems to have the OPPOSITE association: 02-05-11: Hifibri
To complicate things in absolute terms, the FURTHER you are from the source of live music, the 'warmer' the sound will be perceived. [emphasis added] This makes me wonder whether you, or Hifibri, would say that studio recordings (i.e. those with few or no ambient cues) can’t sound warm? I should mention that I don’t think anybody owns the term “warm,” so I’m not disputing the “proper” use of the word. I would also add that it’s perfectly normal that folks have different associations with the term, especially in light of the fact that, in this context, it is highly metaphorical. Nevertheless, it's useful for me to hear other people’s understanding of it, because that may provide clues to what’s missing in my own system. Bryon |
FWIW, and its already been discussed fairly well, I think the terms warm(er), neutral, or cool/analytical, are difficult when used to discuss the sound of music. Audio, OK, maybe.
Not to be overly simplistic, but what turns me on is always a sound that is natural, sympathetic to the sound of live music, and draws my attention to musical content and detail, but not so much the stereo/multichannel effects created by a well executed system.
For the most part I listen to live music in the orchestra section row G dead center where the power of the orchestra, the separation of instrumental detail but where the total integration of the orchestra is best (for me). The sounds from the string sections, violins especially, are never dominant nor screechy (bright, too prominent, which is often a product of the recording itself) and small groups and solo instruments in a recital hall (which has superb acoustics.) So I have selected components, speakers, etc, which replicate best that live experience. BUT IT'S NOT LIVE and that is not my audio goal.
FWIW I really agree with most of hifiman5's comments. |
one more consideration:
warmth is a spectral balance. it is different from neutrality. it must concern the realtionship or balance between the treble and bass regions.
thus as far as arecording is concerned, it is tuning of a stereo system to create a particular balance that provides a greater emphasis upon the bass region than the treble region.
it probably results in a loss of resolution. |
when i defined warm i did not quantify the peaks or dips in the treble and bass regions, respectively.
syrupy or dark might be the result of a large deflection from neutrality (what is large).
my favorite spot in the concert hall is the last row orchestra, there is some loss in reolution and a roll off in the treble, although i am not sure where it starts.
considering the distance from the stage to my seat, other things may be happening as well.
but again, warmth and live are not the same. |
Recognizing that the term "warmer" appears to be impossible to define with any degree of consensus I would add that I find soft dome tweeters "warmer" [whatever that means] than metal domes. I base this on the Scanspeak ones in my Spendor SP 1/2Es and S 100s and Gamut L5s and the Focal Titanium ones in the Mini Utopias I use to have and in my friends Wilson's. The metal domes seem wonderfully detailed and accurate but somewhat "cold". Others would doubtless have other reactions and I am sure there are differences in their behavior that are not reveled in simple frequency response tests. |
Hi Bryon, Another of your fascinating and thought-provoking threads, which expectably has stimulated some excellent responses. The one thing that occurs to me that has not yet been mentioned, and which I think factors into "warmth" significantly, is hall ambience, or the lack thereof. It seems to me that proper reproduction of hall ambience is a key factor underlying Learsfool's astute comment that Assembling a system that sounds "real" is automatically also going to be a system that sounds "warm." I suspect this is true for the great majority of audiophiles out there, especially those whose reference is live, unamplified acoustic music in a good performing venue. And it strikes me as a key factor in achieving the "richness" that several other posters referred to. Hall ambience, of course, was discussed at great length in your excellent "They are here" vs. "You are there" thread. Obviously its proper reproduction is highly dependent on the recording. I would offer the hypothesis that recordings that are lacking in "warmth," or "richness," or which tend not to sound "real," commonly have not adequately captured hall ambience. If so, the obvious question is what to do about it. One approach, which iirc you offered in the other thread, is to try to adjust room acoustics such that they draw a reasonable compromise between adding some semblance of concert-hall acoustics to enhance the presentation of ambience in the case of mediocre or poor recordings, while not overshadowing the ambience that is captured on good recordings. Obviously there will usually be practical limitations to how effectively that can be done. Another approach would be to try to adjust frequency response. But while emphasizing upper bass and lower mid-range frequencies, for instance, may to some rough approximation replicate the frequency response effects of hall ambience, that approach will be unsatisfactory IMO because it does not address the timing relationships between direct and reflected sound. What does strike me as likely to be, in general, the most promising way of enhancing warmth and ambience on mediocre and poor recordings, without significantly compromising the reproduction of well done recordings, is the introduction of tubes into the system, as others have suggested above. The added dimensionality that is commonly attributed to tubes (that attribution being correct in my experience, although from a technical standpoint I have no idea why that would be so), and perhaps the relative emphasis that they may give to lower order even harmonics, seem to me to be the best way of achieving that balance. Concerning where to put the tubes in the system, as you’ve no doubt seen there have been many debates on that question in prior threads here, with opinions sharply divided. FWIW, I am in the tube power amp camp. However in this case I certainly do not think that replacing your XA-30.5 with a tube amp would be the right approach. I say that partly because of the Pass amp’s outstanding reputation, but also because, assuming that the impedance characteristics of your 1027be’s are similar to those of the 1037be, the higher output impedance of a tube amp would result in increased treble emphasis and de-emphasized lower mids and bass, counter to what you are trying to achieve. So I have no bottom line answer to suggest, beyond some of the suggestions that have already been made, but those are some thoughts. Best regards, -- Al |
Hello Johnsonwu... Most of the venue's we attend are JAZZ , not amplified . There has been times when we were so close that the horns would drive me back after a few songs , ya standing in the back . I'm not sure how loud the horn's were at that distance , I'dd guess over 100db , my ears rang for hours after . So now when I hear that we are going to a concert , I find out the particular's before picking out seat ticket's .
The liquid coherent sound that live music portrays I would not refer to as warm .
Whether it's tube or solid state the interpolation of warmth that equipment designers add to give a component realism can hardly be compared to what we hear live . Happy listening , live or recorded . Tim |
Hi Tmsorosk, may I ask if you are referring to acoustical "unplugged" music or electronically produced music as perhaps in a rock concert?
I go to classical concerts and recitals often (actually almost every week these past couple months) and I find that no matter where I sit, the concert hall sound is "warmer" than most stereo systems I hear (absolutely not at the dealers), including mine.
I can never hear that "Krell" and "Audio Research" kind of crystalline clinical sound when playing classical music
when I attend a live classical concert. I think that's their coloration to make it sound "wide open and airy" to attract a prospective customer has only 10 minutes or so at a stereo shop.
BTW in my opinion not all tube amps color its sound reproduction with warmth, and not all SS amps are cold and sterile (Pass XA....5 series and Paul Weitzel's TRL amps are solid state but they are warm sounding and I am sure many can agree with me) |
