Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses. 02-04-11: Hifiman5
"Warmth" is a very difficult characteristic to describe with adjectives. It's for me, the way real instruments sound in an acoustically neutral environment...A "lack of warmth" for me would be if the pluck of each string was unnaturally exaggerated by a "hot" tweeter and the mid and lower mids were not able to deliver the woodiness of the instruments. Hifiman - On good recordings, my system sounds warm, according to the standard you describe. In fact, I would say the most realistic sounding instrument on my system is acoustic guitar. You may be asking, ‘So what is the problem?’ There isn’t a problem, exactly. On well recorded material, everything is peachy. But on poorly recorded material, I wonder if a “warmer” sounding system would be more rewarding. So, my goal is to expand the range of recordings that sound excellent on the system. Johnsonwu - You've given me a lot to think about and to research, since I'm not a modder (though I have had some gear professionally modded). This approach to adding warmth is one that interests me. Maybe it’s because changing internal components (caps, resistors, etc.) is as close as it gets to single variable changes, which is appealing to me for its conservatism and degree of control. Hi Learsfool – I agree with you and with Hifiman that, for acoustical instruments, warmth is a necessary condition for the perception of “real.” Again, on good recordings, acoustic instruments do sound warm, and hence real (to my ears). It’s the poor or merely adequate recordings that I would like to enhance, if possible. Noble100 - I am considering adding tubes somewhere. Probably not a tube preamp, because I have recently been swayed toward the school of thought that the best preamp is no preamp (i.e. source connected directly to amp; volume controlled, in my case, by computer software). That leaves a tube amp or a dac with a tube output stage. That choice raises some questions: For the issue of adding warmth, does it matter where in the system the tubes are located? Is the common element of “warmth” in tube components simply the addition of low order harmonics to the signal? And what are the downsides of this approach to adding warmth? The last question brings me to... 02-05-11: Kijanki
Enhancing even harmonics does sound really nice with guitar or voice but not so with instruments that poses a little more complex than regular overtones harmonic structure...NEUTRAL sound (whatever it is) is the best… 02-05-11: Tmsorosk
Having tuned musical instruments in the past, one thing we listened for was any unnatural warmth, if you could hear warmth something was wrong. Warmth was never considered natural or desirable. It would altar pace, pitch, flow and timing and make an instrument sound less NEUTRAL, most easily noticeable on sting instruments. 02-05-11: Bizango1
I want my system to be NEUTRAL and have the capability of being true to the source. That's my preference. [emphasis added] You folks sound like me in another thread, where I argued at great length, against great opposition, for the value of neutrality. Some may find it amusing that I am now asking how to make my system warmer. I haven’t really changed my mind about the whole subject of neutrality. On the whole, I still believe that it is one of the most valuable attributes in a system, for the reasons I expressed on that thread. But I am interested in experimenting with changes that might nudge my system just a bit in the direction of greater warmth. Whether or not that is a nudge AWAY FROM NEUTRALITY is a philosophical question around which we should probably tread lightly, lest this thread turn into Neutrality War II. The real question I am hoping to explore is HOW you go about making a system warmer. That is, what characteristics of system design promote the impression of warmth, and what are the drawbacks of those characteristics, if any? Part of answering this question involves answering: Is greater warmth in a system always achieved by ADDING something (e.g., low order harmonics)? Or is it possible that greater warmth can also be achieved by SUBTRACTING something (e.g., some kinds of distortion)? Thanks again to all. Bryon |
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 |
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 |
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 |
02-16-11: Newbee
Tubes. If you have speakers appropriate to your room and to tubes in the first place, and these speakers have a reasonably good sense of 'natural' resolution, by using tube equipment and carefully using (rolling) tubes therein to get you to your sonic goals, you can tame common HF problems and even add some bass /lower mid range boost (that warmth you are looking for?). I think this is good advice, Newbee. I just listened to some tube amps tonight - a Jadis and a VTL. One warm, the other less so. The warm one portrayed instrument timbres beautifully, but unfortunately it was dynamically challenged, to put it politely. I will continue to listen to tube amps...I am really a novice here. 02-16-11: Mapman
Many feel some speakers are "warmer" sounding than others...
I'm wondering do different speaker designs handle harmonics differently? that would seem to be the case if harmonics is the main factor in determining warmth. I agree that some speakers sound warmer than others. I assumed that was a consequence of differences in frequency response, cabinet coloration, and/or high Q drivers. But you may be right that there are differences in the harmonic characteristics of speakers. If so, I wonder what determines a speaker's harmonic "signature"? 02-16-11: Mrtennis
it would be interesting to find out rrobert harley's definition from his famous book (i don't remember the title). The term "warm" does not appear in the glossary of RH's Guide to High End Audio. It does appear in a section called "Sonic Descriptions and their Meanings." He does not explicitly define "warm," but he seems to use it to mean "harmonic accuracy." FWIW. Bryon |
02-21-11: Almarg
…the system can certainly, as I see it, CREATE a harmonic, as a distortion product of the fundamental frequency of the note, irrespective of the existence of that harmonic in the original signal. 02-22-11: Kijanki
Harmonic distortion measurement is done by feeding pure fundamental with no overtones (sinewave) and subtracting the same fundamental from the output. Whatever remains are harmonics introduced by electronics that weren't in the original (source) signal. The comments above are what I had in mind when, on 2/12, I wrote: 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. It is probably safe to say that all equipment is additive, but some equipment is more additive than others, at least with respect to the addition of harmonic content. The evidence for this can be seen in the the kind of measurements that routinely appear in Stereophile, such as Amp A and Amp B. As you can see from the graphs, Amp B adds harmonics of considerably greatly amplitude than Amp A. Hence, with respect to harmonic content, some equipment is more additive than others. Amp A – the one with less added harmonics – is the Pass XA30.5, which is what I currently own. Amp B – the one with more added harmonics – is the PrimaLuna DiaLogue 7. The upshot of all this is that, in light of my desire for additional warmth, maybe I chose the wrong amp. Moving on to… The issue of whether instrument timbre is reducible to harmonic content. I am completely out of my depth here, so will remain agnostic. Having said that, IF instrument timbre is EVEN PARTIALLY reducible to harmonic content, then it reveals a flaw in the “additive approach” to playback. Here is how I characterized the “additive approach” in a previous post… 02-12-11: Bryoncunningham
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. And here is the flaw in this approach… What is ADDED during playback will not be identical to what was SUBTRACTED during the recording process. The reason is because, while the harmonic contents of live events are almost infinitely VARIABLE, the harmonic “additions” of playback equipment are largely CONSTANT, being persistent artifacts of a circuit's more or less fixed parameters. Does this mean that I am retreating from my newly acquired view about the value of the additive approach to playback? No. I am merely recognizing a limit to the additive approach, namely that it cannot replace EXACTLY what is missing from the recording. Hopefully it can replace an approximation of what is missing. And that will have to be good enough. Bryon |
I'm not sure that the variable/constant distinction is particularly meaningful, even within the limited context of harmonic distortion. The harmonic components resulting from distortion in the electronics will continuously vary as a function of the varying spectral components of the music, and to some extent with the overall signal level. I agree with this, Al, insofar as I recognize that the harmonic content introduced by equipment varies as a function of the spectral content and level of the input signal. So perhaps "variable vs. constant" is not quite the right distinction. The distinction I was trying to capture is between the harmonic content of the live event vs. the harmonic content of the reproduced event. To the extent that the recording process diminishes the harmonic content of the recording, the additive approach to playback may do something to replace what is missing. But it cannot, so far as I am aware, replace the EXACT missing harmonic content, since the harmonics introduced by equipment are, in essence, artifacts. The fact that equipment-induced harmonic artifacts vary as a function of the spectral content and level of the input signal does make them "variable," perhaps even as variable as the harmonics of the live event. Nevertheless, equipment-induced harmonic artifacts are not SIMULACRA of the harmonics of the live event. That is the flaw in the additive approach to playback that I was trying to point out. Bryon |
Looking back on this thread, I have another thought...
There has been a lot of discussion about how increasing warmth in a system might involve ADDING something to the signal, like low order harmonics. It occurs to me that increasing warmth might also involve SUBTRACTING something from the signal.
Maybe the most obvious example of how subtracting something from the signal might increase warmth is subtracting treble, which amounts to the same thing as adding midrange/bass. A less obvious example is contained in Al's second post on 2/6, namely subtracting destructive acoustical effects like comb filtering. One final example that I have personally experienced is subtracting (or at least reducing) jitter in digital playback, which to my ears increases the perception of "warmth."
Bryon |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
02-17-11: Learsfool
The only quibble I still have with this discussion is with the importance many of you are placing on minute changes of amplitude in overtones within a musician's timbre as being the major factor in a perception of "warmth." (I am not denying that this is a factor)...Harmonics do of course have to do with the "warmth" of the timbre, but the MUSICIAN has no control whatsoever over specific harmonics within the overall timbre. [emphasis added] Hi Learsfool - I may be wrong, but I think the importance many folks have given to harmonics in the perception of warmth has less to do with how harmonics are produced by a MUSICIAN and more to do with how they are reproduced by the PLAYBACK SYSTEM. In other words... Some systems merely PRESERVE whatever warmth exists on the recording. Other systems seem to ADD warmth, whether it exists on the recording or not. For these systems, a common belief is that the added warmth is often a consequence of added HARMONICS. Do you not think that added harmonics, as you might get with a tube amp, are a significant contributor to the perception of warmth during playback? Bryon |
02-13-11: Almarg
...realistic reproduction of timbre, which as I see it correlates with accurate reproduction of the RELATIVE amplitudes of the harmonics and the fundamental of each note, as well as proper time domain performance and ambience reproduction, I envision as being the keys to the PROPER reproduction of warmth. RE: Harmonics. I agree with you completely that the relative amplitudes of harmonics are a significant factor in the perception of warmth. RE: Time domain behavior. Earlier on the thread, Newbee said something similar - that warmth is partly a matter of a system's ability to portray the decay of notes. I suspect you mean something similar. Do you think that tubes are inherently better at this? RE: Ambience. As I mentioned in a previous post, it never really occurred to me that ambience was a significant factor in the perception of warmth. That is probably because I have a number of studio recordings with no "hall effects" that nevertheless sound warm to me. Having said that, it seems plausible that the indirect sound from a recording space might contribute to the perception of warmth, whether from the kind of "frequency contouring" you alluded to or from other effects. But that also seems to imply that, under some circumstances, flawed recording spaces might diminish the perception of warmth. In other words, some hall effects might sound warm, while other hall effects might sound cool. Do you think that's true? I should add that if the indirect sound from recording spaces can affect the perception of warmth, for better or worse, then it seems to follow that the indirect sound from listening spaces might also affect the perception of warmth, for better or worse. Hence there might be ways to increase the warmth of a system through acoustical treatments in the listening room, which is an interesting idea to me. Bryon |
02-16-11: Unsound
"...While other hall effects might sound cool". Yes, but I would think that's more likely in small, highly reverberant halls, and not as likely to happen in typical concert venues. 02-16-11: Almarg
I can't remember ever being in a hall in which the instruments sounded "cool," in the way that they can on some recordings. My apologies. I wasn't very clear in my last post. When I used the phrase "hall effects," I intended to refer to the acoustical characteristics of recording spaces that might or MIGHT NOT be a concert hall. In other words, I intended "hall effects" to simply mean "acoustical effects," and I should have said as much. What I was trying to express was the idea that some acoustical environments, whether a recording space or a listening space, can CONTRIBUTE to the perception of warmth, while other acoustical environments can DIMINISH the perception of warmth. The fact that most concert halls - being highly acoustically designed environments - contribute to the perception of warmth is something I do not take issue with. I was merely trying to point out that LESS WELL DESIGNED acoustical environments might diminish the perception of warmth. Two things seem to follow from that observation. First, for recordings that lack warmth, the acoustics of the recording space might be a factor. Second, for systems that lack warmth, the acoustics of the listening space might be a factor. Bryon |
02-23-11: Mrtennis
the purpose of the thread , i believe, is the elicitation of suggestions to achieve warmth.
as i have said, without an understanding of what warmth is, the question cannot be answered. This is a valid observation, Mrtennis, but I have found this discussion informative and interesting, in spite of our failure to arrive at a single definition of "warmth." I think the reason why a single definition of warmth is elusive is because "warmth," as a metaphorical description of sound, is not a unitary category. It is a disjunctive category, i.e., a category of the structure X or Y or Z etc.. Disjunctive categories can be unwieldy and frustrating, but they are useful under certain circumstances. Judging from the discussion on this thread, "warmth" seems like it can refer to harmonic content, frequency response, time domain behavior, ambient cues in the recording, listening room acoustics, and probably other things I've left out. In my view, what unites all of these diverse characteristics under the common category of "warmth" is the listener's subjective experience of each of them as "warm." This heterogeneous definition of warmth leaves something to be desired in terms of conceptual Law and Order, which I normally find very appealing. But I suspect that, in this case, a heterogeneous definition is as good as we're going to to get. What seems to follow from the the apparent fact that there are different KINDS of warmth is the likelihood that there are different WAYS OF ACHIEVING warmth, which is something I have learned from reading this thread. Bryon |
