here is a definition of warmth:
a slighy peak in the upper bass/lower midrange in conjunction with a dip in the upper frequencies, usually starting at about 3k.
it is definitely a coloration.
there is a difference between accuracy of timbre and warmth.
when attending live unamplified music, one usually does not use the term warm to describe a musical experience.
what distinguishes live music from listening to a stereo is accuracy of timbre .
an instrument soundws real when you hear it, but not real, maybe almpst real when you hear it on a recording.
very often "warm" is synonym for tube coloration of a euphonic nature.
it is an audiophile term which is not part of the definition of music. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
hi newbee:
i think you have described the concept of warm, in your first paragraph in a previous post.
however, would you say that a dip in the highs and a peak in the upper bass and/or lower mids, is amore specific description of warmth ?
if so, warmth is a coloration--an audible deviation from a flat frequency response.
a basic issue is whether warmth is a coloration.
as 9i have said, when listening to musicians playing instruments which are unaplified, does the word warmth apply ?
i think not, i suspect that what people mean by warmth is accuracy of timbre. when an instrument does not sound real, there usually are errors in frequency response.
it would be interesting to find out rrobert harley's definition from his famous book (i don't remember the title).
the easiest way to achieve warmth , other than room treatment is equalization, but there is a cost to using this approach. i had suggested a deqx or tact in a previous post, these devices operate in the digital domain. |
all of the discussion regarding harmonics is useful and instructive, but does not address the question of whether warmth is a form of coloration. unfortunately, no one has definitively spoken on this subject.
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.
i have proposed an (empirical) concept of warmth as deflections in spl, both positive and nagative, which are audible. as such such a concept would connote that warmth is coloration.
let me give an example.
several posters have mentioned instruments such as the violin and flute, in their discussion of harmonics.
suppose one considers the harpsichord.
if the sound of a harpsichord seems to emphasize the wood body and to some degree, obscures the articulation of the strings, i would say the impression of the sound of the harpsichord would include warmth, as one of the adjectives used. of course, the performer might be responsible for this effect, but that is another question.
i believe the warmth region comprises frequencies below 100, so it would seem that a peak in the region below 100hz (??? how many db) would produce warmth that the poster may be seeking. |
the fact that a word is defined does not rule out the possible arbitrary nature of the word. i am not saying holt's definition is not valid, but like any word in the english language, the duration of its usage and acceptance in communication is afctor in its utility.
by the way, what is the source of gordon holt's definition. does anyone have a reference for the definition.
perhaps if enough people accept the definition and when mentioning the word accept gordon holt's definition , it should be sufficient.
only a few people have cited holt's definition, so it seems that his definition may not be definitive.
for example, is the originator of this thread eliciting suggestions as to attain what holt defines as warmth ? |
its very simple. try attenuating the frequencies between 3 and 5 k by say 3db and increasing the spl by 3db between say 90 and 200 (i may be a little off here) and , voila! warmth. |
