What is “warmth” and how do you get it?


Many audiophiles set out to assemble a system that sounds “warm.” I have heard several systems that could be described that way. Some of them sounded wonderful. Others, less so. That got me wondering: What is this thing called “warmth”?

It seems to me that the term “warm” can refer to a surprising number of different system characteristics. Here are a few:

1. Harmonic content, esp. added low order harmonics
2. Frequency response, esp. elevated lower midrange/upper bass
3. Transient response, esp. underdamped (high Q) drivers for midrange or LF
4. Cabinet resonance, esp. some materials and shapes
5. Room resonance, esp. some materials and dimensions

IME, any of these characteristics (and others I haven’t included) can result in a system that might be described as “warm.”

Personally, I have not set out to assemble a system that sounds warm, but I can see the appeal in it. As my system changes over time, I sometimes consider experimenting more with various kinds of “warmth.” With that in mind…

Do you think some kinds of warmth are better than others?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bryon
bryoncunningham
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
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.
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.
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.