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 |
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. |
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 |
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!’ |
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. |
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. |
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. |
FYI:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-reverse-glossary-part-1 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 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”. |
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'. |
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". |
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 |
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. |
@ 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.
|
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 |
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. |
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 Bryon - loved the beginning of your post. :) I think we are actually in agreement here.
@Hifibri - yes, re-reading what I wrote, that is a little confusing, for which I apologize. Basically, this is the part that is the important part: "the main point is that the musician CANNOT (emphasis added) change the natural overtones produced by the frequency being played." In this quote: "Now, if the player’s tone is not pure…this CAN (emphasis added) mess with the overtones…musicians sometimes deliberately bend notes on purpose." the word "overtones" is not what I meant to use - I meant to say frequency, though this is pretty badly worded period.
Without going into a very technical discussion of sound waves and how they are formed inside a brass instrument (to continue your example), a brass player is manipulating frequency and creating different waveLENGTHs when he "buzzes" his lips as the air moves through them and into the instrument. Where this frequency is on the natural harmonic series determines the waveLENGTH. These natural harmonics are of course fixed, as are the resulting overtones in the sound, which are determined by these fixed natural harmonics. It isn't possible for the player to manipulate these. If the player is "lipping" too much or too little, or "blowing" too much or too little, this inefficiency results in the tone becoming unfocused in some way, changing the waveFORM, but it does NOT change the frequency or the waveLENGTH, and therefore does NOT change the harmonic content. The dynamic level, or amplitude, makes subtle changes to the waveFORM, and any subtle "color" changes the musician may make to a note (such as the jazz trumpet player "bending" a pitch) also change the waveFORM, but NOT the harmonic content.
So the point I am leading to here is that changes in "warmth" are NOT related to frequency or harmonics or overtones whatsoever. I hope the above is clear, there is a reason I am a musician and not a writer! So to speak of "warmth" in a system as something to do with frequency response seems wrong to me, and I am trying to understand this association among audiophiles. |
This thread has certainly evolved, as might be expected considering the parties who are participating, into a really excellent dialog.
FWIW I must very respectfully say that at this point I agree with Hifibri and I disagree with Learsfool. I see it as follows: Yes, the FREQUENCIES of all of the harmonics are determined unalterably by the fundamental frequency (i.e., the lowest frequency component) of the note that the musician chooses to play. However, wouldn't the individual AMPLITUDES of each of those harmonics, relative to the amplitudes of the other harmonics and to the amplitude of the fundamental, vary depending on the waveform changes you agree can occur?
If not, what would a spectrum analysis of the waveforms indicate is changing? I doubt that extraneous or spurious frequencies are being introduced, that are not harmonically related to the fundamental. What could be changing, that would account for the waveform changes, other than the relative amplitudes of the harmonics and the fundamental?
And if the waveform changes are in fact in the form of alterations of that harmonic structure/balance, then doesn't it stand to reason that there is a relation between "warmth" and harmonic structure/balance?
I do think it is very much an oversimplification, and a common audiophile misconception, to speak of warmth as just being a frequency response that is non-flat in some way. A mid-bass peak, or some similar frequency response emphasis, might contribute to a subjective perception of warmth. But 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.
Best regards,
-- Al |
A question and a follow up -- did audiophiles talk about "warmth" prior to the introduction of consumer digital audio? And if they did, does "warmth" mean the same thing in each time period? |
A slight clarification to my previous post:
In referring to ambience, my intent was to refer to the totality of hall effects, rather than to the sense of "air" with which that term is commonly associated, "air" primarily involving high frequency effects (as was stated earlier by others).
In fact I should probably have used the term "hall effects" instead of "ambience." I'm referring to the totality of the complex interplay that occurs in a hall between directly heard sound, and reflected sound that has been both frequency contoured and delayed by multiple increments of time. All of that, as I have perceived it in my concert-going experience, is a key factor in perceived sonic "richness," which I (and others earlier in this thread) correlate with "warmth."
Best regards,
-- Al |
Almarg, Thank you for your explanation. I am in full agreement. By changing overtones you change the shape of the wave and the resulting sound. The most basic example is the sine wave and square wave at the same frequency.
As the OP indicated there are many factors that can contribute to the perception of warmth, none ‘better’ than the others. Some types can be good when they compensate for deficiencies elsewhere is a system, everything is a synergistic balancing act.
The term ‘warmth’ can be used to describe sound as being additive, subtractive, and a component of a neutral sound. Scientists who study such things will tell you that there is no such thing as cold, only the absence of warmth. An analogy using the most common meaning for the word warmth would be to determine an ideal room temperature, say 70 degrees. This would be your 'neutral' or live sound reference. By subtracting warmth you would cool the room, by raising the temperature you would warm it, but the ideal would still possess ‘warmth’. We can apply the term ‘warmth’ to describe a range of sound in the same ways. If a sound is cool, it lacks warmth and is unnatural. If it sounds neutral it has just the right amount of warmth and sounds natural or neutral. If it sounds too warm, then it is unnatural. Warmth can be used to describe naturalness of timbre.
We agree on the basic sonic character of ‘warmth’, but being an adjective, it can be used to describe a wide range of that character, both very minute, and very large differences. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the person using the word to ensure that the description of the degree of warmth is understood by the audience. The exact definition of any word will never overcome sloppy usage. |
Onhwy61, Yes, audiophiles used the term 'warmth' before the 'advent' of digital. :) |
FWIW, I think that when we attend many concert halls, especially large ones with many patrons, we are often exposed to "warmth". The same instruments can sound quite different; without an audience, in different rooms or even in different seats. Depending on your perspective "warmth" can be either natural or a by-product of a typical live listening experience. |
Hi guys - Hifibri wrote in his last post "By changing overtones you change the shape of the wave and the resulting sound." As I have tried to explain, the actual overtones do NOT change.
Al, you are probably correct about the amplitude of them changing, I would need to get out my acoustics books to make sure. However, since these overtones we are speaking of are not audible to the vast majority of even highly trained ears, changes in their amplitude then would not be audible either, and they would be very minute in any case (though some would argue that this does not mean the brain wouldn't perceive the change somehow). The actual amplitude of the total sound of course has a far greater effect on the waveform. You bring up a very interesting question, though. How a musician's subtle changes in timbre affect the waveform is something I would need to look up (certainly these changes obviously effect the waveform somehow) - but I am not sure that my books go into that much detail. What I can say is that there is no way a musician can deliberately change the volume of a specific overtone in his sound, so even if you are completely correct, there is unfortunately no practical application of this for actual live performance.
Regardless of what the answers to these questions are, things like what Al terms "hall effects" have a MUCH greater effect on the perception of "warmth" (Unsound is perfectly correct in his last post), and the recording itself has an even greater effect. The design of the audio equipment also has much to do with it - for instance, to bring up Onhwy61's point, many designers of digital processors routinely omit all harmonics above the range of human hearing, claiming what the ear can't hear it won't miss. Many of us beg to differ, and it has been proven that the brain can detect frequencies above what the ear can hear. LOL, am I now getting dangerously close to arguing against my point? This is a fascinating discussion, indeed. |
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 |
"...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. |
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? I would not go so far as to say that tubes are inherently better with respect to time domain performance. Their main advantages, as I see it, relate to harmonic balance, and also to increased dimensionality and better imaging (although as I indicated earlier, I can't explain technically why that would be so). However, tube designs lend themselves more readily to minimal use of feedback. As Atmasphere has frequently pointed out, feedback, at least if not done judiciously, can create or enhance objectionable distortion components. It can also affect the quality with which the leading edge of rapidly changing transients are reproduced. Our hearing mechanisms give particular emphasis to those leading edges, as a result of the Haas Effect and the Precedence Effect. Although as was stated in Newbee's excellent post, that is most applicable to instruments whose notes have fast risetimes. His comments about decay times I also think are very true. It seems plausible that the indirect sound from a recording space might contribute to the perception of warmth.... 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 would doubt it, at least assuming the hall is at least semi-decent. I can't remember ever being in a hall in which the instruments sounded "cool," in the way that they can on some recordings. In a hall, I just about invariably sense a sort of "aura" surrounding each note (more so or less so depending on the instrument and the music, of course), that contributes to a sense of richness/body/warmth, and which I believe is a result of the summing together of delayed sound and directly heard sound. ... 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. Room acoustics and treatments are not one of my areas of expertise, but my instinct, with respect to situations where physical and aesthetic considerations are not too limiting, would be that it should often be possible to find a compromise that would enable "cold" recordings to be warmed up somewhat, without significantly degrading reproduction of good recordings. But only to a limited extent, given the disparities in delay times between listening rooms and halls. Best regards, -- Al |
Learsfool you wrote; "As I have tried to explain, the actual overtones do NOT change"....and; "Al, you are probably correct about the amplitude of them (overtones) changing". If they change amplitude, they change the sound and waveform, change is change. If a musician strums an open chord on an acoustic guitar, then the musician places his hand on the bridge and strumms the same chord it would sound different because the frequency and amlpiude of the overtones have changed due to the damping effect of the musicians hand. It's basic acoustics.
All halls, venues, rooms have thier own sound.
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/concerthallsvenues/ss/bestconcerthall_6.htm
Often they are modified to improve thier sound.
http://www.saflex.com/pdf/Saflex%C2%AE%20Acoustic%20-%20Chicago%20Symphony%20Orchestra%20Hall.pdf |
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 |
If a space can't support or leaks the lower frequencies, and at the same time reverberates or enhances the higher frequencies, though not typically likely to happen, I would suspect the results would be "cool". |
Bryon, Re Room treatments/tuning, like everything else in audio, ain't a Sunday walk in the park with a pretty girl.
Depends on what you are trying to change to create 'warmth'. In this post I will assume that 'warmth' means unemphasized highs with or without a corresponding wide but small boost in the lower mid-range thru to the upper bass. Room dimensionally induced issues? Set up issues? Equipment selection issues? Treatment selection absorption/dispersive panels, traps, etc, all of which require careful selection given the source of the 'problem' are critical.
For example, excessive sounding highs can be caused by equipment types or positioning relative to reflective surfaces. They can be controlled/reduced by speaker location, orientation, or using sound dispersion or absorption panels.
But, as in the case of absorption panels, a common type of treatment recommended and used by audiophiles, if the materiel used covers a broader frequency range than needed, i.e. you need to knock down a 5K peak but use materials which are absorptive down to 1500k you will have dulled down an otherwise well balanced mid range. This might enhance the sound of the lower mid range/bass to some folks but not to all.
Conversely if you have an upper mid-range peak, a very common problem in speaker and electronics, and you try to damp it with absorption materials you loose the highs as well as the mid-range peak. For me that removes specific absorbers from the list of possibilities unless you can figure out how to compensate for the unwanted change. And so it goes with a just few room treatments but set up problems as well as speakers and electronics share the same issues. How to get balance in your room? Even the experts often can't get it right.
So, to my point (finally). 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?).
The possibilities with tube equipment seem as endless as the frustrations experienced by many in the implementation of tubes, especially by those who aren't all that dedicated and like quick fixes, or miracles. One of the things that I would always recommend because of the learning curve involved is to keep it simple, even knowing that ultimately someone might want an all tube system. For example, there are quite a few good integrated tube amps now and are an excellent place to start as opposed to introducing separates and making a mixed system.
And, FWIW, realizing that there exists those who will vehemently disagree, with ss stuff you are excluded from changing its sonic signature significantly, keeping it off the horizons for adventurers. Wires and little black boxes can only do so much.
But I digress and apologize for going off point and getting on a box with such simple observation |
Many feel some speakers are "warmer" sounding than others.
I have always tended to attribute this to tonality, ie the relative balance of frequencies with warmer speakers tending to have less emphasis on treble or higher frequencies relative to midrange in general.
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.
Most discussion of harmonics I have read tend to be about how different amplifier technologies deal with harmonics.
But what about speakers then assuming some speakers are inherently warm and others less so, which I believe to be the case. |
Mapman, FWIW, I agree with your first two sentences. I think tonal differences in speakers can easily be effected by enclosure design, speaker selection, and crossover design.
Except for those speakers which have been intentionally designed to use its natural resonance frequencies to enhance a tone, the speakers 'harmonics' would not greatly affect its frequency response so much as its resolution.
For example, if the cabinet had an unsuppressed resonance frequency of, say 350hz, it would likely sound muddy/boomy, not natural at all, and something I think a designer would want to avoid like the plague.
In the context of this thread I think 'harmonics' is a term referring to the overall tone of an instrument and how it is replicated in the recording or playback process, something that it best appreciated with the choice of a violin, guitar, piano, etc, which all have sound boards which resonate and create complex sounds (harmonics) resulting in a natural tone. Not a warm tone, not a cool tone, a natural tone, the signature of the instrument itself, and not the recording or playback process. That tone is what it is. That is what I think when I use the term 'natural'.
Personally I'm not comfortable in referring to speaker designed tone, hall acoustics, or home room acoustics as 'harmonics' in the same sense as those of instruments. |
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. |
Hi Mr T,
As I have said in a post previous to the one you have quoted, my only hope when I listen to recorded music is to hear something that sounds natural, consonant with that which I would experience live. My live experiences leave me with little choice when selecting components for my home system but to tune a system which might be called warmish, especially in the upper bass/lower mid's and a little dip between 2 and 3K hz. I do not seek a reduction in the high frequencies. To me my choices only compensate for the prevailing design critera used by so many speaker and electronic's manufacturers, as well as more than a few recording engineers that better serve the stereo format and goals than the music itself. Just think how music could be better served if soundstage was no longer an issue. In stereo the engineers rely on multi-mic'ing to create the stereo effect and the sound of a live event is lost.
For example, most live music, except for very close seating is mono in form which is amplified by the horn shape of the stage and enlarged by the hall acoustics. If you can ever find one, try a properly set up binaural recording and see how much the stereo soundstage collapses into a large, well defined, mono sound field.
FWIW, just my POV. But I don't think I can help you with your conclusions.
Call that sound colored if you will but to me it has the potential to occasionally remind me of something I heard live, and at worst covers a lot of 'uncolored' sin perpetrated in the name of 'audio'. |
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 |
Hi guys - I wrote a very long post last night, only to discover that I could not post it, for some reason. The discussion has meanwhile left me far behind, but it has been a very good one. Obviously, the main problem here is terminology. As Newbee politely pointed out, some of you seem to have a misconception of what "harmonics" or "overtones" are, and my attempts to define it were obviously unsuccessful. I refer you to any book on acoustics. Hifibri in particular has misconstrued what I have been saying about them, and I give up - there is a reason why I am a musician, and not a writer, LOL (Hifibri, if you want to email me through the audiogon system, I can try to explain to you why your guitar example is not quite correct). I am in agreement with what Al and Newbee have said about harmonics in general.
What I will say is that I think I do finally have a handle on why you all think that frequency response is a major part of warmth. The terminology was holding me back - partly some people's incorrect usage of it, but also and mainly the differences between the meaning of certain words when used in the context of a musician's performance as opposed to the attributes of an audio system's "performance." 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) Overtones are inaudible to 99.9% of us. Changes in their amplitude, therefore, would not be heard independently from changes in amplitude to the main frequency actually being sounded. 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. Nothing the player does can isolate a specific harmonic and change it's amplitude - all harmonics will be affected by anything happening to the main frequency being sounded. Let me give a couple of examples.
If I sound the same tone with the same amplitude on two different horns in the same room, the differing "warmth" of the instruments will have everything to do with the alloy of the metal used in constructing the instruments, as well as the difference in the way the horn is designed (not to mention the differences in execution of the same design). Assuming that a strobe tuner is present so we can be sure that the two tones are of exactly the same frequency, the harmonics will be exactly the same. And if the frequency is off by say a cent or two, the harmonics will be proportionally off as well, and this extremely slight difference would not be perceived by 99.9% of us, anyway. You would perceive perhaps a great difference in the "warmth" of the two horns, but it is not because of harmonics. Same if I play the exact same frequency and amplitude in two different rooms on the same horn. They WILL sound perceptibly different to everyone, but it is because of the acoustics of the room, not because of overtones. One more example - two different recordings made of one note in the same room (with a different mike placement for each, or very possibly with the same mike placement) will also sound different. One may sound "warmer" than another, but again not because of harmonics.
Bryon, you are definitely on the right track here: "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." Change the first word from "some" to "all," and change each use of the words "can" and "might" to "will". Despite all the best acousticians know, it is impossible to predict exactly what the hall is going to do to the overall sound. These factors and others mentioned in other posts (the audio equipment itself, in particular) have a great deal more to do with "warmth," IMO. |
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 |
Hi Bryon - perhaps Al can weigh in on this and correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure harmonics couldn't truly be "added," (they are of course all already present in the timbre) though digital reverb would be an example of an "addition" that would certainly affect the perception of warmth. Overtones can be and are sometimes removed by digital processing.
Perhaps a better word to describe what you are speaking of would be "emphasizing." Atmasphere has posted quite informatively about these types of issues, talking of even or odd order harmonics being emphasized by the design in different types of amps, and whether or not the designer is thereby following the "rules" of human hearing. This is very similar to the way the acoustical environment affects the timbre, except the designer of a piece of audio equipment I suspect has alot more control over his end result than an acoustician does.
And yes, I would say that tube designs are certainly "warmer," speaking very generally, than solid state designs, therefore sounding more lifelike. I'm just saying that there is a whole lot more to do with that than amplitudes of individual harmonics within the overall timbre - again, these harmonics are inaudible to far more than 99.9% of us. |
Learsfool, as I see it an audio system can introduce harmonics, enhance harmonics, or even reduce harmonics that may be present in the source material. Harmonics can, and to some degree inevitably will, be introduced by the system in the form of distortion products. They can be enhanced either by virtue of a frequency response emphasis that happens to occur at a frequency corresponding to some harmonic (multiple) of the fundamental frequency of a note, or by virtue of a frequency response dip that happens to occur at the fundamental frequency, or by virtue of distortion of the fundamental frequency of a note, the distortion products therefore occurring at the same frequencies as harmonics that may be present in the note. They can be reduced by the converse of those frequency response effects, or by introduction of a distortion product that is out of phase with a harmonic that may be present in the note at the same frequency. I'm just saying that there is a whole lot more to do with that than amplitudes of individual harmonics within the overall timbre - again, these harmonics are inaudible to far more than 99.9% of us. I respectfully disagree. My understanding is that timbre and the relative amplitudes of individual harmonics are one and the same. As I understand it, to cite an example, a violin playing a note whose fundamental frequency is say 1 kHz will produce very audible harmonics at 2 kHz, 3 kHz, and other higher multiples of 1 kHz. A flute playing a note whose fundamental frequency is also 1 kHz will produce very audible harmonics at those same multiples of 1 kHz. The reason that the note produced by the flute will sound different than the note produced by the violin is that the relative amplitudes of those harmonics will be in different proportions. And, similarly, differences in timbre and tone between two different playings of the same note on the same instrument will be the result of differences in the relative amplitudes of those harmonics, as I understand it. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Al - thanks for weighing in on this. However, I think you are incorrect when you say "Harmonics can, and to some degree inevitably will, be INTRODUCED by the system in the form of distortion products." (My emphasis) Your own examples that follow are all examples of what I was speaking of in my previous post - what you call enhancing certain harmonics via distortions (and they are good examples). However, ALL natural harmonics are always present in the natural timbre, so you can't introduce a new overtone that wasn't there before, though you can distort (or even remove) it. This is what I was trying to say in my previous post. If this statement is indeed incorrect, please explain.
One other point - in your violin examples, yes, those overtones are of course part of what make differences in timbre. However, each individual one is indeed indistinguishable from the others to the ears of at least 99.9% of humans. It is not possible to tell which of those overtones are the ones that are different, in your example of two different playings of the same note on the same instrument. If I played the same note twice, at the same volume, on my horn, you would not be able to tell me which individual overtones were affected and how, and this is doing you the credit that you would be able to hear the difference in the timbre between the two at all - a great many audiophiles would not, especially if I tried to the best of my ability to make them exactly the same. And in the same case, it would have to be a VERY bad recording/system indeed that would distort them so much so that most people could hear it. These sorts of differences are MUCH more audible live and at very close range than they are on a recording. |
Learsfool, I think you are absolutely correct. I could go on ad nauseum, but suffice it to say that I see only one term when talking about electric signals, 'harmonic distortion', with the word 'distortion' being a noun and 'harmonic' being an adjective modifying it. I am unaware of any naturally occuring 'harmonics' in an electrical signal. Only distortion of what ever type.
FWIW. |
Hi Learsfool and Newbee, ALL natural harmonics are always present in the natural timbre, so you can't introduce a new overtone that wasn't there before. Let's say that a note includes a frequency component at 1kHz. In response to that 1kHz frequency component, the system may create distortion products at 2kHz, 3kHz, 4kHz, and any and all other multiples of 1kHz that are within the bandwidth of the system. Let's take the 8th harmonic (8kHz) as an example. Whether the 8kHz distortion component that is created by the system, in response to the 1kHz frequency component of the note, constitutes an INTRODUCTION of a harmonic, or an ENHANCEMENT of a harmonic, depends on whether or not an 8kHz harmonic is already part of the sound that the instrument created. If you are saying that any note produced by any instrument will naturally and invariably contain frequency components of non-zero amplitude at ALL harmonic multiples of the fundamental (lowest) frequency component of the note (and I don't know whether or not that is true), then yes, that would mean in a literal sense that the system cannot INTRODUCE a harmonic that isn't already there. However, 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. If a harmonic already exists in the note at the same frequency as that newly created distortion product, then the natural harmonic and the artificial one would combine in some manner, depending on their phase relationship. In your violin examples, yes, those overtones are of course part of what make differences in timbre. However, each individual one is indeed indistinguishable from the others to the ears of at least 99.9% of humans. It is not possible to tell which of those overtones are the ones that are different, in your example of two different playings of the same note on the same instrument. If I played the same note twice, at the same volume, on my horn, you would not be able to tell me which individual overtones were affected and how, and this is doing you the credit that you would be able to hear the difference in the timbre between the two at all - a great many audiophiles would not, especially if I tried to the best of my ability to make them exactly the same. And in the same case, it would have to be a VERY bad recording/system indeed that would distort them so much so that most people could hear it. These sorts of differences are MUCH more audible live and at very close range than they are on a recording. Yes, certainly I would not be able to identify and describe the specific differences in harmonic structure that correspond to the differences in timbre that I may hear, at least without the aid of sophisticated instrumentation. But my point is this: For a note with a given volume, a given fundamental frequency, and what I'll refer to as a given "envelope" (duration, rise, decay, etc.), audible differences in timbre, tone, and even the basic character of the note (e.g., violin vs. flute) are the result of differences in harmonic structure (i.e., the relative amplitudes of each of the harmonics). To the extent that differences in timbre, tone, and the basic character of the note are perceivable, differences in harmonic structure are perceivable. I don't see how that can be incorrect, because (for a given volume, fundamental frequency, and envelope) I can't envision anything other than differences in harmonic structure that could account for differences in timbre, tone, or the basic character of the note. Best regards, -- Al |
