ASDF: I composed a post making essentially the same point last night, but decided not to post it. Why? Because for whatever combination of reasons (which I could speculate on, but don't need to for us to acknowledge the net result), the truth of the matter is that plenty of recordings from the period JRD refers to do in fact have a 'warm' sound. It stands to reason that if the logic of your argument is good (and I believe that it is), then the premises must either be incorrect or incomplete, because the expected conclusion doesn't seem to follow. It is an interesting topic to ponder...
Warm vs. Analytical
The subject is SS integrated amps. Some integrateds, like Audiolab and Krell, are often labeled "analytical." Others, like Arcam, are called "warm." I'm trying to get a grip on what these terms really mean. I understand they can be subjective.
To my own ears, Cambridge Audio sounds soft and dulled down at the edges. Musical Fidelity (the A3.2 integrated) sounds to me clean, precise, and detailed; it's the kind of sound I prefer. Is Cambridge Audio "warm"? Is MF more "analytical"? I'm not trying to start a flame war hear; I just want to know how my perceptions of sound fit into the terminology that people use to describe it.
Thanks for your insights
To my own ears, Cambridge Audio sounds soft and dulled down at the edges. Musical Fidelity (the A3.2 integrated) sounds to me clean, precise, and detailed; it's the kind of sound I prefer. Is Cambridge Audio "warm"? Is MF more "analytical"? I'm not trying to start a flame war hear; I just want to know how my perceptions of sound fit into the terminology that people use to describe it.
Thanks for your insights
- ...
- 18 posts total
- 18 posts total