If Warmth Is a Distortion, Why Do So Many Audiophiles Still Defend It?

Warmth = musical to me

Alrighty, let’s move on from those instruments sounding warm here and there... to begin with...

You busted out your Audio Precision and saw that amp measure flat, stared at some sinad numbers and that’s it, you’re done...It might be warm, might be neutral, or cold or whatever, but, you can’t prove its warm from those measurements you took with the Audio Precision. I know about some li’l tricks within the black art of analog circuits design to warm it up or cool it down, the sound it is, without you ever being able to prove it with your measurement. Hence, it’s what you got...stare at the measurements, your grand truth and move on (wink wink).

Oh...and if i was the mastering engineering on that album, i might have just warmed it up because I LIKED IT like that!! You wouldn’t know what the baseline ever was...., it’s what you got....go buy the album.... (wink wink)

p.s. i’ll pass on that electrostatic fake sounding bass and its unnatural sound...That Martin Logan plant....it’s only for a short drive from me, never felt the need to get one....but, you carry on with the electrostatics, if it floated your boat.

@viber6    wrote

@deep_333,

I agree with all of your statements in the box.  To be clear, I know that there is natural warmth from the tonal structure of larger instruments such as piano, pipe organ, tuba, cello, string bass.  Certain singers do have warm, rich voices, but most other singers heard live have somewhat raucous voices as though they almost have a cold. I enjoy the natural warmth from those instruments and the gifted singers with rich voices.   As a beginning violinist 60 years ago, my violin sound was scratchy and distorted.  Nowadays I have acquired skills to produce a warmer, sweet sound when I want that.  But my improved skills have also enabled me to get a more precise attack and sharper sound for certain types of music. 

But most of this thread has been a discussion of electronic warmth from audio systems.  I hate all of that.  This type of warmth is NOT the warmth of natural instruments.  It can be described as electronic warming of the naturally warm tonalities from overlay of electronic fuzz and hash.  The biggest contributor is dynamic speakers which add colorations and distort the natural harmonics of the music being played.  Electrostatics and ribbons are more neutral and impose fewer colorations.  Audio system warmth is NOT accuracy aka high fidelity.  That electronic warming reduces the detail of the warm natural sound.  The string quartet you heard certainly has warmth for certain pieces like gentle classical.  But Shostakovich and Bartok are harsher, and there the sound would not be warm.  Those pieces are gritty and hard sounding.  A confusing factor is the wooden stage floor and walls, carpeting in the hall, all of which soften and warm the sound.  I have been in Boston Symphony Hall close to the stage, which is not as warm as Carnegie Hall.  Boston has no carpet on the floor or plush seats.  Carnegie is the opposite.  

deep_333,

The world of correlating measurements with characteristics of sound is indeed murky.  But it is quite clear that dynamic drivers in a box yield an overlay of warm, veiled (whatever you want to call it) sound, compared to boxless lower mass electrostatic or ribbon drivers.  I haven't heard open baffle dynamic speakers, but I accept the claims of advocates that open battle yields lower coloration than boxed dynamic speakers.  Dynamic tweeters can be good, due to their lower mass and limited excursion, all adding up to controlled, low mass with lower distortion than lower frequency drivers.  

I am not a plant for Martin Logan stats.  Curved panels have more time smear than flat panels.  And large panels have more time smear than smaller panels.  Indeed, I have heard small box speakers like Rogers LS 3/5a that have better accuracy than large panels, such as the awful 4 foot square Dayton Wright electrostatic.  The best illustration of my verbiage is the YT video comparing one of the best dynamics, the TAD CR1 against the current favorite stat, Popori.  The Popori is a flawed large panel, but the essential point is the midrange which is clearly less colored than the TAD.

Dear @deep_333   : I think that @viber6  is rigth but from other perspective you too because:

" and if i was the mastering engineering on that album, i might have just warmed it up because I LIKED IT like that!!  "

R.

Warmth = Organic sound = Clean pure sound = natural sound.

Warm sound isn’t smooth sound.

I asked AI and AI says "The opposite of a smooth sound is harsh or rough. In a general sense, this means the sound is unpleasant, uneven, and has sharp or irritating frequencies." 

I think AI’s wrong that in audio (sound) sense, the opposite of smooth sound is sharp sound. Not harsh/rough. "Unpleasant and uneven sounds are irritating. But sharp sound is not irritating sound.

The dirty sounds hurts human ears. Not the sharp sound. The smooth sound still hurt our ears if it’s dirty. Warm sound isn’t smooth sound. The dirty sound systems don’t sound warm well because dirty (harsh, hard) sound masks the organic warm music behind it. Alex.Wavetouch audio