What does "Warm" mean?


In his post today Paul McGowan ([email protected]) had a pretty good post on the subject of warmth.  Here is his definition: "The word usually points at a few related things. There's a slight rise in the lower midrange and upper bass — the region where male voices, cellos, lower piano notes, and the body of most instruments live. There's a softness at the very top, a rounding off of transient energy that feels easier on the ear over long sessions. And there's a sense of weight and body in the music, a presence that makes acoustic instruments feel three-dimensional rather than etched in air. When all three of those things show up together, listeners reach for "warm" because nothing else describes it as quickly."

Paul then goes on to discuss both the good and the bad of this set of characteristics.  In general I associate warmth with harmonic distortion, but prefer it to the stridency or harshness that I associate with intermodular distortion.  I think most people would agree.  Since we all live with a certain amount of distortion, more in analog than in digital playback, I wonder what others think about warmth, or lack of same, and their tolerance or lack of same in their own listening preferences. 

billstevenson

I would refer to ‘warmth’ where overtones are suppressed and dynamics are muted. Only  desirable in overly strident SS systems with harsh tweeters.

The exact opposite of bright. Inviting, smooth and fatigue free listening for hours without losing interest with no compromise in dynamics and drive. You can warm up a bright system with some more bass (lower, mid and upper). 

I can hear the overall color of a system. Warm is literally cream through red to dull brown depending on the level or density of warmth. I've noticed that if the system sounds yellow, music loses its native color and is too sickly to listen too. The worst systems have a chromium color stripping away emotion from the soul of the music. For me, my main system is uncolored allowing the music itself to present its own spectrum.

I think Paul nailed it.  Audio sound descriptions are complicated, and basically involve it’s own slang without the benefit of a common known guideline of what the terms actually mean.

Given warm/musical vs cold/analytical at their extremes, I’d learn more towards warmth, but I suspect we’re all looking for a good balance that offers warmth and musicality AND true resolution with insights that offer ambient room and space information along with natural harmonic structure and overtones that take place above the fundamental range of most instruments.  The trick is to gain that without just boosting the higher frequency crud in that range that often sounds harsh to us.  (at least that’s my goal)