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

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