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”.
