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

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”.

I've heard some Focals and like them very much.

I've heard their profile line in a/b comparison to Martin Logan off a Krell integrated. Surprisingly similar sound. But nothing warm about the sound I heard at all!

Dynaudio is the best line I am familiar with for building a system that has resolution but also just the right slightest dash of inherent warmth.

My Dyns provide nice "warmth" and detail whether run by my Bel CAnto ref1000m monblocks (Class D Icepower) or off my vintage Yamaha receiver in my second system, a line which I have never heard anybody refer to as "warm'.

Well, the Audiogon site seems to be a bit fickle when it comes to hyperlinks. So here's the definition from J. Gordon Holt, the man who probably put this language in our lexicon:
"warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain part of warmth is musical sound."
"dark A warm, mellow excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clock-wise tilted sound across the entire range so that the output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light".
"light Lean and tipped up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark".

Hi Mapman - Before I owned the Focals, I owned Dynaudio speakers for several years. They did have a warmer sound than the Focals, as you point out. But ultimately I concluded that their "house sound" is somewhat too colored for my tastes. I have not heard the Confidence line, however, which might change my mind about that. I have heard the Sapphire, which was pleasing, but a bit underwhelming for the price. I know lots of folks love the C1, but I can't get past its looks, which is shallow of me, I know.

This all raises another question I've been wondering about, namely: Is there an inherent advantage in warm speakers with neutral electronics or warm electronics with neutral speakers?

I have a slight bias toward the latter - warm electronics with neutral speakers - but it's based on nothing more than the intuition that warm speakers diminish resolution more significantly than warm electronics. I guess that's based on the suspicion that the source of warmth in electronics - harmonic distortion - is inherently less destructive to resolution than the sources of warmth in speakers - uneven frequency response, underdamped drivers, driver coloration, and cabinet resonance. I am happy to be wrong about any of that. If I am wrong, and if I choose to pursue greater warmth, then I will have to consider other speakers. Unless...

I should mention at this point that I'm also considering modding the crossovers in my Focals, with the hope that it might increase the perception of warmth, or at least diminish the perception of "coolness." Johnsonwu, who posted above, has already given me some good advice about this type of mod. But I don't want to proceed until I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep the speakers, since it might affect the speaker's resale value.

Lots to consider.

Bryon

Lots of good posts here! @Bryon - Johnson is correct that many currently produced tube amps are not warm at all. In fact, the trend seems to be the opposite. Many companies are now making much more high-powered tube amps, so people don't have to change speakers to use them. In that respect, it makes sense. However, with the added power comes added brightness and a loss of warmth. Johnson's Audio Research example is a good one, another American company doing this is Rogue Audio. If you want a modern tube amp company that has a warmer sound, I would suggest PrimaLuna or Cary.

@Newbee - excellent post about decay. Agree 100%. This is one of the major reasons why many of us musicians prefer tube amps.

@Hifibri - I think we are still not quite understanding each other. You wrote "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."

There are a couple of problems with this. First, there is no such thing, if we are speaking of acoustic instruments, as live music composed only of primary frequencies. That could only happen with electronically produced (and then electronically altered) music. Second, when a musician alters the "color" of his sound, this does NOT change the frequency, including the overtones within the sound - these overtones are determined by the frequency being produced, not by anything the player is doing. Now if the player's tone is not pure (is a little or a lot unfocused), this can mess with the overtones that are produced, as the intonation will be off. But usually only jazz musicians sometimes deliberately "bend" notes in this way on purpose. This isn't done in classical performance. I am talking about much more subtle changes of timbre. But the main point is that the musician cannot change the natural overtones produced by the frequency being played. This can be done to a recording of an acoustic instrument electronically, of course (something that digital processing is frequently guilty of) but that is not what we are talking about here.

@ Bryon again - I know we hashed this out on your neutrality thread already, but I still cringe when I read someone assuming that "warmth" must be an "addition" or "coloration." I still vehemently disagree with this. For me, again because of the types of music to which I listen, if "warmth" is not present, that is a definite "subtraction," and therefore an inaccuracy. Measurements be damned! :) I guess this has alot to do with your question about caring more about reproduction of the recording or the actual event.