What is Warmth?

Well, if we use subjective descriptions (and I think we must), we have to expect subjectivity in their definitions! You might find it helpful to consider warmth in the light of its opposites - all rather harsh terms like dry, detailed, clinical. I tend to think of a continuum with warmth at one end, detailed at the other, and accuracy somewhere in between.

That's because some people want to hang on to their personal misconceptions rather than accept the fact that the original meaning has already been defined, and adjust accordingly.

The definition that Gordon Holt suggests is really quite adequate.

Atmasphere, thanks for a really good explaination, electrical wise. Not to knitpick since I am learning a lot here but definition that GH gave for warm/dark is really more about imbalance between high frequency and low frequency. If I understand you correctly, it is not that warm audio equipment have tilted frequency response per se but more that distortion from 2nd harmonic is more pronounced at the bottom end giving illusion to more lower frequency and less at the top, is that correct?

Talks of harmonic as distortion is a bit surprising. I suppose, from instrument point of view, it is the harmonics that give rise to richer,fuller, denser, usually more pleasing tone. I suppose wrong kind of harmonics would do exactly the opposite. In fact certain piano maker such as Bosendorfer intentionally added a 4th string to certain range of notes and is not struck by piano's hammers at all to increase sympathetic vibration and presumbably increase overtone and harmonics. I suppose audio equipment is not supposed to add its own signature of harmonics and just play whatever signals that is passed through only.
I am curious if you might have an example of equipments that you would consider to be one that is able to tame most of the harmonics created by audio equipment itself. Certainequipment that tends to emphasize clarity and detail that comes with cold, analytical tendency probably has its own set of distortion as well. What would be your closest ideal to neutrality? I am not picking on you but just would like to get some idea of a reference. Thanks for your comment.

Suteetat:

I also play the piano, and have decades of classical music training. When I sit at a grand piano and play, I hear the sound as: powerful, absolutely. Big, yes. Immediate, yes. Complex, yes. Highly tensioned, also yes. Warm, no.

When I play an upright or a console (short upright), it sounds duller and a little less of everything than a grand, but still I don't know if I could describe the sound as "warm".

Now if I listen to a piano from a typical audience seat, where there is appreciable physical distance between my ears and the piano, or the hall is filled with well-dressed patrons, I could well understand the sound being described as warm (or at least warm-er than the performer's perspective).

However, on the majority of recordings, microphone placement results in a sound that is far closer to the performer's perspective than the audience's (I say this based on being present at various recording sessions and being able to listen to the mike feed, and being able to climb to where the mikes are located and verifying the sound with my own ears).

Switching to audio systems, I don't like to listen to the piano on many warm-sounding systems, because I find the pitch to sound uncomfortable. Nor do I like to listen to complex, heavily orchestrated music on warm-sounding audio systems, because the onset of congestion tends to be much earlier than with more neutral systems, resulting in a sound that I personally find messy, sometimes ugly. FWIW, this is true of digital as well as analog source components.

kind regards, jonathan carr