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

FWIW, I think someone has already touched upon one of the critical elements to the appearance of warmth in a system with balanced tone, that is the proper rise and decay of the signal without which balanced tone becomes meaningless.

IMHO proper rise and decay times, when everything else is right, is what makes good recordings sound more like the natural sound of instruments. Unfortunately this is not achieved by any add on processor, you have to get it designed into your components.

IME, the most critical time element is adequate decay. Too short a decay and the tone loses natural harmonics and sounds bright/clinical. May help superficially in creating the sense of a large soundstage, but in the long run fatigues. Too long a decay and the sound becomes muddy. Rise time is important too, but just less so I think, except for the effect it has on those instruments which have a fast/sharp rise, such as percussion instruments.

It might be important to consider how the natural harmonics of an instrument occur in the first place and what constitutes harmonics as the term applies to an audio system.

I'm not so sure equalizers or tubes are the method to be used to obtain 'warmth' if that term is not to be equated to frequency response or tonal balance. But, if your system lacks adequate rise and decay tubes and equalizers etc may be the only way.

Just a thought Bryon.

I put a space heater in my listening room.

Seriously, I associate good warmth when I hear it with good clarity and detail in the mid-range. If I listen hard, I might detect some "warmth".

On teh other hand if all I am thinking is "gee that sounds really warm", I am probably dealing with something that is adding a pleasant (with some kinds of music at least) but not natural emphasis to my midrange. This is bad warmth to me.

02-11-11: Johnsonwu
Many confuse foggy muddy systems that can only play one or two of Carol Kidd's ballads as the ultimate warm systems.

Making a system foggy and rolled off masks the lack of dynamic linearity, stability, and distortion from transients.

Johnson - This expresses one of my concerns with changing amps. My current amp, a Pass Labs XA30.5, suffers from none of these problems.

It also raises a larger issue, which has been in the back of my mind, but has not come up yet on this thread: Whether the use of an "additive" approach necessarily entails the diminishment of resolution. I suppose it depends on what type of addition you're talking about. If the addition is low order harmonics, as you get with many tube amps, does that necessarily entail the loss of some resolution, however slight?

To be clear, even if the answer to this question is 'yes,' it doesn't eliminate the use of a tube amp from consideration. To me, resolution is a priority, but not the only priority. I would be willing to sacrifice a small amount of resolution to increase my system's warmth. But I would certainly not want to find myself with a sound that is so warm that the system's resolution was diminished in the ways you are describing. That doesn't sound appealing to me at all.

A tube dac is among the several options I'm considering, though there are those who doubt that that approach will result in much additional warmth.

02-11-11: Newbee
IME, the most critical time element is adequate decay. Too short a decay and the tone loses natural harmonics and sounds bright/clinical. May help superficially in creating the sense of a large soundstage, but in the long run fatigues. Too long a decay and the sound becomes muddy.

This is a good observation, Newbee, and something that hasn't been discussed much so far. I agree with you that systems that cannot adequately portray the decay of notes sound less warm. I never thought my system suffered from this problem, but maybe I haven't given that enough thought. I have heard systems that do a better job than mine with this subtle but significant characteristic of time domain behavior, and like you, I find that it contributes greatly to a sense of realism and beauty.

Questions: What design features of components, or component interactions, contribute to a system's ability to adequately portray the decays of notes? Are tubes inherently better at this? Is it affected significantly by the speaker driver's Q and/or the amp's damping factor?

Anyone?

Bryon

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'.