Warm vs. Analytical

I'd like to add more terminology to the sound description wording:

Sexy -- usually associated with Dark during an intercourse.
Dull -- usually associated with hangover syndroms next morning.

Agressive -- usually associated with disobedient wives that do not allow to listen to music at high volumes.

Illegal -- same as above but with neighbors complaining to the management.

Kholeric -- usually associated with small sound imperfections that drive listener to get off the listening chair or couch to readjust system, reconnect wires and powercords without end.

Charismatic -- usually associated with extreamly nice finished equipment that drives to believe that it sounds good.

Repulsive -- usually accosiated with old vintage equipment and opposite to the previous termin.

Imperative -- usually associated with break-in period and at certain cases might blend with Agressive where applicable.

Forgiving -- usually associated with happy wife after Bloomingdale shopping and opposite to Agressive.

Spontaneous -- usually associated with listening despite sounds of vacume cleaner.

Reading through some of the subsequent responses, I want to make it clear that I was not endorsing common perceptions engendered by these terms, just reporting them (nor was I trying to define them). I personally have a low tolerance for both excessive or obvious warmth *and* analytical-ness, and consider 'neutrality', to the extent that we can obtain or be sure about such a thing, to be a virture.

I also think that the definitions offered above only touch on some of the aspects involved in generating these perceptions - the question actually goes beyond just tonal balance to me - but I'm going to refrain from expounding further since it's all very subjective anyway. But for the record, I find Rockvirgo's explanation to cover the whole gestalt more satisfactorily than a technical exegesis likely would.

live music never ever sounds analytcal. ironically most of the pop and jazz music from all the major labels between 1955 and 1985 were mixed using jbl monitors, which were famous for their warm yet forward sound in the upper and mid bass. strangley enough jbl still has bragging rights when it comes to the professionals (70%). the entire notion that something extremely analytical is good for longterm listening is the brainchild of us (audiofiles). we just can't believe that a carpenter's shavings are not worth keeping. buy what you will enjoy listening to.... warm and analytical comparisons are purely opinion and live music is still more thrilling than anything hi end audiophiles can dream up....

jrd@direcway.com: If the music was mixed with warm sounding monitors, wouldn't the mix then be the opposite if the engineer intended a "neutral" mix? Or did you mean to imply that the JBL monitors were analytical, so the engineers mixed the music warm to achieve neutral?

ASDF: I composed a post making essentially the same point last night, but decided not to post it. Why? Because for whatever combination of reasons (which I could speculate on, but don't need to for us to acknowledge the net result), the truth of the matter is that plenty of recordings from the period JRD refers to do in fact have a 'warm' sound. It stands to reason that if the logic of your argument is good (and I believe that it is), then the premises must either be incorrect or incomplete, because the expected conclusion doesn't seem to follow. It is an interesting topic to ponder...