2. amps-preamps
  3. 1052965634

Warm vs. Analytical

The subject is SS integrated amps. Some integrateds, like Audiolab and Krell, are often labeled "analytical." Others, like Arcam, are called "warm." I'm trying to get a grip on what these terms really mean. I understand they can be subjective.

To my own ears, Cambridge Audio sounds soft and dulled down at the edges. Musical Fidelity (the A3.2 integrated) sounds to me clean, precise, and detailed; it's the kind of sound I prefer. Is Cambridge Audio "warm"? Is MF more "analytical"? I'm not trying to start a flame war hear; I just want to know how my perceptions of sound fit into the terminology that people use to describe it.

Thanks for your insights
jverona
jrde8a6
95 posts
 
i'm just saying that the goal was to many to get the listener excited like at a live performance..and a have yet to here the words anylitical and neutral used to describe a concert's qualities...go for the sound that makes you 'feel' good when listening....good luck
rockvirgo
587 posts
 
Asdf and Zman this sounds like the chicken and the egg to me. Which came first, the warm sounding recording or the warm sounding speaker? Interesting thought loop.
brianmgrarcom
1,317 posts
 
The chicken, dunno about the other.
cdc
1,798 posts
 
The current delivery of the amp can be the cause. A low powered MOSFET amp would sound warm vs a high powered bi-polar which can react faster and bring out more detail.
I would consider the MOSFET then to be more poorly designed from a design standpoint but which is more realistic depends on the other components, recording, listener's taste's, etc.
More to discover