FWIW, and its already been discussed fairly well, I think the terms warm(er), neutral, or cool/analytical, are difficult when used to discuss the sound of music. Audio, OK, maybe.
Not to be overly simplistic, but what turns me on is always a sound that is natural, sympathetic to the sound of live music, and draws my attention to musical content and detail, but not so much the stereo/multichannel effects created by a well executed system.
For the most part I listen to live music in the orchestra section row G dead center where the power of the orchestra, the separation of instrumental detail but where the total integration of the orchestra is best (for me). The sounds from the string sections, violins especially, are never dominant nor screechy (bright, too prominent, which is often a product of the recording itself) and small groups and solo instruments in a recital hall (which has superb acoustics.) So I have selected components, speakers, etc, which replicate best that live experience. BUT IT'S NOT LIVE and that is not my audio goal.
FWIW I really agree with most of hifiman5's comments. |
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. |
Bryon, Re Room treatments/tuning, like everything else in audio, ain't a Sunday walk in the park with a pretty girl.
Depends on what you are trying to change to create 'warmth'. In this post I will assume that 'warmth' means unemphasized highs with or without a corresponding wide but small boost in the lower mid-range thru to the upper bass. Room dimensionally induced issues? Set up issues? Equipment selection issues? Treatment selection absorption/dispersive panels, traps, etc, all of which require careful selection given the source of the 'problem' are critical.
For example, excessive sounding highs can be caused by equipment types or positioning relative to reflective surfaces. They can be controlled/reduced by speaker location, orientation, or using sound dispersion or absorption panels.
But, as in the case of absorption panels, a common type of treatment recommended and used by audiophiles, if the materiel used covers a broader frequency range than needed, i.e. you need to knock down a 5K peak but use materials which are absorptive down to 1500k you will have dulled down an otherwise well balanced mid range. This might enhance the sound of the lower mid range/bass to some folks but not to all.
Conversely if you have an upper mid-range peak, a very common problem in speaker and electronics, and you try to damp it with absorption materials you loose the highs as well as the mid-range peak. For me that removes specific absorbers from the list of possibilities unless you can figure out how to compensate for the unwanted change. And so it goes with a just few room treatments but set up problems as well as speakers and electronics share the same issues. How to get balance in your room? Even the experts often can't get it right.
So, to my point (finally). Tubes. If you have speakers appropriate to your room and to tubes in the first place, and these speakers have a reasonably good sense of 'natural' resolution, by using tube equipment and carefully using (rolling) tubes therein to get you to your sonic goals, you can tame common HF problems and even add some bass /lower mid range boost (that warmth you are looking for?).
The possibilities with tube equipment seem as endless as the frustrations experienced by many in the implementation of tubes, especially by those who aren't all that dedicated and like quick fixes, or miracles. One of the things that I would always recommend because of the learning curve involved is to keep it simple, even knowing that ultimately someone might want an all tube system. For example, there are quite a few good integrated tube amps now and are an excellent place to start as opposed to introducing separates and making a mixed system.
And, FWIW, realizing that there exists those who will vehemently disagree, with ss stuff you are excluded from changing its sonic signature significantly, keeping it off the horizons for adventurers. Wires and little black boxes can only do so much.
But I digress and apologize for going off point and getting on a box with such simple observation |
Mapman, FWIW, I agree with your first two sentences. I think tonal differences in speakers can easily be effected by enclosure design, speaker selection, and crossover design.
Except for those speakers which have been intentionally designed to use its natural resonance frequencies to enhance a tone, the speakers 'harmonics' would not greatly affect its frequency response so much as its resolution.
For example, if the cabinet had an unsuppressed resonance frequency of, say 350hz, it would likely sound muddy/boomy, not natural at all, and something I think a designer would want to avoid like the plague.
In the context of this thread I think 'harmonics' is a term referring to the overall tone of an instrument and how it is replicated in the recording or playback process, something that it best appreciated with the choice of a violin, guitar, piano, etc, which all have sound boards which resonate and create complex sounds (harmonics) resulting in a natural tone. Not a warm tone, not a cool tone, a natural tone, the signature of the instrument itself, and not the recording or playback process. That tone is what it is. That is what I think when I use the term 'natural'.
Personally I'm not comfortable in referring to speaker designed tone, hall acoustics, or home room acoustics as 'harmonics' in the same sense as those of instruments. |
Hi Mr T,
As I have said in a post previous to the one you have quoted, my only hope when I listen to recorded music is to hear something that sounds natural, consonant with that which I would experience live. My live experiences leave me with little choice when selecting components for my home system but to tune a system which might be called warmish, especially in the upper bass/lower mid's and a little dip between 2 and 3K hz. I do not seek a reduction in the high frequencies. To me my choices only compensate for the prevailing design critera used by so many speaker and electronic's manufacturers, as well as more than a few recording engineers that better serve the stereo format and goals than the music itself. Just think how music could be better served if soundstage was no longer an issue. In stereo the engineers rely on multi-mic'ing to create the stereo effect and the sound of a live event is lost.
For example, most live music, except for very close seating is mono in form which is amplified by the horn shape of the stage and enlarged by the hall acoustics. If you can ever find one, try a properly set up binaural recording and see how much the stereo soundstage collapses into a large, well defined, mono sound field.
FWIW, just my POV. But I don't think I can help you with your conclusions.
Call that sound colored if you will but to me it has the potential to occasionally remind me of something I heard live, and at worst covers a lot of 'uncolored' sin perpetrated in the name of 'audio'. |
Learsfool, I think you are absolutely correct. I could go on ad nauseum, but suffice it to say that I see only one term when talking about electric signals, 'harmonic distortion', with the word 'distortion' being a noun and 'harmonic' being an adjective modifying it. I am unaware of any naturally occuring 'harmonics' in an electrical signal. Only distortion of what ever type.
FWIW. |
