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

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'.

Well, the Audiogon site seems to be a bit fickle when it comes to hyperlinks. So here's the definition from J. Gordon Holt, the man who probably put this language in our lexicon:
"warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain part of warmth is musical sound."
"dark A warm, mellow excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clock-wise tilted sound across the entire range so that the output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light".
"light Lean and tipped up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark".

Hi Mapman - Before I owned the Focals, I owned Dynaudio speakers for several years. They did have a warmer sound than the Focals, as you point out. But ultimately I concluded that their "house sound" is somewhat too colored for my tastes. I have not heard the Confidence line, however, which might change my mind about that. I have heard the Sapphire, which was pleasing, but a bit underwhelming for the price. I know lots of folks love the C1, but I can't get past its looks, which is shallow of me, I know.

This all raises another question I've been wondering about, namely: Is there an inherent advantage in warm speakers with neutral electronics or warm electronics with neutral speakers?

I have a slight bias toward the latter - warm electronics with neutral speakers - but it's based on nothing more than the intuition that warm speakers diminish resolution more significantly than warm electronics. I guess that's based on the suspicion that the source of warmth in electronics - harmonic distortion - is inherently less destructive to resolution than the sources of warmth in speakers - uneven frequency response, underdamped drivers, driver coloration, and cabinet resonance. I am happy to be wrong about any of that. If I am wrong, and if I choose to pursue greater warmth, then I will have to consider other speakers. Unless...

I should mention at this point that I'm also considering modding the crossovers in my Focals, with the hope that it might increase the perception of warmth, or at least diminish the perception of "coolness." Johnsonwu, who posted above, has already given me some good advice about this type of mod. But I don't want to proceed until I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep the speakers, since it might affect the speaker's resale value.

Lots to consider.

Bryon