My definition of "warm" has changed. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : My definition of "warm" has changed.



Mr Peabody
07-03-2008, 08:31 AM
As I was listening to some vinyl this morning I noted how enjoyable the sound was and I could still get into it even though my phono stage was solid state. I thought this must really be what "warm" is, a sound that is inviting and you can embrace. I used to think "warm" meant rolled off highs and exaggerated bass but this can happen even with solid state and I now feel this is just a flaw across the board. "Warm" to me used to be a negative but now I feel it is a positive. The only thing does everyone else agree? Have I misunderstood "warm" all along? Warm is just not a tube thing, I've had CD sources, for example my Krell 280cd, which was able to maintain it's own character and not at all give this embracing or hospitable feeling. This is another reason sources are important and why I have sold my 280cd. As good as the 280cd is, it no longer had synergy or the sound I wanted with my CJ gear. I also noted that I can get a feeling of warmth while having an extended high end and good bass with detail. This experience also shows you can still have tube gear that offers some neutrality it doesn't make all sources sound the same or nearly the same, color it up.

Now what would be the opposite of "warm" and what would we call it? I hate to pick on Krell but it is what I had before and a good contrast. Krell was never harsh or fatiguing to me, and it definitely had a "wow" factor, especially in the bass, control and transcient response. As good as my Krell system was as I sat and listened over time I didn't get drawn into it or get an embracing feeling with the music. I've heard Krell bashers use words like "cold" or "sterile", as a Krell owner I thought these offensive to the gear but I am at a loss of anything better. Maybe "overly technical"? Is it possible to exhibit the force and power of Krell and be "warm" at the same time? Although I have come to prefer "warm", in my definition, I have yet to hear a "warm" system come close to having the attributes of Krell. Are audiophiles always going to have to choose between the different representations or have two systems?

My CJ gear seemed to bring a new dimension to the music, lift it off the paper, so to speak. It gave my recordings a soul and sense of pace. I traded the transcient response and power for what I already mentioned and a pallet of musical textures. With a total system synergy I was also able to achieve "warmth".

My goal as I ventured into this hobby was always to try to achieve "accuracy", but aside from being impossible because no one knows what the original performance actually sounds like, which is more accurate, to have a performance that mimicks the force and power and be void of feeling or one that is not so forceful but able to convey the feeling and textures of the performance better? It's up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Feanor
07-03-2008, 08:59 AM
I prefer "warm" over other, even vaguer terms such as "musical". However I associate warm at least as much with the mid-range as with highs, and not a all with a lack of highs.

My current Monarchy apps are somewhat warm in comparison with my previous Class D Bel Canto. True, the Bel had more extended highs but they were also very clear and sweet -- not the cause of its lack of warmth.

Nor is warm a matter of dull dynamics. There again the micro dynamics of my Monarchy are as good, maybe better, than the Bel Canto, yet the former is warmer.

E-Stat
07-03-2008, 12:52 PM
I used to think "warm" meant rolled off highs and exaggerated bass but this can happen even with solid state and I now feel this is just a flaw across the board. "Warm" to me used to be a negative but now I feel it is a positive.
There are different interpretations. Mine is closer to Feanor's in that it is determined by the lower midrange response of a component. As in natural warmth.


Now what would be the opposite of "warm" and what would we call it? I hate to pick on Krell but it is what I had before and a good contrast.
My answer is "lean". I have yet to find a satisfying switching amp that isn't overly lean. The foundation of many instruments including lower strings and woodwinds is lacking.


I've heard Krell bashers use words like "cold" or "sterile", as a Krell owner I thought these offensive to the gear but I am at a loss of anything better. Maybe "overly technical"? Is it possible to exhibit the force and power of Krell and be "warm" at the same time?
Absolutely. VTL amps with their huge power supplies are at once powerful and warm. My criticism of Krell and other SS designs like my older Threshold amp is they are harmonically undernourished. Instruments sound sterile because some of their upper harmonics are not there - much like Redbook digital.

rw

Mr Peabody
07-03-2008, 01:40 PM
I wouldn't call Krell lean. Some of the British amps strike me as lean. Harmonically under nurrished is a good way to put it, especially compared to good tube amps. I heard VTL once and I came away with a lasting good impression. My recent encounters with more modern ARC gear has tarnished my opinion of them though.

Warmth for me is more than just frequency response, it's a feel, something I don't know how to explain. Maybe it is simply a harmonic thing because a lot of solid state as good as it can sound still lacks something to allow you to be fooled by it's realism.

E-stat have you ever heard T+A? They certainly don't seem to have a big chunk of market share. A local here carry them and I have been very impressed by the sound. They used some type of digital power supply but I haven't been that interested to research it that deep. They aren't priced for those on a budget.

E-Stat
07-03-2008, 03:06 PM
My recent encounters with more modern ARC gear has tarnished my opinion of them though.
Agreed. Gone a bit too yang.


Maybe it is simply a harmonic thing because a lot of solid state as good as it can sound still lacks something to allow you to be fooled by it's realism.
There is something magic in the midrange of the best tubes. My first lesson on that (in spades) was hearing the mighty IRS driven by a Conrad-Johnson Premier One back in '80.


E-stat have you ever heard T+A?
You mean as in "A Chorus Line" Dance Ten, Looks Three? :)

Sorry. No, I haven't .

rw

kexodusc
07-03-2008, 03:22 PM
Guess it means something different to everybody. My def'n is similar to Feanor/E-stats, only because this is what I absorbed from older, wiser, more experienced people who were using the word "warm" to describe sound before I was even spelling.

I grew up in the SS era. Consequently whenever I hear tube "warmth" it sounds decidedly unnatural, nothing at all like what I hear at live shows or even what my band or I sound like with guitar, piano, amplified or acoustic in pretty much any venue I've ever played or visited. Not just warm sounding tube gear either...warm sounding anything. How warm ever got linked to "natural" is the greatest audio mystery of the universe to this guy.

Yet I recognize a tremendous amount of people would suggest otherwise. Mostly a generation or two older than me, though I've met the rare few (even several on this site) that disagree with me as well.

To me warm has always been boring, the life sucked out of the highs and artificially injected into the lower mids. Also when I think warm, I thing sleepy, tiring, bloated, heavy - I find it often accompanies the pleasant harmonic distortions some tube amps are noted for - there's a cause and effect somewhere. I've never understood the appeal. There's been a lot of tube amps and other gear described as "warm" that I've really, really liked, but it seems to be in spite of "warmth". Certainly my latest amp is a bit more on the warm side compared to the more in your face Adcom or Rotel stuff I had. Maybe my hearing and tastes are changing?

It's frustrating as hell sometimes going through life as an audio heretic, loving gear others would describe with words such as "cold", "bright", "harsh", or my personal fav..."analytical". Language is a funny thing - I'm a believer words "mean something". It's almost offensive to me when they're used to convey different meanings than is almost universally accepted. Guess I'll have to deal with it. I have feeling some of these words aren't intended to be offensive, but then again, sometimes they are.

Too bad we all couldn't just simplify things and stick to using words like "good", "better" and "bad". That's more my speed.

bobsticks
07-03-2008, 03:58 PM
I think "warm" used in relation to rolled-off highs and exaggerated bass is a probably a clumsy attempt at description by those who haven't heard too many different types of equipment. The aformentioned characteristic are perhaps better described by "dull" or "boomy"...but as in everything folks are limited by their experience.

...and synergy is a big part of the equation. When I moved from Rotel to McIntosh the difference was not subtle. Gone were the traces of "etch" and in extreme cases "harshness", replaced by an inviting and involving feeling...a sensation of wholeness and not one of exaggeration. Yes, Kex, it was "better" but better in through its association.

At the same time, Rotel is generally not considered overly "analytical" by most and I have heard their gears paired with some Danes that in the right room had some great synergy.

Ultimately...me likes warm...mmmmmm

Ajani
07-03-2008, 04:35 PM
Guess it means something different to everybody. My def'n is similar to Feanor/E-stats, only because this is what I absorbed from older, wiser, more experienced people who were using the word "warm" to describe sound before I was even spelling.

I grew up in the SS era. Consequently whenever I hear tube "warmth" it sounds decidedly unnatural, nothing at all like what I hear at live shows or even what my band or I sound like with guitar, piano, amplified or acoustic in pretty much any venue I've ever played or visited. Not just warm sounding tube gear either...warm sounding anything. How warm ever got linked to "natural" is the greatest audio mystery of the universe to this guy.

Yet I recognize a tremendous amount of people would suggest otherwise. Mostly a generation or two older than me, though I've met the rare few (even several on this site) that disagree with me as well.

To me warm has always been boring, the life sucked out of the highs and artificially injected into the lower mids. Also when I think warm, I thing sleepy, tiring, bloated, heavy - I find it often accompanies the pleasant harmonic distortions some tube amps are noted for - there's a cause and effect somewhere. I've never understood the appeal. There's been a lot of tube amps and other gear described as "warm" that I've really, really liked, but it seems to be in spite of "warmth". Certainly my latest amp is a bit more on the warm side compared to the more in your face Adcom or Rotel stuff I had. Maybe my hearing and tastes are changing?

It's frustrating as hell sometimes going through life as an audio heretic, loving gear others would describe with words such as "cold", "bright", "harsh", or my personal fav..."analytical". Language is a funny thing - I'm a believer words "mean something". It's almost offensive to me when they're used to convey different meanings than is almost universally accepted. Guess I'll have to deal with it. I have feeling some of these words aren't intended to be offensive, but then again, sometimes they are.

Too bad we all couldn't just simplify things and stick to using words like "good", "better" and "bad". That's more my speed.

Would you be less offended if someone said your gear is bad, than if they said it was analytical?

Audiophiles have different tastes in both the type of music they listen to, and the way they like their music to sound... The problem is that almost every audiophile tends to claim that their preferred style (be it warm, analytical, bright, boomy, whatever) is somehow more 'accurate', more like the live event than other styles...

There is no "Best" style... it's a personal choice...

Hyfi
07-03-2008, 04:40 PM
I think "warm" used in relation to rolled-off highs and exaggerated bass is a probably a clumsy attempt at description by those who haven't heard too many different types of equipment. The aformentioned characteristic are perhaps better described by "dull" or "boomy"...but as in everything folks are limited by their experience.

...and synergy is a big part of the equation. When I moved from Rotel to McIntosh the difference was not subtle. Gone were the traces of "etch" and in extreme cases "harshness", replaced by an inviting and involving feeling...a sensation of wholeness and not one of exaggeration. Yes, Kex, it was "better" but better in through its association.

At the same time, Rotel is generally not considered overly "analytical" by most and I have heard their gears paired with some Danes that in the right room had some great synergy.

Ultimately...me likes warm...mmmmmm

I call it "emotion" which digital lacks. It's the difference between a square syn wave vs curved wave that analog recordings have. Similar to an Ansel Adams black and white photograph. The same shots in color just doesn't have the same effect on the observer.

I have cassette tapes of albums that have more going for them than a CD of the same recording. Unless you're talking about a Chesky, Pope, or Maple Shade like digital recording, most just lack something that an analog recording delivers.

I do have to agree with the stick man about the mix of Rotel and Dynaudio since I have that combo. But, it is very similar to having a solid state amp with a tube pre-amp, which I also have. There is just a synergy that you don't get with all SS, depending on the class and cost of the combo.

OK I'm babbling after two bottles of wine and stuck on vacation at a friends house at the beach where they have an all Rotel system but with crappy in-ceiling speakers throughout the house. What a waste! My bed and my stereo are the two things I miss whenever I am away from home.


3773

Mr Peabody
07-03-2008, 05:48 PM
Kex your idea of warm is basically what I used to think. I now feel more like the way it was put in a couple posts, having emotion, inviting. What I am about to say is definitely in general terms. Solid state will deliver more of the transcients and impact of a live show but tubes convey more musical textures, macro and micro dynamics. This is more easily demonstrated by listening to acoustic instruments and I also think vocals. There's no doubt of the trade off. There's a lot of people that still like solid state and think I'm crazy for switching gear. It's not that I don't like Krell, I just would rather live with the CJ for my serious sit and listen sessions. If my listening hadn't become so diverse and I was still just into Hard Rock I probably would have stayed with solid state. I play most of my Rock and Pop on my second system while working out. Although I do bring some of it in to listen to on the CJ and it's not bad. It lacks the bite & kick but there's a lot more other information that makes up for that. I can't say if it's tubes or just CJ itself but I've been extremely happy with CJ. The things I hear from my equipment I've only experienced from much more expensive gear. I'm referring to mainly the information and imaging. For instance, put on Clapton's, Wonderful Tonight, from Slow Hand, and the sound stage is all across the front, Clapton's voice is in the near center and when the background singers come in they are plainly away from Clapton to the right slightly behind and the girl's voices are separately audible, the organ way off to the right etc. Some of this is attributable to the AN DAC as well because when I had to use my older CJ solid state DAC the singers were back in the center and meshed with Clapton. Just as a side note Slow Hand was with me during some high end auditions and as a reference I just started bringing it with me all the time so I know this album really well and I've heard it on a lot of different equipment. On really good gear you will be able to hear Clapton's voice slurr on All The Way. It's like he has false teeth or something. Geez, I am getting a bad habit of rambling.

I'd like to try mixing SS and tubes to see what happens. When I have time I think I'll bring my Adcom 5500 into the main system to give it a listen. I'd really like to get my hands on a higher quality amp but I don't know anyone here with this type of gear.

Luvin Da Blues
07-03-2008, 07:41 PM
This thread got me thinking and I came up with a theory :out: . First, I'm surprised that harmonics and the role they play in audio aren't discussed around here more.

This leads me to my half-baked theory :frown2: . Couldn't the recording chain, electronics, speakers and/or the environment emphasize or attenuate certain frequencies such that if the emphasis is on the lower harmonics of the lower mid range freqs create a warmer sound and vise versa for a brighter sound. I'm no EE and I'm not even sure that harmonics can be thought of separately from initial frequency in these terms.

Just a thought and NO reddies please.

E-Stat
07-03-2008, 08:03 PM
How warm ever got linked to "natural" is the greatest audio mystery of the universe to this guy.
Here's my theory. Early SS was horrible. Really horrible. Like early Redbook digital. Thin, edgy, harsh, but of course low in THD, right? It lacked warmth with its sterile harmonic averse sound. Anorexic one-dimensional cellos and piano.


I find it often accompanies the pleasant harmonic distortions some tube amps are noted for - there's a cause and effect somewhere. I've never understood the appeal.
There is definitely the case for over tube-i-ness with some models - especially when driving speakers exhibiting a Six Flags Scream Machine Roller Coaster Impedance curve where the resulting FR is all over the place.


Maybe my hearing and tastes are changing?
It happens to the best of us. :) For years, I never really understood what one of my mentors told me: You have to get the midrange right. Waddaya mean get the midrange right? Its just - well there. In my twenties, I was all about getting the top and the bottom right - now that's the challenge. Not any more.



Too bad we all couldn't just simplify things and stick to using words like "good", "better" and "bad". That's more my speed.
One man's meat is another's poison.

rw

Mr Peabody
07-03-2008, 08:47 PM
LDB, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE YOU CRAZY?!!

Just messing with you man. All of those things would effect sound and could possibly take a system one way or the other but I think the system would have already been close or the change drastic.

When I think of harmonics, it's like the middle C being struck on a piano and the vibration effecting the other strings. I think of this as a different thing than frequency response. Although there is a relation because if your system's frequency response is limited then so are the harmonics. Our hearing is limited but harmonics go beyond our hearing range. Whether this effects anything I'm sure would be a hot debate. At least some audio manufacturers believe harmonics are important and these will boast a response up to
100k. This theory was taught by HK for one. If a note was struck and there were no ring or sustain to it, it would sound pretty strange.

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 06:10 AM
Would you be less offended if someone said your gear is bad, than if they said it was analytical?. I would respect someone more for being blunt than resorting to pseudo-passive-aggressive descriptors to describe something subjective anyway.


Audiophiles have different tastes in both the type of music they listen to, and the way they like their music to sound... The problem is that almost every audiophile tends to claim that their preferred style (be it warm, analytical, bright, boomy, whatever) is somehow more 'accurate', more like the live event than other styles...

There is no "Best" style... it's a personal choice...
Agreed.

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 06:33 AM
Solid state will deliver more of the transcients and impact of a live show but tubes convey more musical textures, macro and micro dynamics. This is more easily demonstrated by listening to acoustic instruments and I also think vocals. There's no doubt of the trade off.
This is just yet another case of two people experiencing different things with the same equipment. I have found dynamics and subtle detail to be a bit better with solid state - I have found tubes do introduce a pleasant - I want to use the word "glaze" to the sound.
It's nice, but not real to me. I'm not sure what "musical textures" means but maybe it's the "glaze" I'm referring to.
I have to confess though I have had as much experience with high end tube gear as I have had with big Krell amps. In store or at other people's houses only!

I should say, not all tube amps I've heard sound excessively warm to me though, and some solid state amps do, so even among these generalizations there's wiggle room.

I do have an uncle that used to run a hi-fi shop and still have a friend that works at another and this is where most of my tube experience came from. My uncle is another RGA - big Audio Note fan, with the exception he prefers Bryston to AN's amps. Probably sacrilege among AN fanboys? The AN E Bryston combo is an amazing performer IMO for the money. He also owns a Kimuro (spelling?) tube amp that I haven't heard yet, but I'll take his word for it that it sounds like the golden age of audio...
He's not a fan of Krell at all - his speakers both cost more than my entire systems and he does have the wherewithal to own Krell, just chooses not to. Guess your'e not alone in your views on Krell.

I keep meaning to try those AN E kits but I've got too many partially completed speakers on the go as is...

Anyway, I didn't meant to jack your thread and put a negative spin on anything - I just continue to struggle with "warm" as an adjective - it's used probably more than any other in describing sound and continues to baffle me...

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 06:41 AM
Here's my theory. Early SS was horrible. Really horrible. Like early Redbook digital. Thin, edgy, harsh, but of course low in THD, right? It lacked warmth with its sterile harmonic averse sound. Anorexic one-dimensional cellos and piano.
Wasn't around back then, but that's what I hear.

I did read an article awhile back where the writer theorized that in digital transfers or recordings some of the harmonics were "lost" and that harmonic distortion associated with tube gear might actually be somewhat accurately replacing what was missed?

Made a bit of sense when I read it - if an amp, source, or speaker can add harmonic distortion, surely a microphone, eq, processor could strip it down and lose it?

He also theorized what I hinted at earlier - much of the resistance to SS was simply because it sounded different, unfamiliar, not what people were used to, not what people had previously believed it should sound like - people were "trained" on tubes. Few successfully made the transition - likewise, fewer solid state generation folk make the transition to tubes, probably for the same reason. Impossible to prove, and people are emotionally invested in their preferences so honest answers are probably difficult to obtain in polls, but an interesting read. I'll see if I can find the link again.




It happens to the best of us. :) For years, I never really understood what one of my mentors told me: You have to get the midrange right. Waddaya mean get the midrange right? Its just - well there. In my twenties, I was all about getting the top and the bottom right - now that's the challenge. Not any more.
Yeah, I was guilty of chasing boom and sizzle. More so the sizzle than the boom, never was a big bass lover, as long as it was there. Until I really started hearing vocals sound terrible. Kind of an eyeopener.

Mr Peabody
07-04-2008, 07:01 AM
That's interesting that some one would embrace Bryston and shun Krell. I haven't experience with Bryston but understood they were similar in that brute force in a velvet glove sort of way. I did read a review of the Bryston big monoblocks where the reviewer was surprised at the "warmth" displayed compared to their other amps.

I'm sure this is a given but for anyone just reading behind us, let's not confuse "harmonic distortion", it's bad umm-K, with "third order distortion", the type of distortion some claim tubes bring to the party. I have to admit I have not studied 3rd order. For good or bad, I don't get so hung up on why something does what it does.

One's input into the conversation I don't consider hijacking. Actually, I don't mind a conversation drifting, that's the way normal conversations go anyway.

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 07:40 AM
I'm sure this is a given but for anyone just reading behind us, let's not confuse "harmonic distortion", it's bad umm-K, with "third order distortion", the type of distortion some claim tubes bring to the party. I have to admit I have not studied 3rd order. For good or bad, I don't get so hung up on why something does what it does.


Think we just did confuse it. :)

All harmonic distortion is probably "bad" from a purist point of view - but even (and I suppose odd?) order distortion can be subjectively desirable.

Third order distortion is just odd order harmonic distortion - odd order distortion is typically found in SS amps, it's bad, IMO far worse than even order distortion - think SS amps when clipping. It's a dissonant sound, contrary to the musical note or cord.

Even order distortion is the less obtrusive distortion tubes are known for...(think cords and octaves). It can be pleasant even.

Here's hypocrisy or irony at work...maybe both. I don't prefer Tubes for audio playback, I sure love tube amps when I'm playing guitar though....

(edit: Afterthough - harmonic distortion isn't the ONLY kind of distortion - IM distortion, transient distortion...uhh...slew rate distortion? I'm less up to speed on anything after IM)

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 07:46 AM
For good or bad, I don't get so hung up on why something does what it does.

I wish I had that trait in me. When a someone makes a claim - my amp sounds good, our product sounds good/better, I want to know why. I like to know the reason behind it, I believe if the benefit is real, the inventor/designer knew full well what they were doing, or could at least isolated it after stumbling upon it. It can be repeated, reproduced.

If not, and the guy making the claim can't explain why it's good, I put less validity into it. Given a choice, I'll take good experience with an explanation over just a good experience.
I'm anal that way.

Feanor
07-04-2008, 08:01 AM
I wish I had that trait in me. When a someone makes a claim - my amp sounds good, our product sounds good/better, I want to know why. I like to know the reason behind it, I believe if the benefit is real, the inventor/designer knew full well what they were doing, or could at least isolated it after stumbling upon it. It can be repeated, reproduced.

If not, and the guy making the claim can't explain why it's good, I put less validity into it. Given a choice, I'll take good experience with an explanation over just a good experience.
I'm anal that way.

I'm with you there, Kex. There has to be some plausible explanation for me to even consider a thing. And there has to be subsantiable evidence before I begin to believe it.

There are plenty of otherwise intelligent peoplie will testify for the efficacy of products such as the Intelligent Chip from Audio Dynamica (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm). A case of "bull**** baffles brains"? But I remain really skeptical. Let's not forget that people have a huge capacity for deception and self-deception.

kexodusc
07-04-2008, 09:02 AM
I'm with you there, Kex. There has to be some plausible explanation for me to even consider a thing. And there has to be subsantiable evidence before I begin to believe it.

There are plenty of otherwise intelligent peoplie will testify for the efficacy of products such as the Intelligent Chip from Audio Dynamica (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm). A case of "bull**** baffles brains"? But I remain really skeptical. Let's not forget that people have a huge capacity for deception and self-deception.

It's only fair that I mention my skepticism is the result of being fooled quite badly on occasion by snake-oil products, both audio and otherwise.
A fool and my money are easily parted....err, I mean...

Feanor
07-04-2008, 12:20 PM
It's only fair that I mention my skepticism is the result of being fooled quite badly on occasion by snake-oil products, both audio and otherwise.
A fool and my money are easily parted....err, I mean...

I tend to believe some people are born skeptics, other are born believers (or gullible as the skeptical ones might say).

Mr Peabody
07-05-2008, 04:01 PM
Well Kex you forced into doing some research. From what I understand the Third Order distortion is a type of IMD. And you are correct that it is not desirable. I found this article that reads like it was written just for this thread. It touches on a lot of good stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

filecat13
07-05-2008, 09:00 PM
Some guys that I know (and I don't really "know" anyone here so there's nothing personal implied) find it necessary to apply adjectives to their current high dollar set ups to justify the expenditures, and during the time of ownership they tend to be big believers in the descriptive truth of their systems.

I've heard more than one guy go from describing his new system as "open, airy, and accurate" at the beginning to "thin, cold, and sterile" when he was ready to get rid of it for something that was "warm, intimate, and musical" which later became "fuzzy, claustrophobic, and sentimental" when he was looking to buy something "dynamic, wide, and articulate"... :Yawn:

Whenever I hear these terms germinating in an audiophile's mouth, I want to pull out the BS meter because here comes a load of you know what. If people would just be honest and say, "You know, I liked this when I got it but now I like that," that would be an honest conversation. Just admit to being human and perhaps a bit fickle, and move on to what he wants.

We really don't need to justify our choices, and going to great lengths to do so is unnecessary. I kind of like the simplicity of kex's one word descriptions; it's more direct than "Your SS gear is too cold and analytical; my tube gear is warm and emotional."

Someone could say my SS gear was bad, and I could say their tube gear was worse. End of conversation. Get the F out of my house. :dita:

Well, that may be slightly extreme.

However, for most on this site, I think the use of the adjectives is an attempt to communicate qualities that we're trying to share without being able to share the most important thing: the sound. Peabody's OP was a great conversation starter, if only to illustrate two things:

1. We're trying to use the same words to describe different things. Unless we can all hear what he heard this morning, it's hard to get a decent context.

2. We've all changed over the years. Things we liked we may not like as much, or perhaps things we used to like and replaced with other things we liked, we suddenly like again.

The biggest factor in all this is that our primary equipment is constantly changing. That would be our ears, our brains, our experience, our preferences, and our tastes.

So if you invite me over to your house and tell me your system is warm, I'll tell you exactly what I think; then you'll either kick me out or say that I'm very perceptive.

As long as we're on this site, I'll listen to your flowing adjectives with all due respect and hang on your every word. I just might learn something.

Ajani
07-07-2008, 05:42 AM
Some guys that I know (and I don't really "know" anyone here so there's nothing personal implied) find it necessary to apply adjectives to their current high dollar set ups to justify the expenditures, and during the time of ownership they tend to be big believers in the descriptive truth of their systems.

I've heard more than one guy go from describing his new system as "open, airy, and accurate" at the beginning to "thin, cold, and sterile" when he was ready to get rid of it for something that was "warm, intimate, and musical" which later became "fuzzy, claustrophobic, and sentimental" when he was looking to buy something "dynamic, wide, and articulate"... :Yawn:

Whenever I hear these terms germinating in an audiophile's mouth, I want to pull out the BS meter because here comes a load of you know what. If people would just be honest and say, "You know, I liked this when I got it but now I like that," that would be an honest conversation. Just admit to being human and perhaps a bit fickle, and move on to what he wants.
We really don't need to justify our choices, and going to great lengths to do so is unnecessary. I kind of like the simplicity of kex's one word descriptions; it's more direct than "Your SS gear is too cold and analytical; my tube gear is warm and emotional."

Someone could say my SS gear was bad, and I could say their tube gear was worse. End of conversation. Get the F out of my house. :dita:

Well, that may be slightly extreme.

However, for most on this site, I think the use of the adjectives is an attempt to communicate qualities that we're trying to share without being able to share the most important thing: the sound. Peabody's OP was a great conversation starter, if only to illustrate two things:

1. We're trying to use the same words to describe different things. Unless we can all hear what he heard this morning, it's hard to get a decent context.

2. We've all changed over the years. Things we liked we may not like as much, or perhaps things we used to like and replaced with other things we liked, we suddenly like again.

The biggest factor in all this is that our primary equipment is constantly changing. That would be our ears, our brains, our experience, our preferences, and our tastes.

So if you invite me over to your house and tell me your system is warm, I'll tell you exactly what I think; then you'll either kick me out or say that I'm very perceptive.

As long as we're on this site, I'll listen to your flowing adjectives with all due respect and hang on your every word. I just might learn something.


Good Points. Far too much time is spent trying to justify our excesses... do we really need to spend the obscene amounts of money we do upgrading our setups? Nope... but it sure is fun (untill you have to pay the credit card bill)...

Another problem is that trying to justify a subjective preference with objective statements is just a tad silly... So we try to use all these wonderful sounding terms to explain why our setup sounds better (to us, anyway) than another one. That's a major reason why reviews mean next to nothing in practical terms... Just take a major publication like Stereophile... the class rating of a product really just comes down to how much a given reviewer liked it... if he thought it was cold, when he wanted warm, then it gets a lower class than if another reviewer who likes 'cold' had reviewed it.

Also, all things change with time... especially people... so today Mr. Peabody may love Dynaudio and Conrad Johnson and I love Monitor Audio and Musical Fidelity... But 10 years from now... my musical tastes may have changed and I suddenly find Dynaudio more suitable for my tastes than Monitor Audio & Mr. Peabody may have moved on to Monitor Audio or some other brand of speaker and maybe the latest generation of switching amp... So even the debates we have now about which brand is better than the other etc... really doesn't make much sense...

GMichael
07-07-2008, 08:28 AM
Some guys that I know (and I don't really "know" anyone here so there's nothing personal implied) find it necessary to apply adjectives to their current high dollar set ups to justify the expenditures, and during the time of ownership they tend to be big believers in the descriptive truth of their systems.

I've heard more than one guy go from describing his new system as "open, airy, and accurate" at the beginning to "thin, cold, and sterile" when he was ready to get rid of it for something that was "warm, intimate, and musical" which later became "fuzzy, claustrophobic, and sentimental" when he was looking to buy something "dynamic, wide, and articulate"... :Yawn:

Whenever I hear these terms germinating in an audiophile's mouth, I want to pull out the BS meter because here comes a load of you know what. If people would just be honest and say, "You know, I liked this when I got it but now I like that," that would be an honest conversation. Just admit to being human and perhaps a bit fickle, and move on to what he wants.

We really don't need to justify our choices, and going to great lengths to do so is unnecessary. I kind of like the simplicity of kex's one word descriptions; it's more direct than "Your SS gear is too cold and analytical; my tube gear is warm and emotional."

Someone could say my SS gear was bad, and I could say their tube gear was worse. End of conversation. Get the F out of my house. :dita:

Well, that may be slightly extreme.

However, for most on this site, I think the use of the adjectives is an attempt to communicate qualities that we're trying to share without being able to share the most important thing: the sound. Peabody's OP was a great conversation starter, if only to illustrate two things:

1. We're trying to use the same words to describe different things. Unless we can all hear what he heard this morning, it's hard to get a decent context.

2. We've all changed over the years. Things we liked we may not like as much, or perhaps things we used to like and replaced with other things we liked, we suddenly like again.

The biggest factor in all this is that our primary equipment is constantly changing. That would be our ears, our brains, our experience, our preferences, and our tastes.

So if you invite me over to your house and tell me your system is warm, I'll tell you exactly what I think; then you'll either kick me out or say that I'm very perceptive.

As long as we're on this site, I'll listen to your flowing adjectives with all due respect and hang on your every word. I just might learn something.

I have several systems throughout our house. Each one does some things better than the others. I can walk from room to room and hear the differences. The main system sounds open and airy. When I go to the bedroom, that system has more detail, but not as airy. Go downstairs, and that system sounds crisp with a lot of detail and fast bass. Walk into the garage and at first that system sounds muffled (compared to the very detailed basement sound), but after a while, it sounds warmer with a much nicer midrange. It's hard to say which one sounds "the best." They are all different, and they are all good in their own way.


I also have a friend into HT & music. Once he heard my system, he went on a quest to "out-do" mine. He started with an Onkyo receiver with M&K speakers. He would point out that his system had more detail. Then he bought a Pioneer receiver and Morton Short (sp) speakers. Now he would point out that he had a warmer sound that I did. Then he sold those and bought an HK receiver, an NAD amp, and ML speakers. Now he had an airier sound than me. This went on, system after system until he finally ended up with an Onkyo receiver and M&K speakers. Somehow, he had managed to improve his system (In his opinion) each step of the way to finally end up with the same system he had started with. The whole thing reminded me of one of those perpetual water falls that keep feeding themselves.

Feanor
07-07-2008, 09:23 AM
Some guys that I know (and I don't really "know" anyone here so there's nothing personal implied) find it necessary to apply adjectives to their current high dollar set ups to justify the expenditures, and during the time of ownership they tend to be big believers in the descriptive truth of their systems.
...

However, for most on this site, I think the use of the adjectives is an attempt to communicate qualities that we're trying to share without being able to share the most important thing: the sound. Peabody's OP was a great conversation starter, if only to illustrate two things:

1. We're trying to use the same words to describe different things. Unless we can all hear what he heard this morning, it's hard to get a decent context.

2. We've all changed over the years. Things we liked we may not like as much, or perhaps things we used to like and replaced with other things we liked, we suddenly like again.

The biggest factor in all this is that our primary equipment is constantly changing. That would be our ears, our brains, our experience, our preferences, and our tastes.

...

Indeed, given we come here to share to share ideas and impression of equipment and recordings, it's got to be helpful to share a common vocabulary.

One's experiece expands and accordingly one's understanding of common terms become more precise -- hopefully that's true for the majority and hence the "accurate" (i.e. accepted, understood), meaning of terms becomes more precise.

Common terms I love include ...

Warm
Transparent
Airy
Neutral
Analytic
Etched
Grainy
Bloated
Bright
Sharp
Hash
Forward
Laid-back
Imaging
Depth
Soundstage -- perceived depth, width, and height
Dynamic -- large changes in volume
Microdynamic -- quick but not usually large changes in volume; transient reponse
PRaT -- pace, rythm, and timing -- performance terms applied originally by the British reviewers; pertaining to microdynamics.It really doesn't matter whether our preference leans to e.g. warm vs. neutral; what's important is that we all understand the terms.

O'Shag
07-07-2008, 12:25 PM
My experience is that a component will sound to the warm side of neutral with a fuller low-mid frequency bias, which tends to imbue the presentation with richness and density. More often than not, such ripeness in the mid bass region is not accurate, and the downside can be a loss of speed and articulation. Real music listened to live - such as listening to a marching band, or blues band for instance, is not as warm as most systems make it sound (even though the warm sound can be very captivating), but then again the nature of live sound in terms of Warm or lean can be influenced marginally by the space in which the sounds are made, and the listener's position/distance in relation to where the sound is eminating from.

filecat13
07-07-2008, 05:14 PM
I have several systems throughout our house. Each one does some things better than the others. I can walk from room to room and hear the differences. The main system sounds open and airy. When I go to the bedroom, that system has more detail, but not as airy. Go downstairs, and that system sounds crisp with a lot of detail and fast bass. Walk into the garage and at first that system sounds muffled (compared to the very detailed basement sound), but after a while, it sounds warmer with a much nicer midrange. It's hard to say which one sounds "the best." They are all different, and they are all good in their own way.


I also have a friend into HT & music. Once he heard my system, he went on a quest to "out-do" mine. He started with an Onkyo receiver with M&K speakers. He would point out that his system had more detail. Then he bought a Pioneer receiver and Morton Short (sp) speakers. Now he would point out that he had a warmer sound that I did. Then he sold those and bought an HK receiver, an NAD amp, and ML speakers. Now he had an airier sound than me. This went on, system after system until he finally ended up with an Onkyo receiver and M&K speakers. Somehow, he had managed to improve his system (In his opinion) each step of the way to finally end up with the same system he had started with. The whole thing reminded me of one of those perpetual water falls that keep feeding themselves.

Funny stuff about your friend's quest. :crazy:

I have two-way horns in one room, three-way monitors in another, four-way towers in another, MTM horns in a 5.1, three-way towers with subs in a 7.1, and so much more. My GF just thinks I'm insane.

"Why do you need more than one stereo?"

Well, they're all different.

"Why not just pick the best one and get rid of the rest?"

Because I like them all.

"They can't all be good. One has to be the best. Just keep that."

No, really, none of them are the best all the time.

"Then sell them all and buy the best."

It doesn't exist.

"Well, I can't tell the difference between any of them."

Here, let me show you how this one is warm, and this one is clear, and this one is neutral, and this one...

"You really are insane. Get some therapy. I'm going to the mall." :rolleyes5:

E-Stat
07-07-2008, 05:41 PM
The whole thing reminded me of one of those perpetual water falls that keep feeding themselves.
I knew a guy like that back in the 70s. Bought some Dahlquist DQ-10s from the shop. Sold them. Bought another pair. Sold them. Bought some Magnepan MG-IIs from the shop. Sold them. Bought another pair of DQ-10s. Strange guy.

http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/jpgs/P43L.jpg

bobsticks
07-07-2008, 06:34 PM
"They can't all be good. One has to be the best. Just keep that."


Next time she says this just compare them to shoes...and remind her that you bought 'em with your own money, unless you didn't in which case marry her immediately.

Mr Peabody
07-07-2008, 06:55 PM
"They can't all be good. One has to be the best. Just keep that."


Next time she says this just compare them to shoes...and remind her that you bought 'em with your own money, unless you didn't in which case marry her immediately.

Yay! bobsticks scores for the guys team!

There may be some who feel they have to justify something but for the most part I think we are just trying to describe something that is beyond our language for the most part. Many of us are limited to what equipment is available to us, we have learning curves and budgets etc too, so we may make the best choice at the time but later find something we like better. But there's no denying we change too.

A really depressing thought as well is how futile it is to describe what we hear because we all hear things differently and there's no audio verbal dictionary, every post that comes up on audio adjectives shows a varying degree of what we thought the term meant. We struggle, yet we carry on :)

pixelthis
07-08-2008, 12:38 AM
Funny stuff about your friend's quest. :crazy:

I have two-way horns in one room, three-way monitors in another, four-way towers in another, MTM horns in a 5.1, three-way towers with subs in a 7.1, and so much more. My GF just thinks I'm insane.

"Why do you need more than one stereo?"

Well, they're all different.

"Why not just pick the best one and get rid of the rest?"

Because I like them all.

"They can't all be good. One has to be the best. Just keep that."

No, really, none of them are the best all the time.

"Then sell them all and buy the best."

It doesn't exist.

"Well, I can't tell the difference between any of them."

Here, let me show you how this one is warm, and this one is clear, and this one is neutral, and this one...

"You really are insane. Get some therapy. I'm going to the mall." :rolleyes5:

OF COURSE YOU'RE MAD.
mad I tell you, absolutley mad!

YOU'RE involved in this "hobby" arent you?
next time just point out the fifty pairs of black pumps she has, all identical, probably.
whenever someone, usually someone who thinks their spending
on their paticular crap , like 30 rifles to go hunting with, or titanium golf clubs, I just go like the guy below, until they go away:1:

GMichael
07-08-2008, 05:19 AM
I knew a guy like that back in the 70s. Bought some Dahlquist DQ-10s from the shop. Sold them. Bought another pair. Sold them. Bought some Magnepan MG-IIs from the shop. Sold them. Bought another pair of DQ-10s. Strange guy.

http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/jpgs/P43L.jpg

Yeah, that's the one.

bobsticks
01-18-2009, 07:04 PM
My CJ gear seemed to bring a new dimension to the music, lift it off the paper, so to speak. It gave my recordings a soul and sense of pace. I traded the transcient response and power for what I already mentioned and a pallet of musical textures. With a total system synergy I was also able to achieve "warmth".

My goal as I ventured into this hobby was always to try to achieve "accuracy", but aside from being impossible because no one knows what the original performance actually sounds like, which is more accurate, to have a performance that mimicks the force and power and be void of feeling or one that is not so forceful but able to convey the feeling and textures of the performance better? It's up to the individual to decide for themselves.


I have just returned from St. Louis and, having had the pleasure of spending part of an evening with Mr. Peabody, am now in a position to truly understand his perspective in this thread.

We arrived around sevenish to find Peabody with his well-prepped man cave full of audio goodies. Mr. P had thoughtfully pulled out his anvil-sized Krell KAV-500i Integrated Amplifier from storage and we readied it for use with the T+A cdp and Dynaudio floorstanders.

The playlist included The Best of the Beach Boys, Paula Cole, Michel Camilo's Triangulo, The Crystal Method's Vegas, the BIS release of Bach Cantatas:2,3,38, &139 from the Bach Collegium Japan, and Nelly's Country Grammar. We cycled these discs through the various iterations of the system throughout our listening.

The big Krell is just that, "big", in everything it does...big in transients, big in slam, big in imaging. With the smoothness of the T+A and sharp focus of the Danes the Krell imparted a dynamic and analytical, but never cold, characteristic. Hi-hats stood front and center and the bass seemed almost too controlled. I will say that the juice imparted by the behemoth Krell into 4 ohm speakers gave the music a presence that is hard to deny, especially at mid to high volumes. The bass lines in "Vapor Trails" off of Vegas and virtually anything from Nelly were well-defined though stifled. Originally I thought this showed a shortcoming of the speakers but my opinion would change as the night progressed.

Peabody asked almost as an afterthought if I wanted too hear the Conrad Johnson stuff which made me laugh since it was akin to suggesting that one leave after the opening band finished its set. A few wire transplants later and we were off to the races, haphazardly weaving through an approximation of the earlier setlist. I asy "haphazardly" because the warm smoothness of the tubes didn't really jive with any sudden movements save the tapping of the toes.

A few posts south O'Shag said: "My experience is that a component will sound to the warm side of neutral with a fuller low-mid frequency bias, which tends to imbue the presentation with richness and density. More often than not, such ripeness in the mid bass region is not accurate, and the downside can be a loss of speed and articulation." I feel that this true to a point and the presentation of the CJs proves this, but, it must be said that in this case the "richness and density" reveals a layer of detail that was hidden in previous samplings.

In the aformentioned "Vapor Trails" the bass was not only allowed to bloom but seemed fuller and deeper thus indicating my earlier assesment of the speakers in err and that the Krell has some constrictive properties.. For those not familiar with Camilo's Triangulo think Bob James gone latin. The hi-hats had receded but suddenly the snare had an amazing amount of texture unheard in the first round and the percussive pick of the stand-up bass had less of an impact but the notes themselves had a significant degree of decay time much more approximating the end of a phrasing. Vocal placement in "In My Room" by the Beach Boys had an uncanny degree of spacial content.

Which is "more real"? At the the end of the day I would posit that as academic but clearly both systems had their advantages and shortcomings. The ultimate slam and weight of the Krell was fantastic for electronic and "modern" music but the CJ edged it in microdynamic detail and, perhaps for many, longterm listenability. To each his own, I say but I could see being very happy with either system...much less both.

And, to that end, I would like to extend my gratitude to Mr. P for the invite. What a special way to spend a few hours. Even while transitioning from Rotel to McIntosh I can't claim to have ever heard such night-and-day differences between amps...and to do that in a controlled environment among good friends and good music, well that's audiophile, gearhead nirvana. Muchos gracias, mi amigo.

RoyY51
01-18-2009, 07:28 PM
...cool?

Mr Peabody
01-18-2009, 10:15 PM
It was my pleasure.

What did you think about bass after track 1 of Paula Cole using the Krell?

You can be honest, how would you say Dynaudio compares to other brands of box speakers you've auditioned?

bobsticks
01-19-2009, 10:52 PM
You can be honest, how would you say Dynaudio compares to other brands of box speakers you've auditioned?

Well, I've known for a while that I like the Danes. They're very versatile, not necessarily requiring an amp the caliber of either the CJ or the Krell to be servicable. That speaks a lot to me.

I like the fluidity of the things. They seem quite capable of transmitting whatever signal is fed them taking on the characteristics thereof. That speaks a lot to me too. Of course the midrange has the capability of being superb but I don't think it inherently is, like say, on the lines of a Spendor or KEF. That is to say that in and of itself the speaker tends to provide a smooth transmission of it's source without its own bloat or color. This is a compliment.

If I were to have one major quibble it would be the ultimate bass extension. In neither configuration we sampled did the bass extend to the depths required for challenging pieces, be they rap, low stand-up bass, or organ music. In a world of hypothetics, it would take something of greater lowend capability to make me stray from my current path as I have spent countless hours integrating my sub in with the panels.

Mr Peabody
01-20-2009, 06:04 AM
They may not give you the bass feel of a sub but compared to other speakers with the same configuration I don't think many could do what the 2.5's did on tracks like #1 of Paula Cole or on the Classical track I played. The Krell had more control than you are used to and the CJ's just don't play those lower octaves well if at all. For me though listening to the CJ's The rest of the presentation is so good I don't miss the extreme lower octaves. The only speakers I've heard that can play the Paula Cole track like that though, reproducing that low end wave that kicks in mid way through the song, without losing control or part of the program, have been Dyn's.

I should have taken a moment to let you hear my 60's on the Adcom 5500. The 5500 has good bass but not the control of the Krell and can boom pretty well. Actually the bass from a single 6" driver is amazing.

kexodusc
01-20-2009, 06:18 AM
Sounds like you 2 had fun, and an interesting read.

Mr. P's got some great gear, nice of him to share it for an evening.

Rich-n-Texas
01-20-2009, 06:26 AM
So sticks really is a person.

Huh... :idea:

bobsticks
01-20-2009, 06:17 PM
So sticks really is a person.

Huh... :idea:


Just what type of creature had you supposed I to be, Rich?

bobsticks
01-20-2009, 06:18 PM
Sounds like you 2 had fun, and an interesting read.

Mr. P's got some great gear, nice of him to share it for an evening.

It's true, it's true. Peabody is an excellent host and a great tourguide through his maze of equipment and music.

bobsticks
01-20-2009, 06:24 PM
They may not give you the bass feel of a sub but compared to other speakers with the same configuration I don't think many could do what the 2.5's did on tracks like #1 of Paula Cole or on the Classical track I played. The Krell had more control than you are used to and the CJ's just don't play those lower octaves well if at all.

For that configuration you're right, they are mighty impressive. Any thoughts I give are inherently going to be biased by the reference to my own system and thoughts of "What could I live with?".

I'll tell you what I've been thinking about since hearing your gears, Mr. P. I'm imagining a tubed player or DAC/server combo fed into the Krell with the signal going out to a Martin Logan Abyss on each side and then into a proper panel. That might be too much.

Mr Peabody
01-20-2009, 07:44 PM
If you are interested at some point I would be willing to sell or trade my Krell and I also have the Audio Note 1.1x tube DAC still.

I know you will be using a sub but I think I'm preferring solid state sources. The 1.1x was $1,500.00 new and is very nice sounding, I did notice a more extended bottom end from the T+A. You seem to enjoy having the bottom lower registers so tube source may leave you wanting. The subs may give a big bass sound but if the source doesn't send along the lower end it just won't be there. The subs may mask the fault more though.

Which Mac power amp are you using?

hermanv
01-26-2009, 02:15 AM
A system with a bass boost might be said to sound warm, ditto a system with treble attenuation. Both solutions are wrong in my opinion.

A good system should sound and measure more or less flat (ideal flatness is all but impossible in a standard home sized room). Systems can be quite flat in frequency response, yet sound either warmer of leaner. I'm guessing its largely influenced by two things; dynamic compression and harmonic or intermodulation distortion(s)

A system that sounds warm without either boost or cut is the holy grail to my ears. One good clue is cymbals: on a good recording the best systems will play a very metallic sound with a fundamental cymbal tone that seems low in pitch compared to what we are used to on more average systems. Gone from the cymbals will be all traces of hiss, try listening carefully to live (un-amplified) cymbals.

Worst of all is that cymbal sound that sounds a lot like a glass jar full of nails being shaken. Getting really good transient response without an artificial boost of edge speeds turns out to be hard. Slowing down those edges very often results in a treble attenuation. Like I said earlier, quite the wrong answer in my opinion, and by the way harder to design correctly than you might think. :p :2:

Mr Peabody
01-26-2009, 05:42 PM
Hi Herman, we've been missing you around here.

hermanv
01-26-2009, 06:23 PM
Hi Herman, we've been missing you around here.Not much to pontificate about, all the regulars know what's going on and most newbies don't listen anyway.

I've been spending time on DIY where I suppose I'm the newbie, so I don't have to listen to them. :D :D