My definition of "warm" has changed.

[GMichael]

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"...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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."

[E-Stat]

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.

[bobsticks]

"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]

"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]

Funny stuff about your friend's quest.

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."

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

[GMichael]

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.

Yeah, that's the one.

[bobsticks]

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]

...cool?

[Mr Peabody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So sticks really is a person.

Huh...

[bobsticks]

So sticks really is a person.

Huh...

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

[bobsticks]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Mr Peabody]

Hi Herman, we've been missing you around here.

[hermanv]

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.