Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48
  1. #1
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176

    My definition of "warm" has changed.

    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.

  2. #2
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    "Warm"

    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.

  3. #3
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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

  4. #4
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  5. #5
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    My recent encounters with more modern ARC gear has tarnished my opinion of them though.
    Agreed. Gone a bit too yang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    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.

  7. #7
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852

    My .02

    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

  8. #8
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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...

  9. #9
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    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.


    Attachment 3773
    Last edited by Hyfi; 11-02-2009 at 03:37 PM.

  10. #10
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  11. #11
    _ Luvin Da Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    _
    Posts
    1,951
    This thread got me thinking and I came up with a theory . 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 . 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.
    Back in my day, we had nine planets.

  12. #12
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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

  13. #13
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  14. #14
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.

  15. #15
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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...

  16. #16
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

  17. #17
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  18. #18
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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)
    Last edited by kexodusc; 07-04-2008 at 07:52 AM.

  19. #19
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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.

  20. #20
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Plausibility

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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. 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.

  21. #21
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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. 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...

  22. #22
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Dunno

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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).

  23. #23
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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

  24. #24
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492

    How's this for warm?

    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 like sulung tang.

  25. #25
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by filecat13
    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.

    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...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •