Warm sound, cold sound... whats it to you?

[Florian]

Well here goes an interesting question maybe.

Why do warm or cold sounds matter if you seek reality?
I mean, a completely neutral unit has no tendency to warm or cold sound. Shouldnt the quest be to find the most neutralest of components?

-Flo

[Jimmy C]

...want "reality" in their livingroom night after night.

Ever been to a small venue with blatty horns and crash cymbals 10 ft. from you? Pretty harsh! Sure, in small doses it's fine... but my ears sometimes hurt when the gig is over. I know a few in here are from Long Island... check out "Paula Jean's" in Seautaket - a half-way decent attempt at 'Nawlins food with some great live Jazz and Blues.

Any recording (or stereo) will never approach reality, but sure, I tend to like neutral speakers better than colored ones. I think it's better to "tweak" after you found a speaker for you... which is why I'm going for that Prima Luna... I can't ignore the price/build quality! A bit of "tube warmth" should be a lotta fun for me...

I'll need a phono stage... I heard good thing about Channel Islands.

And, hey... a bit of honey poured over most of today's CDs probably ain't a bad thing!

[JohnMichael]

I like my system neutral and my reality altered.

[hermanv]

There is a certain amount of fun to be had with systems that are excessively analytical. As Stereophile once put it "With this system you can not only hear the conductor fart, you can tell which variety of legumes he had for lunch".

Fun, yes, but for me, tiring. Although the definition of neutral seems easy enough, the ability to decide which systems are truly neutral appears a little tougher.

Many CD are recorded "hot" i.e. over hyped high end. This is done either as a holdover from old AM car radio days or apparently to dazzle you on first listen. For me at least, those CDs get old fast.

So I think it's desirable for a system to err a little on the warm side. It's a matter of personal taste (no not the legumes)

[topspeed]

A speaker measured as "neutral" may not play neutral in different listening environments. Plus, everyone's hearing is different so what may be "aggressive" to one person may be "neutral" to another. I'd also think that music preferences has an effect on what type of speakers are preferred. For example, if someone is really into hard rock, a warmer speaker may have the dual benefits of less fatigue as well as an ability to mask poor recordings a little better.

[kexodusc]

I'm probably in the minority on this board when I say I really don't care for warm sounding gear at all. I don't hate it or anything, I've just experienced zero correlation between gear I like and "warmth". Sometimes it's warm, sometimes it's not. While the soft soothing tones might be desireable when you're busting out all your top moves over a candle-lit dinner with your woman, I much prefer the more realistic lively sound that I hear at live shows, which are almost always anything but warm. I think if the artist wanted it to sound warm it should be captured in the recording, and some music should never sound warm. Same goes for "cold" gear (never heard that one before, I assume it's the opposite of "warm").
At one point in time, warm was just an adjective in the audio-community. Today it's almost synonnymous with "better". Maybe because it's just a cool word? Some warm sounding gear really sounds dull and boring to me. It might not be fatiguing, but I'd much rather get fatigued than just be bored from the start and shut down the system early.
I rarely pay attention to whether it sounds "warm" or "cold", bright or soft etc...If it sounds good to you that's all that matters.

As topspeed says, listening environments will make as big an impact as the gear itself, and an orthologist acquaintance of mine continues to remind me that the shape of one's ears can have a bigger impact still. This would certainly explain the inconsistencies in equipment reviews. What sounds "warm" to some isn't necessarily warm at all.

While I tend to believe I seek "neutrality" in my system, I don't think that's necessarily the correct way to buy audio gear either...that's what works for me. Buy what makes you happy...if others consider it colored or harsh, uninvolving or dull, screw them. They aren't the ones listening to it. There's no rule carved in stone that says we have to listen to music the way the artist intended, or that it somehow sounds better that way. Enjoy yourselves.

Good thread!

[Resident Loser]

...how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...

Without hearing what went in, how can you classify what comes out? Unless you were present at the recording session, it's really a cr@pshoot as to the finished product's relationship to the performance...What was the performer's, or more importantly the producer's, intent? There are entirely too many variables in the process from the type of mic or the technique used with it to the sound characteristics of the monitors employed.

If a piece of music was intended to sound best played through the "average" car system, do you think it will sound good on the "average" home system? What about that sound as we progress up the food chain toward the high-end market?

Much like tuning a guitar so that a first position E chord is in perfect harmony, everything NOT an E chord or not fingered in the 1st position may not be (most likely won't be) spot on...even with new strings and correct intonation, chances are other notes and chords will be noticeably out-of-whack.

Same with a hi-fi system...if you base your appraisal of a system's "accuracy" on commercially recorded sources, then establish this as your barometer and if that base-line is skewed, all that follows will be in error.

I have, for some time, been critical of those who will play only "audiophile-grade" program material on their "minimalist" systems...i.e. without tone controls, using after-market wiring to enhance component's "synergy", etc.Many of the systems I have experienced, produce some of the most "colored" sound I have heard...far from the sound one would expect from using a "minimalist" philosophy. Far from "accurate", they appear to be a product of the owner's biases and neutrality is in a small minority. Other recorded material seems to be generally avoided due to the fact that this base-line is skewed and without the ability to tweak the sound, otherwise perfectly fine performances are judged "lacking" in some aspect or another.

A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.

The old ideal of "flat wire with gain"...or neutrality...would seem to be the way to go. However, without the ability to control FR by placing "unwanted" devices in the signal path, many will spend too much time searching for their version of the Grail and too little time enjoying the music.

Luckily, since I have been present at numerous performances(as both performer and recordist), and can therefore easily equate the finished product to it and since I have no qualms re: the use of electronics, I've spent most of my time enjoying...

jimHJJ(..the music, that is...)

[hermanv]

...how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...

A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.

My friend and I have spent a few years working on our own speaker because we simply can not afford the better quality speakers on the market. We have access to two fine tools LEAP (a box/crossover designer) and MLSSA (a sound analyzer). I have learned a great deal.

One surprise was in voicing the speaker a 2dB or even 1 dB change on one of our three way drivers changes the character of the speaker quite noticeably. How many commercial speakers (even quite expensive ones) accomplish this degree of relative flatness? Almost none.

So, it is possible to make a speaker warm by adding a 1 or 2 dB very broad bump centered around 200 Hz . This is distinctly different from making a speaker warm by rolling off the highs. Words like warm unfortunately have somewhat different definitions to different people.

When I speak of leaning towards warm, I mean in very small doses. Small enough that the deviation from flat might be the same in degree as adding a carpet to a hardwood floor in the listening room.

The other thing I have learned during our speaker development was that the better the overall system the smaller the smallest noticable change becomes. As our design matured, parts that were once good enough needed to be replaced with better ones. i.e. a mylar capacitor in the crossover needed to become foil and polyprop. System interconnects revealed themselves as limiting sound improvements and so forth.

The definition of flat is simple, the creation of flat; damn near impossible.

Luckily, since I have been present at numerous performances(as both performer and recordist...)

From my experience, many musicians lean towards systems that are somewhat boosted in the highs, presumably because sitting in the middle of other musicians and instruments that is what they mostly hear. So that is what sounds "correct" to them. The audience tends to receive less high frequency energy, high frequencies seem to diminish somewhat faster than the low frequencies with seating distance. So us non-performers might have different tastes, different definitions of flat, each is perfectly legitimate.

[Geoffcin]

So, it is possible to make a speaker warm by adding a 1 or 2 dB very broad bump centered around 200 Hz . This is distinctly different from making a speaker warm by rolling off the highs. Words like warm unfortunately have somewhat different definitions to different people.

People keep commenting that 3db is the smallest noticable change in performance, but to me 3db sounds like a nautical mile. Just a 2db bump in the midbass stands out to me bigtime. A 3db shelving of the treble sounds like a blanket over the tweeter! Possibly why I liked the Totem Mani-2 so much. The thing sounded dead flat across a good portion of the spectrum.

[kexodusc]

That 3 dB reference is wrong...I've seen a bit around here too. I think they got that confused with the "double the power" thing...
1 dB is arguably the first noticeable change...guess that makes sense - they picked this unit for some reason. Although I have some litereature in front of me that suggest 1/2 dB is known to skew stereo imaging off-balance, so with 2 reference volumes, 1/2 dB changes are noticeable (David Weems). Geoffcin, this would certainly explain why you can notice that 2 dB bump. And if it's over a wide enough band relative a -2 dB dip in an upper band it's even more pronounced. I'm with you on that, 2 dB can make a huge difference...DIY-ers are always padding tweeters with slight differences in resistor values to get that perfect spot balance between detail and sibilance...often just "1 or 2 dB" from 10KHz -20 KHz.

[hermanv]

Alexander Bell coined the measurement a "Bell" at what he thought was the first noticable change. It later turned out that a "Bell" was quite large so we divided it by ten and called it a decibell. The fact that 1 dB is close to the smallest change is sort of an accident. By the way thats why the B in dB is capitalized like Volts, Amperes and Hertz it is someone's name.

[Pat D]

People keep commenting that 3db is the smallest noticable change in performance, but to me 3db sounds like a nautical mile. Just a 2db bump in the midbass stands out to me bigtime. A 3db shelving of the treble sounds like a blanket over the tweeter! Possibly why I liked the Totem Mani-2 so much. The thing sounded dead flat across a good portion of the spectrum.

I have never heard that 3 dB is the smallest noticeable change! Unless it's a very narrow peak--as with the Totem Mani-2.

I also think the Totem Mani-2 is a very fine sounding speaker, very neutral if not quite perfect.

[GMichael]

I have never heard that 3 dB is the smallest noticeable change! Unless it's a very narrow peak--as with the Totem Mani-2.

I also think the Totem Mani-2 is a very fine sounding speaker, very neutral if not quite perfect.

I listened to several Totem speakers. Don't remember the models but each and every pair sounded very nutural to me. Clear, crisp with great imaging. Unless you walked right up to the speaker you couldn't tell which one was on.

I can hear a 1dB change. 3 dB is a huge swing to me.

[Resident Loser]

From my experience, many musicians lean towards systems that are somewhat boosted in the highs, presumably because sitting in the middle of other musicians and instruments that is what they mostly hear. So that is what sounds "correct" to them. The audience tends to receive less high frequency energy, high frequencies seem to diminish somewhat faster than the low frequencies with seating distance. So us non-performers might have different tastes, different definitions of flat, each is perfectly legitimate.

...I'm quite the opposite. While I have used room treatments and ultimately equalization to acheive measurably "flatened" response(with instrumentation-not my flawed ears) , I have subsequently rolled-off the upper extreme to suit my personal preference...

jimHJJ(...that's were the ears came in...)

[hermanv]

I suppose it's self evident but these posts have got me thinking about audiophile terms we all use and misuse.

Before electronic reproduction there was simply sound, our language defined terms for pitch and volume, a few others but not much more.

It took the invention of an electronic reproduction chain to find all the possible ways to screw up how something sounds. Obviously in retrospect it turns out there are a great many ways to screw up reproduced sound. Who could have foreseen doppler distortion caused by speaker cones?

So although the magazines do tend towards hyperbole (gotta make a living, right?) the language to describe sound reproduction errors is obviously very new. When I listen to a system with an audio friend, we stumble around all kinds of phrases to describe what we are hearing. More often than not, we end up agreeing that we were trying to say the same thing but that the language had failed us. At least the magazines have given us a starting point.

Has anyone ever seen an online glossary or dictionary of audiophile terminology? Perhaps we could import it and list it somewhere on the site. Maybe we could avert a flame war or two.

[E-Stat]

Has anyone ever seen an online glossary or dictionary of audiophile terminology? Perhaps we could import it and list it somewhere on the site. Maybe we could avert a flame war or two.

Here's one by J. Gordon Holt:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

rw

[Arturo7]

Excellent post H.

I suppose it's self evident but these posts have got me thinking about audiophile terms we all use and misuse.

Before electronic reproduction there was simply sound, our language defined terms for pitch and volume, a few others but not much more.

It took the invention of an electronic reproduction chain to find all the possible ways to screw up how something sounds. Obviously in retrospect it turns out there are a great many ways to screw up reproduced sound. Who could have foreseen doppler distortion caused by speaker cones?

So although the magazines do tend towards hyperbole (gotta make a living, right?) the language to describe sound reproduction errors is obviously very new. When I listen to a system with an audio friend, we stumble around all kinds of phrases to describe what we are hearing. More often than not, we end up agreeing that we were trying to say the same thing but that the language had failed us. At least the magazines have given us a starting point.

Has anyone ever seen an online glossary or dictionary of audiophile terminology? Perhaps we could import it and list it somewhere on the site. Maybe we could avert a flame war or two.

[E-Stat]

The question is how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...

Easy. Be involved at the recording venue at the time. I have had the good fortune to hear my local symphony record for Telarc on more than one occasion. I've spoken with the conductor and have some understanding of his goals.

A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...

Except, of course when those measurements are made in an anechoic chamber which in no way resembles the environment in which the speakers are designed to work. A truly flat speaker under those circumstances will be intolerably bright.

...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.

Our experience sure renders us with very different opinions. I hear significant differences in transparency and imaging in speakers that I find significant.

However, without the ability to control FR by placing "unwanted" devices in the signal path, many will spend too much time searching for their version of the Grail and too little time enjoying the music.

Or "B", use various sorts of room treatments to solve the primary issues of room nodes. I continue to be amazed at how good many old recordings really are. Occasionally, I'll use the HF contour provided with my 'stats to tone down some really old recordings that are a bit raw.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Easy. Be involved at the recording venue at the time. I have had the good fortune to hear my local symphony record for Telarc on more than one occasion. I've spoken with the conductor and have some understanding of his goals.

Gee, I thought I said that...in the next paragraph.

Except, of course when those measurements are made in an anechoic chamber which in no way resembles the environment in which the speakers are designed to work. A truly flat speaker under those circumstances will be intolerably bright.

Gee, I didn't think I HAD to say that...pretty much took THAT as a given...

Our experience sure renders us with very different opinions. I hear significant differences in transparency and imaging in speakers that I find significant.

Gee, all I said was..." A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones." I think the importance of FR re: other parameters is given short-shrift by many...

Or "B", use various sorts of room treatments to solve the primary issues of room nodes...Occasionally, I'll use the HF contour provided with my 'stats to tone down some really old recordings that are a bit raw.

Gee, I've done that too...except I call 'em "tone controls"...

jimHJJ(...looks like we are in agreement...sorta'...)

[E-Stat]

Gee, I thought I said that...in the next paragraph.

Ah, the rhetorical question.

...it is singly responsible...

I simply disagree with the term "singly" as I find multiple answers.

Gee, I've done that too...except I call 'em "tone controls"...

Indeed. I've always had speakers with such that eliminates the need for superfluous gain stages.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Ah, the rhetorical question.

Ah, the rhetorical answer!

I simply disagree with the term "singly" as I find multiple answers.

Dispersion characteristics don't necessarily have much to do with FR...or do they? Should have qualified the word "qualities" with the phrase "many of those"...I'll try to be more precise...

Indeed. I've always had speakers with such that eliminates the need for superfluous gain stages.

Much akin to the old "tree falling in the empty forest" bit, if you use a tone control in the "cut" mode, is it still a gain stage? Is it a tone control? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

jimHJJ(...let me whip out the old schematic and see how many more transistors are in the signal path...)

[gonefishin]

Well here goes an interesting question maybe.

Why do warm or cold sounds matter if you seek reality?
I mean, a completely neutral unit has no tendency to warm or cold sound. Shouldnt the quest be to find the most neutralest of components?

-Flo

Having a neutral system is only accomplished by those same audiophools who believe they also have found the point of diminishing returns.


Do you believe your speakers and system are neutral and without color? I would doubt you do.

(I think I got this right...)
Fröhliche Weihnachten!,

dan