[Luke]

I normally listen to music with my TAH processor on, and prefer it that way. I was listening to Led Zepellin on Monday with my TAH and 225s. I had not listened to Zep for a while. As I listened to a few tracks, it occured to me something was not quite right. These tracks are deepling ingrained in my memory from my teenage years listening with Pro 4AAs and my father's expensive Marantz system, and the tracks just didn't sound right to me. I realized the problem. The processor on the amp was switched on! Silly me.

Turning it off returned me to the old days. Experimenting, I found the sounds in the extreme far right and left were moved slightly towards the middle with the processor on, and the result was, what I perceived as "warmth." But I didn't want warmth -- not with Led Zep. That's why it seemed to sound better, at least in my view, with the processor off. The harsh, cold sound is what I wanted.

So, the processed sound was my perception of "warmth." Or am I completely off the track?

Maybe this forum could use a glossary sticky.

 

[JaZZ]

Hey Luke...

...that's a good name to participate in this thread!

Thomas...

...I'm a bit faltering if your view is valid or not (for me). I say a live concert sounds in many ways clearer, cleaner, more detailed and transparent than a reproduction through most speakers and headphones and thus could very well be called less warm. But then again there are sonic levels on which I would agree with you, so e.g. when it comes to digital formats per se (or maybe it's rather the recordings or the microphones, resp.) -- or maybe rather their implementation by today's hardware, resp.

 

[Habib]

I am kind of confused after reading this thread. The way I see it is that warm is oppose to cold, as dark is oppose to bright. So you can be warm and bright at the same time, warm being not analytical (cold).

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I say a live concert sounds in many ways clearer, cleaner, more detailed and transparent than a reproduction through most speakers and headphones and thus could very well be called less warm.

Marcel,

You know, what I find most striking when I attend a concert with unamplified acoustic instruments is the degree of harmonic and rhythmic cohesion - something frequently lost when listening to reproduced music (especially music from digital media). If the orchestra is good, it will play as one, if the jazz band is good, what the individual players play will be related to the whole. To me, the sonic fabric of music is seamless. What I perceive when listening to live music are musical and emotional messages, not individual sounds that lend themselves to an analytic listening approach. I believe that most of the typical audiophile criteria are utterly misleading in this regard. That's why I shy away from terms like "detailed" or "transparent". I don't hear "detail" in a concert, I hear music. I am not there to analyze sound, I am there to enjoy the performance.

For most audiophiles, hifi is not a means to an end - musical enjoyment - to them, hifi has become their true goal. The audiophile is a pervert. To some extent, that is true for all of us, we are the ones with the obsessive disorder or we wouldn't debate headphones and hifi components here. But I believe we, as audiophiles, have to be aware how easy it is to lose sight of our goal of music reproduction and to get bogged down in sonic details. As I said, I don't perceive detail in a concert and I don't perceive instrument separation either, I perceive music. Pinpoint accuracy, instruments separated by etched lines, detail in general: those are the things audiophiles are listening for because they don't know better. If I close my eyes in a concert, I find it impossible to separate each and every violin in my mind, or each and every cello. If the orchestra is good, I'll hear instrument groups as one, the violins blend into each other. And I'd be damned if the brass section wasn't sitting in the orchestra's first row - it never does, of course, but I am unable to tell from only the sonic clues. I guess that's what's wrong with the typical audiophile listening style: it prefers visual clues over music reproduction.

As I see it, detail and transparency are tempting as criteria, but I doubt they are natural. Most components praised for their detailed and transparent character sound artificially analytic to my ears, lacking the warm and organic musical quality live sound has for me.

However, there is one audiophile criterion live music has in abundance, it seems: dynamic range. And an utterly effortless one. Even when playing a fortissimo, acoustic instruments never sound piercing or shrieking to my ears, while most hifi systems would have me running away at the same loudness level. Maybe we could call it some kind of warm clarity?

 

[DJGeorgeT]

in very simple terms, warmth is distortion. As it is, it won't make your source transparent or neutral. It makes the listening experience exciting and more fulfilling specially with mastered digital sources which tend to be flat, dull, boring by nature. Live music is exciting and that's what I was trying to get to by comparing warmth with live sound.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGhost I read many times people refer to headphones as warm sounding, what does it mean? thanks!

'Warm' means emphasizing the lower part of the frequency spectrum (mid-range and bass).

 

[JaZZ]

Thomas...

...that's exactly the same with me: in a live concert details are mere extras, to which one doesn't really pay attention. Quite logical: there's no appeal to search for confirmation that a cymbal sounds almost as lifelike as a real cymbal -- an occupation that only makes sense to a sound fetishist when it comes to admire the degree of perfection of an artificial replication. I confess: there's barely anything to criticize with the sound of acoustic instruments in a concert hall: an orchestra sounds absolutely coherent, no dissective and analytical component is present. But I have also to confess that in the case of a symphony I prefer the reproduction at home on my hi-fi system -- simply because, primarily in complex passages, I can follow the musical structure much better there. I would even say: the reproduction is more musical than the original because of this.

But I'm digressing. The fact that in a concert sonic details aren't perceived analytically doesn't mean that the sound is less detailed and transparent or warmer. I dare to pretend that in a concert the sound is principally neutral, neither warm nor cold. But like the dynamic contrast also the temperature contrast -- between cold and warm instruments -- is higher than through a hi-fi system.

The term «warmth» touches something essential when it comes to music reproduction. For warmth is an umbrella term for different facets of sonic accuracy. The opposite of warmth is best represented by analyticism. What's analyticism in music reproduction actually? It's a fakery of precision and resolution, behind which hide themselves lacking precision and lacking resolution -- usually in the form of an accentuated treble range combined with a crippled or smeared transient response. Technically speaking this often happens by means of insufficiently dampened near-field and hollow-space reflections, typically in closed headphones. Also electrostats principally suffer from this. Sound lead through a metal grid gets an inextinguishable coolish, analytical imprinting. The stator grids/membrane sandwich causes a fine smearing of transients and additionally -- caused by the pressure-chamber effect -- a treble accentuation. Even if the latter can be controlled or compensated, the typical imprinting remains audible. Of course, in the case of electrostatics one can't really speak of lacking resolution. Insofar the phenomenon is responsible for some sort of hyper-resolution and hyper-detail, which absolutely has some analytical appearance. And of course radiates a certain coolishness.

If you look at my headphone choice, you'll barely be tempted to insinuate that I'm in love with detail. In fact the HD 650 has an enormous detail resolution like barely any other dynamic headphone, but it doesn't put detail to the fore. It would be unfair if it were characterized as detailed. Actually what it does is nothing but not to abstract details. For me a high resolution is essential. Everything else would mean that the input signal is in any way corrupted. Which also implies a loss of musical information -- also such of a sound-esthetical kind.

Well, warmth is a traditional Sennheiser virtue. As has been mentioned in this thread, also harmonic distortion can cause warmth. And indeed the predecessor can be blamed for this in the bass. But the real cause for the -- let's say -- absence of coolness is the design of the earpieces. It attaches great importance to as little reflections as possible -- inside the housing as well as between driver and ear. One element to achieve this is the foam pads.

Whereas the HD 600 sounds a bit veiled and overly warm to some in this constellation, with the HD 650 the exemplarily low harmonic distortion compensates for this: cleaner = cooler. Here the relatively neutral temperature balance is created exclusively by positive components: extremely low distortion, low-reflective working conditions. That's an exemplary exception among headphones, for the competitors achieve similarly neutral temperature balances rather through negative tuning components: harmonic distortion is concealed by reverberation; analyticism caused by reflections is compensated by bass emphasis. This isn't meant as polemic, but my honest conviction (maybe just a bit overstated

).

I confess: these comments unmask me as an analyst and to some degree also as a sound and technics fetishist. The cause for this is that since I listen to reproduced music it's always been very important to me to have the soul of the music transported. And with some intuitive-technical skills I've tried to fathom the evil (primarily building loudspeakers and even drivers myself). This has -- also -- involved an analytic approach to music reproduction. But still music is what's closest to my heart -- and its unaltered reproduction.

After all I don't think we have seriously different standpoints, maybe just a different vocabulary (

). BTW: I love the «warm clarity» and recently have used it myself to describe the Corda HA-2.

Marcel

 

[Sovkiller]

By Stereophile definitions, and others a warm sound couldbe considered:

A listening term. The opposite of cool or cold. In terms of frequency, generally considered the range from approx. 150Hz-400Hz. A system with the "proper" warmth will sound natural within this range.

dark: A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."

warm: The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ After all I don't think we have seriously different standpoints, maybe just a different vocabulary

I am convinced our views are quite similar, actually. Most of the time I completely agree with your posts.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller The opposite of cool or cold. In terms of frequency, generally considered the range from approx. 150Hz-400Hz. A system with the "proper" warmth will sound natural within this range. [...] A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.

Exactly.

 

[Sovkiller]

This thread makes me think, why not create a head-fi glossary, and make it sticky...????

 

[Luke]

I second that.

I nominate Sovkiller to write the first draft.

 

[zachary80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbirkett Warm is like a dark sound, ie not bright, but its a little more than just that... Trying to think how I put this. OK, try putting your hifi in a bare room, maybe only carpet on the floor, bare walls, no furnishings. Then try putting it in a well furnished room, rugs, lots of ornaments etc... The sound changes, the one which is well furnished will probably sound warmer.[/url]

Wouldn't that have more to do with resonance (less = warm)?

edit: After thinking about it it makes more sense.

 

[GWN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller This thread makes me think, why not create a head-fi glossary, and make it sticky...????

The Stereophile website has a decent Audio Glossary.

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

 

[floppy-ear ted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostlamb Something that gives your a warm fuzzy feeling inside. It's a general sound heard in the midrange that gives it its perceived warmth. I don't know if warm is dark.

I wonder if that warm fuzzy feeling may be subconsciously associated with memories of childhood, where hearing your parents while sitting in their lap made their voice sound like it had more bass and slightly reduced high frequencies compared to hearing them from further away. Hence, headphones with a similarly skewed frequency response are rather strangely described as "warm".

FET