I hear alot the term "warm" applied to sound yet I have no idea what is meant. I listen to both digital (CD, files) and analog (vinyl, cassette) music and often hear the term "warm" applied to analog (and "cold" applied to digital). To my ears neither sound "warm" nor "cold".
Can anyone explain what is meant by "warm" and hopefully post or refer to an example.
It is illusion or distortion.
Tim
I hear alot the term "warm" applied to sound yet I have no idea what is meant. I listen to both digital (CD, files) and analog (vinyl, cassette) music and often hear the term "warm" applied to analog (and "cold" applied to digital). To my ears neither sound "warm" nor "cold".
Can anyone explain what is meant by "warm" and hopefully post or refer to an example.
Well, a "warm" sound will I presume have a rolled off treble and a prominent mid-bass with a slow decline toward the high frequencies.
As "red" is a "warm" color and is also the longest wavelenght visual color, then by analogy a speaker or other device that emphases the long wavelenths may be said to be "warm".
I would highty doubt that any CD player or other digital device or any other electronic device would have a "warm" sound to any audible extent unless it was incompetantly designed or given a deliberate equalization in that direction.
Warmness is also ascribed to recordings with more reverberance or echo to them - in comparison to a raw recording in an acoustically damped environment, which may sound unnaturally silent (especially on headphones).
It has also been used to describe low-order harmonic distortion.
Here's 3 lossyFLAC files in a zip (http://www.giantpygmy.net/stuff/stifflittlefingers_alternativeulster_cool_v_warm.zip).
The track in question is Alternative Ulster by Stiff Little Fingers (and they've all been through WavGain - 89dB).
The 1st file is the CD version, the 2nd is the vinyl and the third is the vinyl version processed with a plugin called CLAS by Refined Audiometrics.
I find the CD release too harsh and thin ("cold") and the vinyl too muddy ("warm"? - as per what Ed Seedhouse and tfarney said). The 3rd version lies somewhere between the two and that's where I'd have preferred the CD version to have been mastered. I'd say with the CD version they've castrated it for the sake of "digital clarity" i.e. high-end boost and sucked out too much low-mid - IMO it's just a poor mastering choice and obviously nothing to do with the format.
C.
Warmness is also ascribed to recordings with more reverberance or echo to them - in comparison to a raw recording in an acoustically damped environment, which may sound unnaturally silent (especially on headphones).
I normally hear the terms wet and dry to describe this phenomenon.
I hear alot the term "warm" applied to sound yet I have no idea what is meant. I listen to both digital (CD, files) and analog (vinyl, cassette) music and often hear the term "warm" applied to analog (and "cold" applied to digital).
I normally hear the terms wet and dry to describe this phenomenon.
Well I think this proves that audiophiles
are synaesthetes after all doesn't it?
I normally hear the terms wet and dry to describe this phenomenon.
Wet/dry is a standard studio term which applies to signal with
any processing applied vs. raw signal. Thus, in addition to being clearly defined, it is orthogonal to warm/cold. I mean, if processing is a boost in high frequencies and a cut in low frequencies, then wet will be likely described as cold, and dry as warm(er).
Well, a "warm" sound will I presume have a rolled off treble and a prominent mid-bass with a slow decline toward the high frequencies.
I agree... If I ever use the term "warm", that's what I mean, and I'll usually give a little explanation. If the high frequencies are rolled-off, I call that "dull", and if the high frequencies are strong, I call that "bright". Usually, I'll try to make the meaning clear by saying something like, "The highs are a little dull".
I hear alot the term "warm" applied to sound yet I have no idea what is meant. I listen to both digital (CD, files) and analog (vinyl, cassette) music and often hear the term "warm" applied to analog (and "cold" applied to digital).
It depends on who is using the terminology, what
they mean, and how much you trust them... Most "audiophile terminology" is difficult (or impossible) to define scientifically. And, most of these vague sound characteristics can't be measured or quantified. Depending on where you read it, it might be useless nonsense! When I read these terms, I like to see some more description, measurements, or perhaps a frequency response curve. If a reviewer says that a microphone has a "warm" sound, and the frequency response curve confirms my understanding of that word, I'm OK with it. If a reviewer says that a vacuum tube amplifier has a warm sound, and I don't see anything unusual in the measurements or specs, I'm skeptical. (Here on Hydrogenaudio, specs & measurements are not enough... You might have to prove you can
hear the difference with a double blind listening test.)
In my opinion, a good vinyl record on a good system should sound identical to the CD. If a turntable/cartridge makes your records sound "warm", I'd say there's something wrong with the set-up! (If a particular record sounds warm, I can accept that... But I'd like to know what the particular author means by warm...)
My 30-year old records don't sound as good as my CDs! Many of these older records are a bit "dull" (weak high end), and most have plenty of "snap", "crackle", and "pop". (Apparently, some audiophiles are not bothered by a small amount of vinyl noise and preamp noise... Perhaps this adds to the "warmth"?)
I think it wet/dry is one of those unfortunate terms that's actually both what Greynol and pawelq say it is. i.e. it's a descriptive term like too much reverb makes the mix splashy (which makes sense because the reverberations of a hit note are like ripples and the note can "drown" in its own overly stressed "environment" i.e. get lost in its echoes, but also it's a term for the degree of processing.
It's confusing because looking at my plugin library the term WET / DRY is almost always used for reverb / echo plugins and it's not always used for other effects plugins like EQ, compression, panning etc ..
Though to back up what pawelq said:
(http://www.giantpygmy.net/stuff/wet_dry.png)
C.
I see no problem in wet/dry being used to talk about the presence of an effect so long as the terms are well defined and agreed upon (which very much happens to be the case with wet/dry). In the case of modulation effects I think the terms are quite fitting.
I also see no reason why such criticism should not also extend to the terms warm and cold.
Just trying to pull things together.
It seems that many agree with Ed Seedhouse's EQ definition (I certainly do):
- EQ: "a rolled off treble and a prominent mid-bass with a slow decline toward the high frequencies"
But do we agree on the following as "warming" elements?:
- Vinyl noise and preamp noise
- Turntable rumble (is that included in the above?)
- Distortion (incl. tape saturation) - all kinds? - probably not. Even order harmonic distortion?
- What about: DR compression?
I have a feeling that on its own it's not something that adds warmth, but in conjuntion with other effects can be used to simulate a warm effect, see below:
PSP VintageWarmer 2 (VST) is a high-quality digital simulation of an analog-style, a single- or multi-band compressor/limiter. It combines rich, warm analog processing [...] The plug-in processor [...] can be used for softknee compression [...] PSP Vintage Warmer's overload characteristics with the processor being capable of generating saturation effects typical of analog tape recorders.
[The above quote has been heavily edited by me]
C.
EDIT: added bullet point
What about: DR compression?
I have a feeling that on its own it's not something that adds warmth.
Sepends on how the thresholds and compression/expansion parameters are set
PSP VintageWarmer 2 (VST) is a high-quality digital simulation of an analog-style, a single- or multi-band compressor/limiter. It combines rich, warm analog processing [...] The plug-in processor [...] can be used for softknee compression [...] PSP Vintage Warmer's overload characteristics with the processor being capable of generating saturation effects typical of analog tape recorders.
[The above quote has been heavily edited by me]
Multiband dynamic range compression provides an opportunity to roll-off the highs and boost the lows as the levels vary. If you set it up right, you can even provide flat frequency response at the reference level, but provide audible coloration at other levels.
A compay called "Cranesong" marketed a product they called "Analog dither", which was ironically supplied on a CD. I analyzed some of it and found that it was composed of a noise signal with the expected spectral weighting and some 60 Hz hum along with, if memory serves, some 120 Hz second harmonic of the hum.
Basically, the sort of noise you might find coming out of a cheap tubed RIAA preamp. (the more expensive preamps had DC on the tube's filaments, and therefore no hum.)
But do we agree on the following as "warming" elements?:
- Vinyl noise and preamp noise
- Turntable rumble (is that included in the above?)
- Distortion (incl. tape saturation) - all kinds? - probably not. Even order harmonic distortion?
- What about: DR compression?
I have a feeling that on its own it's not something that adds warmth, but in conjuntion with other effects can be used to simulate a warm effect, see below:
PSP VintageWarmer 2 (VST) is a high-quality digital simulation of an analog-style, a single- or multi-band compressor/limiter. It combines rich, warm analog processing [...] The plug-in processor [...] can be used for softknee compression [...] PSP Vintage Warmer's overload characteristics with the processor being capable of generating saturation effects typical of analog tape recorders.
Good point! I don't generally use those definitions, but some people do. And, that's fine with me as long as it's clearly defined. If someone told me to "make it sound warmer", I'd add some mid-bass boost, but I wouldn't think about adding nose & distortion. If you also say "vintage", "tape", or "tube", then I might start thinking about soft clipping.
I guess "warmth" has different meanings to different people in different contexts.
I doubt that vinyl/analog fans would agree (or admit) that they prefer noise & distortion, or even frequency response variations. I think to an audiophile, warmth is something subtle and magical/mystical. (I could be wrong... I don't have an "audiophile dictionary".)
I doubt that vinyl/analog fans would agree (or admit) that they prefer noise & distortion, or even frequency response variations. I think to an audiophile, warmth is something subtle and magical/mystical. (I could be wrong... I don't have an "audiophile dictionary".)
Agree. I think it's useful to define these terms (it's hard to communicate ideas of sound with words). An HA glossary/dictionary perhaps?
Then as you say, you can leave the "audiophiles" to their ephemeral weirdness.
C.
Agree. I think it's useful to define these terms (it's hard to communicate ideas of sound with words). An HA glossary/dictionary perhaps?
Well, I suppose a proper blind or double blind study could be done where people rate various snippets of music on a scale of, say 1-10 with "warmth" the scored paramater, followen by measurements to see which elements correspond to a high score on "warmth".
But of course it would be costly to do right, and it's hard to know in advance if it would give us any actually valuable knowlege.
As used by the common "audophile" that posts on other forums that this, I suppose the right definition would be that it doesn't actually mean much of anything.
audiophile here. ok, I would prefer Hifi enthusiast as some of you here have made "audiophile" into a dirty word. When I think of "warm" I think of a sound that has subtle attributes. Not warm, would imply "sterile" to me. But that's just me. To me there is just something special about a single ended triode amplifier. There are positive attributes to a solid state amp, primarily razor sharp definition. But my standard of reference is live music and I don't hear razor sharp definition in live music. I don't hear soundstage, either, but that is another can of worms we won't go into here. When I hear a woman's voice played back over a warm system it sounds like a person, a female person. A system that is not warm doesn't sound like a person. It sounds like a recording. Another analogy; a warm system is like Grand Marnier in your tummy and a non warm system is like an ice cold Mountain Dew.
It´s fascinating to see how we all seek for words to describe the "warmth" we hear as such without sound examples. If this isn´t a reason for hydrogenaudio.org to exist, I don´t know...
Personally, I think "warm" sound can have a lot of meaning:
1. First and foremost, it depends on the music. With rock you have a different warmth compared to classic.
2. I disagree on the high frequency rolloff. When you start a high frequency rolloff at let´s say 10 kHz, you´ll lose what is commonly described as "air".
3. Mastering engineers tell that one can´t add "warmth" to a recording. There I also disagree. But to that later...
4. If you boost the upper bass you´ll most certainly will get muddy or boomy bass. Not my cup of tea.
5. For me, turntable noise / vinyl clicks & crackles are not "warm". They are - plainly said - distortions & errors.
6. Adding distortions via tube plug-ins or real tubes I also doubt as a mean to add warmth. Why should I add distortions when I have an undistorted source in the first place?
7. I agree on the reverb. It is important. However, I personally prefer to avoid too much reverb.
My recipe for a "warm" sound with the help of a good EQ would be: Leave the bass alone (unless it sound horrible). Attentuate frequencies around 2.000 to 3.500 Hz for around -0.5 to -2 dB. Consider doing the same to the frequency area from 5.000 to 9.000 Hz (depends on the material). If there is less "air" consider boosting frequencies around 11.000 to 14.000 Hz. For a bit of "bigger" or more "mellow" (how imprecise words are) sound consider boosting the lower mids at 350 to 600 Hz. Finally, apply a low pass filter starting at 1.000 Hz which reaches -0.5 to -2.0 dB at 20.000 Hz (however, this "flattens" out the material). As always with processing, less is more. That´s what I´d describe as "warmth" or, in my opinion, "charming"
This is of course no guideline. It can´t be applied to every piece of music. I´d say, that warmth is a combination of many effects.... impossible to describe.
When I think of "warm" I think of a sound that has subtle attributes. Not warm, would imply "sterile" to me. But that's just me. To me there is just something special about a single ended triode amplifier. There are positive attributes to a solid state amp, primarily razor sharp definition. But my standard of reference is live music and I don't hear razor sharp definition in live music. I don't hear soundstage, either, but that is another can of worms we won't go into here. When I hear a woman's voice played back over a warm system it sounds like a person, a female person. A system that is not warm doesn't sound like a person. It sounds like a recording. Another analogy; a warm system is like Grand Marnier in your tummy and a non warm system is like an ice cold Mountain Dew.
Well that's really, really unhelpful. I don't have grand marnier DSP, and if I did I wouldn't have a clue what it did. To me, all this language is good for is sounding like a connoiseur, it has no practical value whatsoever.
C.
Ah, now I understand.
Ed's explanation is very helpful as is Carpman's synopsis and I'll be using them as definitions.
I have heard my Grado Black described as "Warm" and my AT92E as "cold". To me they sound "dull" and "bright" (in comparison to each other; in isolation they both sound normal).
My digital stuff sounds "bright" and "clear" and elements of the mix sound "distinct" and "separate" in comparison to my vinyl and cassettes. The elements of the mix of my vinyl and cassettes sound "smeared" or "muddy" or "smoothed" in comparison (but again normal in isolation).
Carpman's great examples were very instructive. At last I understand "warm" and can define it quite easily: dull, and smeared!
When I think of "warm" I think of a sound that has subtle attributes. Not warm, would imply "sterile" to me. But that's just me. To me there is just something special about a single ended triode amplifier. There are positive attributes to a solid state amp, primarily razor sharp definition. But my standard of reference is live music and I don't hear razor sharp definition in live music. I don't hear soundstage, either, but that is another can of worms we won't go into here. When I hear a woman's voice played back over a warm system it sounds like a person, a female person. A system that is not warm doesn't sound like a person. It sounds like a recording. Another analogy; a warm system is like Grand Marnier in your tummy and a non warm system is like an ice cold Mountain Dew.
Well, all I can say in response is that, having read it a couple of times, I still have no real idea of what you mean by "warm". And that it is all too typical, to me, of the kind of things people say in "high end" magazines.
audiophile here. ok, I would prefer Hifi enthusiast as some of you here have made "audiophile" into a dirty word. When I think of "warm" I think of a sound that has subtle attributes. Not warm, would imply "sterile" to me. But that's just me. To me there is just something special about a single ended triode amplifier. There are positive attributes to a solid state amp, primarily razor sharp definition. But my standard of reference is live music and I don't hear razor sharp definition in live music. I don't hear soundstage, either, but that is another can of worms we won't go into here. When I hear a woman's voice played back over a warm system it sounds like a person, a female person. A system that is not warm doesn't sound like a person. It sounds like a recording. Another analogy; a warm system is like Grand Marnier in your tummy and a non warm system is like an ice cold Mountain Dew.
Not to pile on, but....say what?
Seriously, there are real terms to describe what can and cannot be heard in audio reproduction. We don't need PRaT; we have slew rate and transient response. We don't need warmth; we can speak specifically of the variations from flat in a component's frequency response. And there is certainly no need to bring Mountain Dew into it, but if we must, the "magic" I've run into most often in single-ended triode amplifiers was the result of their typically startling lack of headroom; it's called clipping and it sounds, to torture the beverage analogy a bit more, like NASCAR champagne -- Mountain Dew & Southern Comfort.
Oh, and by the way, "audiophile" simply means "lover of sound," and I expect that everyone here qualifies.
Tim
Oh, and by the way, "audiophile" simply means "lover of sound,".
Only to some. Audiophile is a recent term with a widely varying meaning/associations depending on who is using it (even more so than warm). This is particularly true among those old enough to have observed after the 60/70s stereo boom the appearance and growth in the mainstream of products labelled audiophile in order to distinguish them from other hi-fi/mid-fi/whatever home audio products. To a significant number of people audiophile is associated with these marketing-lead products and the scientifically invalid beliefs held by the consumers of these products.
Interesting that the ad copy from PSP Audioware's Vintage Warmer 2 plug-in was cited on this thread. I own that plug-in and absolutely love it.
I'm not sure my input will help the discussion much, but as a project studio recording artist the concept of "warmth" comes up a lot.
When I use that term I think of it as an overall impression of the program material as it relates to both equalization and compression. The analog 70's sound a lot of people seem to like involves taming transients (and thereby allowing for overall level increases) with the use of multiband compression by using either real analog gear or imitative software fakery--to not only compress the peaks but also to introduce some odd but somehow pleasing coloration to the sound. That coloration might include "tape saturation". The rock musician is not holding up absolute sonic clarity or realism as his/her highest virtues. We want perceived sonic power and vibe, and if pushing things to distort in certain ways provides that, we're all for it. It's not just about rolling off the highs and boosting the low-mids.
I don't know anyone who would want turntable rumble or hisses and pops in their mix. But a bit of tape coloration and even-series harmonic distortion, if used conscientiously and sparingly, can impart a vintage vibe to a mix that most would find pleasant.
Keep in mind that a lot of this is a perception problem with early CDs. "Cold" and "brittle" were adjectives tossed around that made some musicians highly suspicious of digital recording vs. analog. I don't know whether or not some of the early CDs capitalized on the wide dynamic range of CDs as compared to typical sound source media and mastered albums with less compression or exaggerated highs--but damage was done to the reputation of digital recording as a result.
Thankfully, a site like Hydrogen Audio pretty much destroys any of the criticism of the CD medium itself. For all of Neil Young's protestations, he would fail an ABX test the same way anyone else would.
Still, there are many of us out there that LIKE a sound that's "pushed" a little. That's why outboard analog gear is still in high demand in studios, and software emulations of analog gear are selling like hotcakes. Essentially, some artists want a thicker sound that does not really take advantage of the wide dynamic range and low noise floor of a CD. They want something that sounds "big, fat, and warm"--heavily compressed without losing the character of each instrument, a bit "edgy", and NOT "brittle" sounding. Like an LP or cassette tape with less self noise--that will never wear out!
In summary, I think most pop/rock music engineers, when they refer to "warmth", are discussing a perception of a combination of well-applied multiband compression, slight even-series analog distortion, and a slight attenuation of highs with a slight boost of low-mids. At least that's what I would mean by that term.
In my opinion, both "warm" and "cold" are pure commercial terms that were invented to push prices of high end audio equipment up to the limit.
Here's 3 lossyFLAC files in a zip (http://www.giantpygmy.net/stuff/stifflittlefingers_alternativeulster_cool_v_warm.zip).
The track in question is Alternative Ulster by Stiff Little Fingers (and they've all been through WavGain - 89dB).
The 1st file is the CD version, the 2nd is the vinyl and the third is the vinyl version processed with a plugin called CLAS by Refined Audiometrics.
I find the CD release too harsh and thin ("cold") and the vinyl too muddy ("warm"? - as per what Ed Seedhouse and tfarney said). The 3rd version lies somewhere between the two and that's where I'd have preferred the CD version to have been mastered. I'd say with the CD version they've castrated it for the sake of "digital clarity" i.e. high-end boost and sucked out too much low-mid - IMO it's just a poor mastering choice and obviously nothing to do with the format.
C.
I disagree with the idea that CDs have a harsh sound. It's all very subjective though. Perhaps because a lot of people have grown up with the "warm" sound (in my opinion, "muffled" and "muddy" are better expressions) of analogue devices people prefer it because it's what they're used to. The digital clarity of CDs is awesome I reckon. I still remember the first time I ever played a CD and it just totally blew me away. I had no idea recorded music could sound so incredibly good. If people don't like hi-end frequencies, apply an equalizer. I'd never go back to vinyl because they just sound like crap compared to digital.
Contrary to popular belief, "warm" sounds are actually very high frequencies. See, once the oscillation passes 10 kHz the motion becomes rapid enough to raise the temperature of the air by 0.085 degrees Farenheit every hour. That's assuming a constant tone like a pure sine wave at 85 dB at 1 meter, so obviously the real world results vary.
I agree that all this talk about warm sound and wet sound is ridiculous. While were at it what about this nonsense about "bright" sound? Does the sound change with the lights in the room? Huh? We definitely should stay away from anything but technical terms to describe any sound quality. People start using words like warm or bright the next thing you know audiophiles are having fun. Slew rate is a much better way to describe the sound one hears for sure.
I hear alot the term "warm" applied to sound yet I have no idea what is meant. I listen to both digital (CD, files) and analog (vinyl, cassette) music and often hear the term "warm" applied to analog (and "cold" applied to digital). To my ears neither sound "warm" nor "cold".
Can anyone explain what is meant by "warm" and hopefully post or refer to an example.
I don't really get these meanings in terms of audio sound, but I certainly understand them in the way different versions of the same musical instrument. Here's a good example of how the choice of tonewood in a guitar can shape the tonality:
Three almost identical Taylor guitars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSEJR6wG74)
I guess the same could apply to a loudspeaker, and lot of even-order harmonic distortion from a tube amp - or tracing distortion from a record player - would make the sound appear 'thicker'. I think that means 'warm' is a polite way of saying 'distorted'
Keep in mind that a lot of this is a perception problem with early CDs. "Cold" and "brittle" were adjectives tossed around that made some musicians highly suspicious of digital recording vs. analog. I don't know whether or not some of the early CDs capitalized on the wide dynamic range of CDs as compared to typical sound source media and mastered albums with less compression or exaggerated highs--but damage was done to the reputation of digital recording as a result.
For an analog rock recording all of the analog compression that was used during mix and mastering, was there on the early CDs too...captured more faithfully, in fact, than LP ever did.
The only thing missing was distortion added by LP playback itself.
Deficits of early CDs, such as they were (and I believe they are exaggerated) seem to have originated from 1) use of the wrong source tapes (tapes equalized to compensate for deficits of LP playback, will not necessarily sound good if played digitally), 2) lack of dithering and 3) subpar ADC or DAC filtering
Keep in mind that a lot of this is a perception problem with early CDs. "Cold" and "brittle" were adjectives tossed around that made some musicians highly suspicious of digital recording vs. analog. I don't know whether or not some of the early CDs capitalized on the wide dynamic range of CDs as compared to typical sound source media and mastered albums with less compression or exaggerated highs--but damage was done to the reputation of digital recording as a result.
For an analog rock recording all of the analog compression that was used during mix and mastering, was there on the early CDs too...captured more faithfully, in fact, than LP ever did.
The only thing missing was distortion added by LP playback itself.
Deficits of early CDs, such as they were (and I believe they are exaggerated) seem to have originated from 1) use of the wrong source tapes (tapes equalized to compensate for deficits of LP playback, will not necessarily sound good if played digitally), 2) lack of dithering and 3) subpar ADC or DAC filtering
Why would a source tape EQed for LP mastering not sound good if played digitally? Can you cite some specific examples where a source tape made specifically for an LP wrought poor sound that was specific only to the CD that was sourced from the same tape?
Why would a source tape EQed for LP mastering not sound good if played digitally? Can you cite some specific examples where a source tape made specifically for an LP wrought poor sound that was specific only to the CD that was sourced from the same tape?
You may start looking at here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization)
Meaning, basically, using an RIAA equalized master needs to be played back with the inverted equalization (which is almost always done when you connect a turntable to an integrated amp or mixer table, but almost never done for line level inputs, like those for CD's).
Why would a source tape EQed for LP mastering not sound good if played digitally? Can you cite some specific examples where a source tape made specifically for an LP wrought poor sound that was specific only to the CD that was sourced from the same tape?
You may start looking at here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization)
Meaning, basically, using an RIAA equalized master needs to be played back with the inverted equalization (which is almost always done when you connect a turntable to an integrated amp or mixer table, but almost never done for line level inputs, like those for CD's).
No the *RIAA* EQ is not on any of the tapes. That EQ is done in the electronics of the cutting lathe. I am quite confident, as bad as so many CDs are for whatever reasons, it has never been because the RIAA EQ has been accidentally applied.
Here's 3 lossyFLAC files in a zip (http://www.giantpygmy.net/stuff/stifflittlefingers_alternativeulster_cool_v_warm.zip).
The track in question is Alternative Ulster by Stiff Little Fingers (and they've all been through WavGain - 89dB).
The 1st file is the CD version, the 2nd is the vinyl and the third is the vinyl version processed with a plugin called CLAS by Refined Audiometrics.
You deserve kudos for actually gettting this stuff together and posting it.
I didn't get around to downloading it and listening to it until last night.
I find the CD release too harsh and thin ("cold") and the vinyl too muddy ("warm"? - as per what Ed Seedhouse and tfarney said). The 3rd version lies somewhere between the two and that's where I'd have preferred the CD version to have been mastered. I'd say with the CD version they've castrated it for the sake of "digital clarity" i.e. high-end boost and sucked out too much low-mid - IMO it's just a poor mastering choice and obviously nothing to do with the format.
After a sighted listening evaluation, I agree that the vinyl is too muddy and the CD version is a bit hot. I would call the LP version castrated. I'd prefer a high end balance that was in-between the two. Easy enough to do
I ran FFTs of the CD and LP tracks in CEP, and no surprises. The LP and CD versions were very similar from about 100 to 2500 Hz. The LP version was rolled-off pretty severely below 60 Hz. The CD version was 3-6 dB hotter from 5-12 KHz.
It is a clear case of different mastering.
These tracks measure differently enough that its easy for me to say those often anathmetic words: "These are so obviously different that there's no need for a DBT". ;-) So tried one anyway and of course got 16/16.
My "correction" was simple. I needed to process the CD version with a compensating dip. The geometric mean of 5 and 12 KHz is 8.5 KHz is about 7.8 KHz. I tried the CD version with a 2.2 dB Q= 1.07 dB dip at 7.8 KHz using CoolEdit, and it sounded about right to me.
Deficits of early CDs, such as they were (and I believe they are exaggerated) seem to have originated from 1) use of the wrong source tapes (tapes equalized to compensate for deficits of LP playback, will not necessarily sound good if played digitally), 2) lack of dithering and 3) subpar ADC or DAC filtering
Why would a source tape EQed for LP mastering not sound good if played digitally? Can you cite some specific examples where a source tape made specifically for an LP wrought poor sound that was specific only to the CD that was sourced from the same tape?
AFAIK this means that it was EQed to account for technical things like stylus tracking. So it wouldn't sound worse than the vinyl unless the deficits of points 2 and 3 were greater than the deficits of the vinyl format. It just wouldn't sound as good as if it didn't have to be EQed so that the stylus wouldn't jump out of the record groove.
According to mastering engineer Greg Calibi, in the early days of CD the vinyl master was often used for all 3 formats (vinyl, tape, CD).
In summary, I think most pop/rock music engineers, when they refer to "warmth", are discussing a perception of a combination of well-applied multiband compression, slight even-series analog distortion, and a slight attenuation of highs with a slight boost of low-mids. At least that's what I would mean by that term.
That's a very useful summary from the recording engineer's perspective. Cheers.
I've always associated the "warm" sound with harmonic distortion, specifically the harmonic right above the root. That being said, what sounds "warm" about analog formats is the subtle pitch variations and spectrum response variations that occur naturally on analog media. These have names like wow and flutter. Vinyl doesn't necessarily wear evenly, and tape even less so. The more you play a vinyl, the more worn it becomes, and the wear sounds "warm" to me as well.
"Warm", to me, is a catch-all term roughly describing the ways analog fails at accurate signal reproduction.
I've always associated the "warm" sound with harmonic distortion, specifically the harmonic right above the root. That being said, what sounds "warm" about analog formats is the subtle pitch variations and spectrum response variations that occur naturally on analog media. These have names like wow and flutter. Vinyl doesn't necessarily wear evenly, and tape even less so. The more you play a vinyl, the more worn it becomes, and the wear sounds "warm" to me as well.
"Warm", to me, is a catch-all term roughly describing the ways analog fails at accurate signal reproduction.
I have always associated warm sound with the sort of sound one hears with mid range heavy live instruments (cellos, bassons, guitarss etc) played in a fairly reverberant envirement but from a mid hall seat or a bit further back. I don't associate it with any distortions that can be identified on a cold listening with no reference as distortions.
Way back in July 1993, J. Gordon Holt wrote an article in Stereophile magazine "Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary" and a book "Audio Glossary". Included were words like "warm" and it's equivalent "dark". See the Glossary at the end of the article.
www.stereophile.com/reference/50/
If you ever have the opportunity to hear an orchestra
from really close, like a conductor, the sound has much
more treble energy than it does when you sit far back in the
auditorium seats I can afford.
The sound quality heard by the conductor is detailed and analytical.
The sound heard in the middle of the auditorium. or further back where
I sit. has much less treble energy (air absorbs treble) and much more room
reverberation -- it is a much "warmer" sound quality than the conductor
hears.
In recordings the use of multiple close mikes and digital recording
allows a very flat treble frequency response that can be much more
like what a conductor hears, than like an audience member hears.
If a typical close-miked recording is played at home through speakers
that are not full range, and placed near field, the sound quality
can be very bright, detailed, "analytical" -- maybe that's a good thing
for amatuer conductors who want to hear "details", but it's not the
warmer less detailed more relaxing sound quality you would
normally hear in the audience in the middle of an auditorium.
I apologize for necroing this thread! but damn, this discussion made me join this forum. Havent read the last page, but quite interesting. one other word i have to say, methoxetamine.
When bumping threads from so long ago, it’s generally courteous to have something specific to say and to contribute some actual feedback or contribution, especially if one claims to find the subject so interesting.
Warmness is also ascribed to recordings with more reverberance or echo to them - in comparison to a raw recording in an acoustically damped environment, which may sound unnaturally silent (especially on headphones).
It has also been used to describe low-order harmonic distortion.
The spectral balance of reverb can vary all over the place. If its tipped towards the bass, then it adds warmth. If it it tipped towards the upper midrange then it makes the sound colder and often harsh.
Nonlinear distortion tends to be higher at both ends of the spectrum. If present in present audible amounts at low frequencies, then it may be perceived as added warmth. Again, if present in audible amounts at high frequencies, then it is perceived as anything but warmth.
Linear distortion that raises response at low frequencies from about 200 Hz down also increases the perception of warmth.
It is probably the low frequency rise in the spectral contents of the sound that creates the perception of warmth, with nonlinearity or reverb being means to that end.
Just stirring but...
In order to have a meaningful scientific discussion about warmth we need to first establish the units it's measured in.
Degrees celsius? No - Kelvin. (Degrees Kelvin would be wrong of course).
Actually degrees Fahrenheit might be more appropriate here, given that one of Fahrenheit's reference points was supposed to be the temperature of his wife's armpit...
Can a sound that is dry ( i.e a person talking in a forest), also be warm? ( I'm using dry in the usual audio terminology. Wet the opposite, i.e sound in a cave or canyon.)
If you take warm in audiophile to be the end product of manipulation, i.e added (pleasing to some) distortion, EQ to taste and other tech tricks, then warm and wet seem better matched.
A solo acoustic guitar played in a forest verses one played in a cave. Which sounds warmer? Richard Greene a few posts back made related comments about auditoriums.
In order to have a meaningful scientific discussion about warmth we need to first establish the units it's measured in.
intensity in dB and frequency bandwidth in Hz.
Instead of a glossary of ‘audiophile’ words with descriptions of the sound in English I think it would better to create a glossary with the each ‘audiophile’ term like this: (So that most people know what the audiophiles are actually talking about)
Warm:
[Click to hear unmodified version]
[Click here to hear modified WAV with a warm sound]
[Technical description over here. Like frequency graph, slew rate, distortion etc.]
[Audiophile description using English]
So that most people know what the audiophiles are actually talking about
A necessary precondition is that
they know what they’re talking about…
It is probably the low frequency rise in the spectral contents of the sound that creates the perception of warmth, with nonlinearity or reverb being means to that end.
I mostly agree. Listen to the Thomas Köner - Teimo (http://soundcloud.com/_type/sets/thomas-koner-teimo/) album (from the label's SoundCloud account, don't worry) — it's mostly bass, with no high frequency content whatsoever. So as "dark" ambient drone music goes, it's "warmer" than most, but the metallic dissonance in the lower midrange really makes it difficult for me to categorize the music as "warm". So I would say bass content alone isn't the sole determiner of overall "warmth."
Warm is the colorization of sound that a tube gives. Now before you get your DBTs in a knot, this is very simple: tube = warm. Whatever that ends up sounding like, it's warm.
Hello, I think I can accurately answer your question as I'm a music mastering engineer who deals with this on a daily basis. All terms that describe sound are subjective, but with warm, it generally means an abundance of audio in the 250 hz range. Warm audio tends to be compressed a bit differently as well, and often has some saturation (read distortion). This saturation is pleasant sounding and though, typically not containing any information above say 1k. Again, it's subjective though- I'm sure many will disagree, but in my experience and with hundreds of clients asking for "warm" - this tends to be what they all mean.
Maybe these are good examples:
brown noise = warm sound
pink noise = perfect sound
blue noise = cold sound