Why is the term "warm" such a controversial subject?

[coonmanx]

Funny thing is that when I do a Google search for "what is a warm sound"... I get something like 500 million hits. So it obviously has been discussed many times over.

I think the bigger question, especially for those who despise tone controls, is whether an amp should be neutral or come pre-colored in some way.

 

[MattHooper]

I think the bigger question, especially for those who despise tone controls, is whether an amp should be neutral or come pre-colored in some way.

Well since "should" is a value judgement that's going to depend on an individual's (or community's) goal.

For my goal, a slightly non-neutral amplifier fits the bill (my tube amps). Why? Because I like the warmer sound.

 

[ahofer]

Well since "should" is a value judgement that's going to depend on an individual's (or community's) goal.

For my goal, a slightly non-neutral amplifier fits the bill (my tube amps). Why? Because I like the warmer sound.

I think this is the root of the problem with the word. It just begs to question beg: I like tube sound, tubes (and pass-designed amps) are warm, the sound is warm....I must like warm sound!

My Pass amp became red hot, though, as were my old KT90s. I didn't like that. So I don't like hot sound, and listen now to a cold class-D amplifier. It has good synergy with my speakers, which a dealer told me are highly musical, and the manufacturer says have the least colouration of all speakers (which isn't something that can be measured, at least by technicians other than himself).

We are awash in hogwash.

 

[coonmanx]

Well since "should" is a value judgement that's going to depend on an individual's (or community's) goal.

For my goal, a slightly non-neutral amplifier fits the bill (my tube amps). Why? Because I like the warmer sound.

Yup. And that is where I hear that term a lot. When used in regards to tube amps. The only tube amp I have really ever heard was at Best Buy and it sounded good but was not really set up properly at all. McIntosh. Looked super cool of course and they always have it hooked up to some Martin Logan electrostatics. They did not have the speakers spaced properly however.

My thoughts in the past were always that an amp should be neutral and distortion free, faithfully reproducing the source. Speakers should have a flat frequency response and good dispersion and imaging. After that it all seemed to work out and sound good.

Tube amplification is a rabbit hole which I probably should not venture down. At least until I come into a whole lot of money...

 

[coonmanx]

I think this is the root of the problem with the word. It just begs to question beg: I like tube sound, tubes (and pass-designed amps) are warm, the sound is warm....I must like warm sound!

My Pass amp became red hot, though, as were my old KT90s. I didn't like that. So I don't like hot sound, and listen now to a cold class-D amplifier. It has good synergy with my speakers, which a dealer told me are highly musical, and the manufacturer says have the least colouration of all speakers (which isn't something that can be measured, at least by technicians other than himself).

We are awash in hogwash.

Great post.

I think we can all agree that "letting the magic smoke out" is a bad thing.

 

[puppet]

"The thought you cannot think controls you more than thoughts you speak aloud. " - Eliezer Yudkowsky

It must be mind blowing to realize words have several meanings when used in different contexts.
Enjoy the confusion.

 

[puppet]

Must be a bummer when you click "accept cookies" only to find out they're out of oatmeal raisin.

 

[puppet]

Did you get a bag of dirt when you asked for "ground" shipping?
... and did it come to your door on a boat?

 

[MattHooper]

I think this is the root of the problem with the word.

I don't think so. I think the root of the problem, in this thread, is often a refusal to want to understand what people may mean when using terms like "warmth" in audio.

It just begs to question beg: I like tube sound, tubes (and pass-designed amps) are warm, the sound is warm....I must like warm sound!

I don't see how that is any less, or any more, question begging than:

I like neutral sound, Genelec 8361A studio monitors are neutral, the sound is neutral...I must like neutral.

I mean, you can put anything in a question-begging way. That doesn't mean people are actually making question-begging arguments.

We are awash in hogwash.

You can re-phrase anything to be hogwash.

 

[egellings]

Um, Brown sound? Would that be a loud fart?

 

[ta240]

Well since "should" is a value judgement that's going to depend on an individual's (or community's) goal.

For my goal, a slightly non-neutral amplifier fits the bill (my tube amps). Why? Because I like the warmer sound.

Which brings up the question of whether it should be decided for everyone what they have available to buy for their own good; and then who should decide that.

Personally, I spend all my spare time at grocery stores knocking ice cream toppings out of people's hands; because if they had meant for you to have chocolate with it they would have included it in the ice cream!

I haven't been able to decide what annoys the objectivists the most, that equipment that doesn't fit their desires is made, that there are people that buy it or that there are people that have the nerve to like it better than the equipment the objectivist prefers.

One of the biggest problems that I have with the use of the word "warm" is that a Google search will come back telling you that it means "thumpy bass" or therefore colored sound. I have always felt that the equipment should not color the sound. If an end user wants "colored sound" then that is what tone controls or an EQ are for. So that the end user can do the coloring. Who wants color baked in? Not me. I want neutrality and then I can go from there.

So, then buy equipment without it and add an EQ. What I don't get is why everyone has to want exactly what you want. Thread after thread here makes fun of people that make, buy and listen to amps that aren't what the large percentage of members here want. Yet there are plenty of options that suit your desired needs. If I have an amp that suits my room, my speakers and my listening position and my preferences without any additional equipment or settings required then why wouldn't that be the perfect amp for me.

And I have never heard of warm sound described as thumpy bass, I guess I don't go to google for my definitions. And that is the root problem of every argument about a subjective term. To me, the bad side of warm sound is lacking high frequency sound levels; but the good side is strong midrange while still holding onto the high end detail.

 

[ahofer]

I don't see how that is any less, or any more, question begging than:

I like neutral sound, Genelec 8361A studio monitors are neutral, the sound is neutral...I must like neutral.

Neutral has a conventionally accepted meaning that corresponds to something empirical, warm is in the sensory organs of the beholder. This is old ground, we don't need another essay.

"you can rephrase anything to be" X2...I don't accept your premise, it is entirely too post-modern.

 

[puppet]

Neutral has a conventionally accepted meaning

Yep ... a vehicle moving neither forward or backward is in neutral.

 

[ta240]

Yep ... a vehicle moving neither forward or backward is in neutral.

unless it is on an incline.....

 

[kthulhutu]

"Warm" annoys me because it doesn't fit with the brightness analogy. Would rather people use dark to refer to tuning and warm to refer to tube distortion.

 

[coonmanx]

Um, Brown sound? Would that be a loud fart?

No it would be a shart...

 

[coonmanx]

So, then buy equipment without it and add an EQ. What I don't get is why everyone has to want exactly what you want. Thread after thread here makes fun of people that make, buy and listen to amps that aren't what the large percentage of members here want. Yet there are plenty of options that suit your desired needs. If I have an amp that suits my room, my speakers and my listening position and my preferences without any additional equipment or settings required then why wouldn't that be the perfect amp for me.

And I have never heard of warm sound described as thumpy bass, I guess I don't go to google for my definitions. And that is the root problem of every argument about a subjective term. To me, the bad side of warm sound is lacking high frequency sound levels; but the good side is strong midrange while still holding onto the high end detail.

Nobody has ever said that everyone has to want exactly what I want. But I was inquiring whether an amp should come pre-colored or not. For me, the answer is no...

This article states that "warm" refers to relatively bass heavy and thumpy and there are a lot more articles that state the very same thing...

What are the Different Sounds of Audio? “Warm”, “Bright”, “Neutral” - The Wire Realm

What do the terms "warm", "bright", and "neutral" mean when it comes to describes how headphones sound? The different sounds of headphones can be very difficult to understand, especially because these terms are so subjective. This article helps describe what these mean in detail.

www.wirerealm.com

 

[MattHooper]

Neutral has a conventionally accepted meaning that corresponds to something empirical, warm is in the sensory organs of the beholder.

Both are empirical. Presuming there is something causing someone's "sensory organ" to perceive a sonic difference he terms "warm" that's just as empirical as the perception of something sounding "neutral."

Sound comes to us with a subjective character, whether it's "neutral" or "warm" or "thin" or whatever.

The term used to refer to this difference - whether it is "4 dB boost at 150Hz" or "increased warmth of sound" is neither here nor there, so long as it's used to refer to this sonic difference. All terms are arbitrary in that sense. You are suggesting some fundamental division that isn't really there.

Once again, see this post for examples of technicians explaining what is understood to be the "warmth" region in mixing sound:

Why is the term "warm" such a controversial subject?

"Warm" can mean over-emphasis of certain harmonics or simply the fact that turning on your amp will lower your heating bill in the winter... Which is why understanding the context in which the term was used is helpful. It's part of communicating. :) Doesn't really provide an accurate...

www.audiosciencereview.com

"you can rephrase anything to be" X2...I don't accept your premise, it is entirely too post-modern.

It was exactly the opposite. Pointing out that you can re-phrase anything to be hogwash is a critique, not an endorsement. In other words: if there are facts that terms can correspond to, why muddy things by re-phrasing them in ways that imply they are "hogwash?" This "X doesn't really mean anything because I'm going to reject any explanation and only allude to vague usage in it's place" is actually more in the direction of post modernist muddying of waters.

It's almost like we have a No True Scotsman fallacy going on in this thread:

Claim: "Warmth has no real meaning in audio."

Reply: But here are several meanings for "warmth" in audio, including technical references in sound mixing

Claim: "Those aren't real meanings for warmth. You see, the real way people use warmth has no meaning."

 

[MattHooper]

Still find this thread hard to believe. Warm..............oh the controversy...............what???????

I can remember in the 1960's people talked of warm tone. A stereo with good warm tone.

I'm pretty sure with no prompting at all nearly everyone would know what warm sound was well enough to never mistake it for cold sound, brittle, sterile sound. Does it have the same exactness as talking about volts, watts, dpSPL etc.? NO it doesn't need to. I'm also pretty sure if you let a 1000 people choose between examples of warm and non-warm sound until the sounds get very close you'd have near unanimous agreement on which was the warmer system.

It is fairly bizarre.

This is why I see some people "reasoning in a bubble" here sometimes. It seems to spring especially from a distaste of subjective descriptions used by audiophiles and especially in the "subjective" audiophile press. There has indeed been tons of nonsense promulgated in these spheres, but some seem to take this so far as to just start rejecting practically all audio subjective descriptors as "meaningless/hogwash" etc. "Take that, you silly subjective reviewers; here we don't fall for that bullshit!"

I can only infer that this type of overreaction tends to occur in some audiophiles who feel sort of "burned" by at some point being "taken in" (or seeing other people taken in) by audiophile nonsense. So now there's a stigma they attach to subjective descriptions.

And I also infer that most rejecting these audio terms haven't worked professionally in sound.

 

[puppet]

unless it is on an incline.....

Officer, I swear, I left the car right here.