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

[MattHooper]

"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 description.

It is if you choose to understand the meaning or context of the word. (And if a sonic description is identifying some real sonic change, then it is "accurate" in that regard).

Measure the thing and show me, then I can make up my own mind about its sound character.

Sure, that may be an expression of what you, yourself, want or will accept. That's fine of course.

But out in the real world where people have to communicate with one another, subjective descriptions are both necessary and useful.
"Give me a measurement or it's useless" view of sound wouldn't work in music or movie sound post production. (utterly impractical).

Think of it this way: take the chart jae posted showing sonic descriptors associated with various frequencies.

Before you ever measured anything (or even knew how to measure any of those frequencies) the type of boosts shown there would be quite audible. It would be a real thing you could hear. They would therefore have subjective character to a listener.

How then, would you go about communicating what you are hearing - for instance something you think needs fixing or whatever - without appealing to measurements you haven't taken or don't even know? As in (for instance you hear a boost in the upper bass making it sound muddy, or boost in the highs making it sound piercing or bright) "I think there is a problem with the sound of this speaker!" Oh...what is it? How would you communicate that sonic problem or impression...so someone even could understand what you are talking about, or even understand why we'd need to go looking to fix something via measurements?

Another way of looking at it: Let's say you tell me there is a problem with a sound system. "It's got a 7dB peak at 150Hz with a fairly wide Q"
What if I reply "So what? Why care?" Well, one major reason to care is how it makes things sound - e.g. male voices may be boomy/muddy/boxy sounding etc. We can certainly reference the deviation in terms of measurements; but we can also reference it in terms of
it's subjective effect on the sound. (Which, it can be argued, is ultimately what we care about).

 

[MattHooper]

Some tools shouldn't be used in every situation. A hammer is great for hitting a nail, but it's terrible at keeping me warm.

Of course. That's assumed, so I'm not sure how it relates to the point.

 

[beefkabob]

Of course. That's assumed, so I'm not sure how it relates to the point.

Wrong tool for the job.

 

[MattHooper]

Wrong tool for the job.

I guess I'd have to ask you to be clear on what "tool" you claim is "wrong for the job." It seems to me you started off referencing the description/frequency graph posted by jae.

Those, or similar "tools" - subjective descriptions - are used by mixers (as well as sound editors like me) all the time to get their job done.
It's how we often communicate sonic issues among ourselves as well as artists and clients to get the job done.

We aren't...and can't...be measuring everything - that would be utterly impractical. It's the practical tool that gets the job done, and sonic descriptions like "boomy, warm, thin, harsh, full, bright" and many of the other descriptions in jae's (and my other post) are tools of the job.
Do you work in sound? If you absolutely refused to accept or understand the relevance of communication in this manner, and only accepted measurements, you'd be out of a job very quickly.

 

[SIY]

Many, many years ago, in a past life, I worked for a British startup that had me doing a lot (by my standards, at any rate) of traveling.
When I was out in the Silicon Valley (where we also used to live at one even earlier point in time... but that's actually irrelevant), I used to stay at a small hotel in Cupertino that had actual fireplaces in most if not all rooms! Not gas ones either (this was the mid-1990s)... in cool weather, there'd be a Duraflame log in the fireplace for the guest to fire up as he/she/they pleased... and which I did, at least once or twice.

I don't remember the name of the place, but it was somewhere on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Maybe the Cupertino Inn? When I was working with some groups at Apple 35 years ago, we’d stay there at very attractive rates, and do all nighters fueled by Pot Sticker King.

 

[_thelaughingman]

Maybe the Cupertino Inn? When I was working with some groups at Apple 35 years ago, we’d stay there at very attractive rates, and do all nighters fueled by Pot Sticker King.

SIR, you are officially showing your age.

 

[_thelaughingman]

I like my bass thick like my bacon and my treble warm like my coffee.

 

[tuga]

Thoughts?

This piece from pro-audio magazine Sound On Sound may have a few clues:

Analogue Warmth​

The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

 

[SIY]

SIR, you are officially showing your age.

I do that pretty regularly. Nothing new here.

 

[pablolie]

Which is why understanding the context in which the term was used is helpful. It's part of communicating.

Where I work, the ideal of communication to achieve any common goals is: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Without attempting that, everything is left to personal interpretation and basically becomes useless. It's from some business book (they bore me to death) and countless HBR articles written around that stuff...

Not every communication requires all 5, but 3 out of 5 is a good rule in a meaningful conversation one expects a result from.

It is if you choose to understand the meaning or context of the word. (And if a sonic description is identifying some real sonic change, then it is "accurate" in that regard).

"Warm" is not a sonic description. "Bathtub frequency response" or "Heavy on second harmonics" or others give me a much better reference.

Sure, that may be an expression of what you, yourself, want or will accept. That's fine of course.

I don't know what to accept unless I understand what people talk about. "Warm sound" means a hundred things to a hundred people. Even saying something about a car's fuel consumption saying something as open-ended as "reasonable consumption given the intended purpose" gives me better information to work with. Just say "the bass is not a priority in delivery, the mids are emphasized, and the delivery is a bit shy on higher frequencies" tells me far more than "hey, I call it warm".

But out in the real world where people have to communicate with one another, subjective descriptions are both necessary and useful.
"Give me a measurement or it's useless" view of sound wouldn't work in music or movie sound post production. (utterly impractical).

Tell that to my ex-wife, we got divorced because of our insistence of sticking to subjective interpretations of the exact same events, and our inability to step outside of subjective communication. Neither understood or could accept what the other was talking about... In the end, the important aspect is that I can totally and thoroughly *immerse* myself in the music. It's unlikely to happen when listening to a Sonos boombox when I have heard a much better reference. I do have however cried to Chopin over a carefully chosen albeit highly inaccurate system. That said, I begged my friend to not ruin the experience by trying to play Kevin Mahogany's "Never can say goodbye" through it...

Before you ever measured anything (or even knew how to measure any of those frequencies) the type of boosts shown there would be quite audible. It would be a real thing you could hear. They would therefore have subjective character to a listener.

I posted on the subjectivism thread that I am *not* an over the top measurement type. I have never ever stated I think I can reliably tell an amp with a SINEAD of 100 from one with 95. That is not my point at all. But I can better train my relative subjectivism with some measurements that show me how I trend and what I like. There *is* correlation there once you build your mental library of measurements and what matters to *you*.

How then, would you go about communicating what you are hearing - for instance something you think needs fixing or whatever - without appealing to measurements you haven't taken or don't even know?

Music performances are entirely different from equipment. You know as well as I do you can't "measure" if Herbie Hancock's "River" is even better than Joni's original (I think it is), but I sure can tell when it sounds crappy on some system. I *can* measure my reaction to some brilliant music performances: I *cry*. OTOH maybe the same performance on some Sonos single speaker would just make me like it, but not *move* me. And you probably could measure why...

> As in (for instance you hear a boost in the upper bass making it sound muddy, or boost in the highs making it sound piercing or bright) "I
> think there is a problem with the sound of this speaker!" Oh...what is it? How would you communicate that sonic problem

I'd say "I decidedly prefer the delivery over XYZ, it gives me more nuances to enjoy the delivery" or I could say "I think XYZ is far more accurate and this muddles what I hear". I would not say "B" is "warmer".

 

[Chrispy]

Personally I just avoid most of the subjective terminology in reviews/fora, as I have no context for what they're trying to describe particularly, and the term will vary somewhat with user, let alone perhaps not the best term for what they're trying to describe. Guys (particularly) trying to describe emotions in words is a recipe for disaster in some ways inherently

 

[MattJ]

thick and rich and...

 

[MattHooper]

Where I work, the ideal of communication to achieve any common goals is: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Without attempting that, everything is left to personal interpretation and basically becomes useless.

Ok, but we are talking about the audio world. In that world: Communication via subjective terms is far from useless. As I've said: if that were the case, the music you listen to (and movies you watch etc) couldn't have been made.

"Warm" is not a sonic description.

Sure it is.

The fact you won't accept it doesn't mean that's not the case. It's used all the time in recording, mixing, mastering etc (and also by many people, rightly, in describing music playback and audio systems).

Of any number examples, from an audio engineer:

100 HZ​

Boosting here will give the low-frequency instruments a ‘harder’ sound. It adds fullness to guitar and snare. Too much can also clutter up and add boominess so cut in this area for added clarity in the low end. It also adds warmth to piano and horns.

EQ Cheatsheet - The Only EQ Chart You'll Ever Need for Your Mix

Looking for an EQ chart? Here's a handy EQ cheatsheet chart you can use to help you make better EQ decisions. By looking at the various instruments you can see where their most important frequency information is and improve your EQ'ing accordingly.

www.audio-issues.com

From a Mastering Engineer:

200-500 Hz

• Crucial for warmth and weight in guitars, piano and vocals
• Too much makes things sound muddy or congested
• Too little makes them thin and weak

7 crucial EQ bands to help balance your mix - Production Advice

How to use EQ to balance your mix. Learn to add warmth, body, punch and sparkle to a song. With examples of each useful audio EQ band and how it sounds

productionadvice.co.uk

So these words are used with real world references, to describe things people really hear.

There is no magic dividing line between audio frequencies and their effects in content creation and their effects at the end of the chain in
a stereo system! A significant deficit or boost in those same frequencies in a sound system will thin out or warm up the sound for the same instruments/voices etc.

I don't know what to accept unless I understand what people talk about. "Warm sound" means a hundred things to a hundred people.

You can look these things up to see in what context individuals, or groups, or engineers are using the terms. Or even just ask someone.

As far as I can tell it's your stance that such terms are useless for your own purposes and that you don't really care to seek out or understand how others are using the term.

But can we agree, I hope, that even if you have no use for such terms as "warmth" that doesn't entail they aren't useful...and being used!...by plenty of other people, including those in professional audio? (And that there is no in principle reason why they can not be useful descriptive terms for others to use in describing the subjective impressions of different audio systems?)

 

[pablolie]

Of any number examples, from an audio engineer:

100 HZ​

Boosting here will give the low-frequency instruments a ‘harder’ sound. It adds fullness to guitar and snare. Too much can also clutter up and add boominess so cut in this area for added clarity in the low end. It also adds warmth to piano and horns.

EQ Cheatsheet - The Only EQ Chart You'll Ever Need for Your Mix

Looking for an EQ chart? Here's a handy EQ cheatsheet chart you can use to help you make better EQ decisions. By looking at the various instruments you can see where their most important frequency information is and improve your EQ'ing accordingly.

www.audio-issues.com

From a Mastering Engineer:

200-500 Hz

• Crucial for warmth and weight in guitars, piano and vocals
• Too much makes things sound muddy or congested
• Too little makes them thin and weak

Do you realize you are making my point? It wasn't left just as "warm (and I'll let you all wonder what I mean but that)". It was very clearly substantiated with clear and measurable statements and preferences. This supports my point actually.

We have agreed on stuff in the past, I don't think we're far apart at all - I just wonder why you think here that a single, completely subjective word as "warm" (and we can add a hundred other meaningless audio mag platitudes like "a black background" [isn't it racist? :-D] or many others...) represents such a battleground. Of course "warm" conveys a cozy positive thing - but it *is* useless in describing any performance aspect of audio equipment unless you project some subjective (and non-standardized) "qualities" into the elusive term. And then you "feel" - you don't *know* until you try it out and perhaps are completely disappointed because someone else's "warm" isn't yours

 

[julian_hughes]

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

It isn't. But well done for trying.

 

[sam_adams]

moist

Usually that word triggers some people. Somehow it doesn't seem to have an effect here . . .

 

[Robin L]

Usually that word triggers some people. Somehow it doesn't seem to have an effect here . . .

 

[Axo1989]

The problem is "warm" doesn't really mean anything when referring to an audio playback system.... it is just a subjective adjective without a definition just like "fast" or "slow" or "harsh" or "cold" or "sterile" and on and on. I guess "bright" has a definition of the high frequencies being boosted but by how much and at what frequency? Maybe "warm" is boosted upper bass? I don't know what "full sounding" means either. To me aiming for a "flat" FR and then using tone controls or DSP to tune things to your preference/ adjust for recording issues makes sense but audiophile adjectives don't.

It's ok to be ignorant initially (no one can know everything) but you've been informed now (see below) so you can march on, better equipped.

For what it's worth (probably not much considering the source is Stereophile) there's this:

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

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."

light Lean and tipped-up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark."

At the very least it's an attempt at a definition. Probably one that few would agree upon.

Exactly (see what I did there). These simple explanations are sufficient for me now, thinking about audio non-professionally. They describe FR slope that characterises the relevant descriptors. Note that "a certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound" describes the downward tilt of FR we expect in a domestic listening room. Standard stuff.

This illustrates the detailed semantics you would expect in a professional audio context: recording, mixing etc. Before my career turned to environmental science, I studied film/TV production, so this is familiar territory, but I don't need this much detail day-to-day now.

Those, or similar "tools" - subjective descriptions - are used by mixers (as well as sound editors like me) all the time to get their job done.
It's how we often communicate sonic issues among ourselves as well as artists and clients to get the job done.

We aren't...and can't...be measuring everything - that would be utterly impractical. It's the practical tool that gets the job done, and sonic descriptions like "boomy, warm, thin, harsh, full, bright" and many of the other descriptions in jae's (and my other post) are tools of the job.
Do you work in sound? If you absolutely refused to accept or understand the relevance of communication in this manner, and only accepted measurements, you'd be out of a job very quickly.

You've pretty much nailed it here: a system of shorthand descriptors that people working in that context use and understand (and depend on).

I realise that some of the negative reactions to "warm" are tribalist virtue-signalling to score objectivist points. And if you don't like the semantics or don't use them, that's fine. But anyone reading here knows what they mean now: feigned ignorance beyond that is pointless (and a bit irritating) but inconsequential.

 

[Pogre]

I loved that show! So disappointed it only ran for a couple of seasons.

 

[KellenVancouver]

One man's warm is another man's moist is another man's wife in the other room's too fucking loud. A word that people don't agree upon is a worthless word to use.

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
-- Socrates