[Ultralight]

OK, my question for today.

Background to why I ask so many questions...


For most of my life, I never paid much attention to reproduced music and only had cheapie desktop type speakers (Bose Computre Monitor & B&W MM-1).  My whole family including myself play at least one instrument and I had dealt with ultra high end acoustic guitars for a few years and was quite a tone freak.  Since I never thought reproduced music would move one like live music, I never bothered.

Then a few years back, I wandered into a hifi store by chance.  The saleman said, "Got a few minutes?  listen to this."  It was a bank of McIntosh components (tube based I think) with some of the nice Sonus Fabers.    Easily into the five figures I think.

ROCKED my world.  Turned upside down, inside out really.  I had never ever experienced emotions like that from music playback.  Deeply moving. That emotional experience gripped me for three solid months.  Could not get it out of my mind.  I remember that the music was rich, luscious, full, warm, deep, huge, and spacious.  I don't remember how detailed it was but it felt realistic in timbre as we were listening to acoustic guitars.

I've not been back to the shop as that was an out of town location.

Only recently have I started to seriously think about reproducing that sense on a much more modest budget. Purchasing and reselling repeatedly is not a fiscal option, enjoyable as the process may be.  Hence all my questions to slowly educate myself.

And yes, I realize that first exposure likely produced a rosier blush than reality simply because my expectations started so low, and that one can become jaded after listening to a lot of good systems.

I do hope that I do not come across as being indulgent in sharing a bit of my journey.



So some questions from the experience above: 

1. Is there an inverse relationship between warmth and resolution?   With all the sophistication I can muster,  I call warmth the 'yummy factor'.  As I said....sophisticated. 

Can you have great warmth and resolution at the same time?

I read that older Sonus Fabers are warm speakers.  And that the newer ones are flatter and more 'hifi' but cooler sounding.  I've not really looked at Sonus Faber seriously because the ones I like are all out of my range.

2. What is this sense of warmth anyways?  Is it a bump in the midrange?  Bass extension?  A slower/more relaxed transient speed?   Combination of these and other factors? 

3. And my guess is that some find warm systems moving, while others find cooler very analytical systems move moving?  (Or am I presenting a false dichotomy?)

Thanks again for all the comments from everyone.  I've have already received much instruction from many of you.

UL

[JohnR]

Hi again, any chance you can post your speaker-related questions in Enclosures? Starting Block is about to become "under construction."

[JLM]

Now you went and broke the internet.   

[dlaloum]

Warmth and detail are two quite seperate aspects, you can have a warm and fuzzy speaker (ie warm but not much detail) or warm and detailed.... and all possible variations.

Warmth tends to be related to a boost in the mid bass 150Hz to 300Hz - and it only takes a tiny boost to provide that warmth (less than 3db, maybe even 1 db will give that subtle "glow")

Detail is trickier, some really good subwoofers/woofers can provide high levels of detail and authenticity in things like kick drums and tympani - not many setups achieve that.

Usually people talk about detail in the midrange and the higher frequencies.

Speakers that have a boosted high end can sound artificially detailed, but they also tend to be tiring to listen to, can be harsh, can sound brittle...

Years ago I remember listening to a series of different speakers that all had dome tweeters, and I made the observation that I much preferred the soft dome/silk dome types to the metal domes - the metal dome speakers always seemed to have that brittle, harsh edge that I intensely dislike.

Now before I get flamed by all the owners of superb metal domed  tweeter speakers - my sampling was limited, it was the late 80's and I compared Pioneer (Japanese), Boston Acoustics (US), and Magnat (German). The Boston's were soft domes the others were metal domes. My observations were also subjectively repeated in other less intense and shorter listening sessions with other speakers.
I think that when push comes to shove both types are capable of providing lots of detail, but the metal types when they hit their physical limits tend to throw out some really quite harsh dissonant distortions - which in small amounts are often interpreted as "more detail" - but in fact are pure distortion and not detail at all.
The soft domes tend to break up more benignly, with the distortion generated being more harmonic in tone and therefore more closely related to the music being listened to - it just sounds "nicer" - but it is not to do with having more or less detail.

In terms of inner detail, tone and timbre of instruments - the micro-detail of music, I have never heard a speaker that bettered good electrostatics.

I have owned Quads for many years - and they are absolute champions of the art of quietly putting all of it where it should be - they don't play hugely loud, but even at the lowest volume all the detail of a true acoustic instrument is there. (Also the Martin Logan CLS was good with that trick)
The electrostatic hybrids with "normal" woofers never did it for me as they seemed to have a disconnect between the high range (electrostatic) and the low end (standard speaker).
My current Gallo speakers with the CDT tweeter are (when driven by the right amp) almost on a par with the electrostatics - and far more compact (makes the other half happy .... size was why the stats had to go) - They do the low bass better than the stats, and now that I am driving them with the Crown XLS amps, I think they may be on a par and perhaps better in the low end than the pure stats - but the only way to know for sure would be some back to back testing... The Gallo's are a slightly warm speaker too.

In general the British speakers tend to be warm, the Japanese ones tend to be cool (and often have a rising top end) - this is a huge generalisation!

Valves often do the "warm" thing - so it is important to balance the system you set up, a warm amp with a warm speaker can end up with the bass sounding bloated.

In any case I would start by listening to different speakers - find a set of speakers you really like, and then look into what amp will suit those speakers best. Some speakers will be happy with almost any amp, but many speakers really do take a huge step up in performance when driven by an amp that caters to their foibles.... My experiments with the Crown XLS amps on the Gallo's some months back was truly revelatory, and the XLS amps are substantially cheaper than the Quad amps I was using before! But the XLS suited the Gallo's far better.

Given what you describe in terms of sound, I would strongly suggest trying to find some pure electrostatic speakers to listen to - they need not be new! The Quad ESL63's have been around since the early 70's and can be purchased at fairly reasonable prices as a result - the sound is truly world class (and not much different from the later ESL988 or the current ESL2812), the Martin Logan CLS have the same magic - with all of these make sure they have been professionally checked/serviced - if looked after well they can last forever, but if mishandled they can also self destruct.

Also worth having a listen to the Gallo Reference 3.1/3.2/3.5 speakers, again a family that has been around a little while so you can pick up used bargains - they are far more robust than the stats, but do require an amp with some serious grunt - Gallo demonstrate them with 500W/8ohm classD spectron amps, but at around 1/10th the price you can pick up a crown instead which will do the magic.

I have a friend who is a musician, and although he listens to a lot of music at home, he has been using a vintage console setup for 30+ years....
When he came over to have a listen at my place, he was completely gob-smacked - he could hear the detais that he heard when playing in an orchestra (recording permitting of course!) - this was something he had never experienced before. This in fact is the very definition of high fidelity.

hope that helps

bye for now

David

[Early B.]

It's futile to attempt to clearly define warmth and resolution.

According to Stereophile, the definition of warm is: 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.

Resolution:  (synonymous with "definition"): That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group.


Note that warmth is defined by being warm, and resolution is defined by definition. Confused? You should be. 

[barrows]

Warmth and resolution should not be at odds with each other in a music playback system, but they often are.
As you are a musician, you already know that real instruments have a natural warmth to them.  So all a music playback system has to do is to be accurate, in order to portray this natural warmth (assuming the recording is a good one).
Therefore, we need not have a lower midrange bump in a systems frequency response for the system to portray this natural warmth, this system just needs to be flat/accurate.

The reason we sometimes might think of warmth and resolution as being counter indicated in playback systems, is because many systems, and many speakers, have an upper midrange boost.  This upper midrange boost will enhance apparent detail retrieval on first listen, and etch transient edges, giving an exciting first impression of sonics (an impression which will fade into listening fatigue in longer term listening).  Other system problems, like artifacts produced by poor DAC designs, also boost apparent detail (not real detail), and cool instrumental timbre.  A lot of audiophiles own speakers with this response problem built in, so then they add fuzzy, colored electronics in an attempt to tame the problem (perhaps an old school tube design with lots of 2nd order harmonic distortion).  Unfortunately this "fix", while warming the tonality of the system, also kills detail retrieval.

With truly accurate components, the system will have natural instumental timbres (including natural warmth) and high resolution of the smallest details, but audiophiles often do not get there, as they often end up compensating for the shortcomings of one component (artifacts, bright tonality) by adding the shortcomings of another component (high low order distortion levels, foggy sound).

[BobM]

It's very funny and simultaneously tragic that the following is true.

Most, but not all, designers are likely shooting for a realistic and true to life sound from their components. It is tragic that there is such a divergence between the sound of audio equipment from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some is warm, some are etched, some are detailed, some are rolled off, some are bloaty and boomy, some are thin, etc. If all audio companies are shooting for an "absolute sound" of live music, why does equipment sound so damn different from one another?

At a macro level music reproduction is likely better now than it has been for any time in the previous 50 years, but at a micro level, manufacturer by manufacturer, they seem to be designing and building to proliferate a "house sound", which varies from one to another by more than you would think, though I am a believer that the "tonality" issue is fairly consistent and pretty good these days.

Of course, there are also the issue of synergies ... and cables ... and room acoustics ... and personal preferences ...
 and the fact that there is some damn fine older equipment that still competes very well against the newer stuff ... and the other fact that most of us will never own/afford, let alone hear, the current "state of the art".

[Early B.]

If all audio companies are shooting for an "absolute sound" of live music, why does equipment sound so damn different from one another?

I think the idea of shooting for the "absolute sound" of live music is unrealistic, so that's partly why equipment sounds so different from one another. Audiophiles want their systems to sound better than live (whatever that means!). A good analogy is HT -- the sound of the movie theater experience is OK, but a good HT system will sound far superior to your local movie theater, partly because there's more control for sound preferences.

Besides, live music sucks most of the time. If you listened critically to live music in the same way that you listen to your stereo system, you'd never go to a live concert again. But a live performance has visual, environmental, and social components, and these factors cannot be duplicated in the sound of your 2-channel system.
 

[RDavidson]

I find that natural warmth as well as resolution can coexist quite well, but you're right, these 2 things seem to go against each other, perhaps moreso with entry and upper entry level gear. You have to step up to some pretty serious stuff to get a great balance of both......though there are some gems out there that don't cost an arm and a leg. I think to really make recommendations we'd need to know more about your listening space and listening habits.

[BobRex]

Besides, live music sucks most of the time. If you listened critically to live music in the same way that you listen to your stereo system, you'd never go to a live concert again. But a live performance has visual, environmental, and social components, and these factors cannot be duplicated in the sound of your 2-channel system.

Sorry, I don't agree.  I've been to enough classical and jazz concerts where PA is either no-existent, or minimal, to argue that it's not the live part of music that sucks, it's the way certain types of music are amplified that screws up the sound / experience.  If your reference is arena rock, well then yes live music does suck.  But you can listen very critically to a symphony or jazz quartet, paying attention to inner detail, imaging, depth, even page turning with no difficulty.

[DaveC113]

It depends what it piece of gear it is. Tubes seem to be able to add some warmth and retain resolution, but this isn't really possible with cables, warm cables will degrade resolution. This is why I think it's best not to use cables as tone controls, they should be as neutral as possible. In my system the tube preamp is most responsible for the character of the sound and I think this is really the place to choose what kind of tonal balance suits your preferences and system the best.

[undertow]

Lets make this a lot more simple... To obtain "Musically natural sound" from any recorded playback it goes further than simple equations on balancing between warmth/resolution with gear matching.

In order to have it all believe it or not has less to do with the equipment, and many other issues.

#1 issue - 50% of overall perfomance will come from how good the recording being played is. Some recordings might sound thin and lifeless no matter what you do unless using something like an Equalizer, or possibly Mcintosh equipment that many times has a 3 to 5 band type tone control Eq built in, and you could have even been hearing something like that on your Sonus / Mcintosh demo. I am sure a dealer with this gear probably had a decent room setup as well, maybe even a measured room. Otherwise you will compensate with a bunch of tonal tweaks, and synergy matching tricks making other better produced recordings sound equally a mess on the other end of the spectrum.

#2 issue - 40% of any systems performance comes from "Environment", Room acoustics, Setup... and for most people this is last if never addressed for several reasons... Cost, size, and well lets face it not as easy or cool as swapping gear!

You will get huge improvements in both warmth, and resolution with reasonable room acoustic response. Even a 300 dollar sony receiver can sound great with the right recordings.

#3 issue - 10% Equipment....

End result... No good answer because not all recordings or rooms will produce the desired Musical balance in the first place regardless to get that universal Warmth/Resolution... Speaking from my own crazy experience of course 

A great way to solve a lot of the issues with #2 for getting great resolution, warmth, musicality etc... Buy Headphones! Cuts out the whole room and many environmental EQ issues right there 

[Photon46]

Sorry, I don't agree.  I've been to enough classical and jazz concerts where PA is either no-existent, or minimal, to argue that it's not the live part of music that sucks, it's the way certain types of music are amplified that screws up the sound / experience.  If your reference is arena rock, well then yes live music does suck.  But you can listen very critically to a symphony or jazz quartet, paying attention to inner detail, imaging, depth, even page turning with no difficulty.

I too have been to many unamplified musical events and have found live sound to be quite variable depending on the venue, where one sits, and how heavily dressed for cold weather the audience is. If I'm in in the balcony of a theater with mediocre acoustics full of people wearing heavy winter clothing, it sounds pretty poor to my ears. Of course, it's not as bad as a rock n roll show with poor sound but it still sounds dull, muffled, and uninvolving in those circumstances. Live acoustic music in a great room or theater is impossible to replicate with even the best of systems but I've also been to acoustic shows and symphonic performances where I felt I'd heard better sonic performances at home on my system.

[Ultralight]

Thanks everyone!  Wow, very helpful. I'll have to reread all your posts to digest.

This is not really a speaker thread, but more of a warmth vs resolution thread.  But to make a speaker comment, we had a pair of borrowed Martin Logan as we start our search.  The woofer did not integrate as well in the lower cost unit but in the frequency range that the flat panels reproduced was wonderful.  The reason that flat panel type speaker doesn't for for us unfortunately is:

1. The very narrow listening area. Unlike something like the KEF LS50 that has very wide dispersion, if one moved the had six inches with the Martin Logan, the imaging just broke up.  One dealer called it 'the selfish man's' speaker, and he was a dealer for Martin Logans.   The LS50 in comparison has a wide disperson so that there is a more coherent sound.

This of course leads one to wonder if open baffle speakers (which I've never heard) could give some of the openness of sound or whatever that is called.   

2. With the flat panels, one had to move it far from the wall and with a small listening area of no longer than 13 feet, that's a lot of space lost.   But yes, I did love the scale of the large panels - just wonderful and open.

UL

[JLM]

Lots of good posts here.  Agree that warmth and detail do not have to be mutually exclusive.  Yes, designers/manufacturers (reasonably capable ones at least) do seem to strive towards a particular sound, yet audiophiles avoid wanting to admit to tainting all their sound.  Agree that most of what we hear is up to the recording and then the room.  Agree that dissimilar drivers (panels vs. cones, metal domes vs. cones) is very difficult to integrate into a coherent sound.  Agree that "flavoring" with cabling is a "tail chasing" exercise in futility.  Agree that Quads are very special (but do have severe limitations, again there is no perfect speaker).

Live performance is a crap shoot (it is "life", right?), so when "done right" is wonderful, but don't get sucked into believing that artificial is better (just more predictable, convenient - like fast food).

I prefer to separate detail from resolution as much resolution comes from clearly focused imaging and to my ears is more natural.  Extremely detailed sound, often due to close miking techniques, is hyper-real (would a vocalist really let me stick my face inches from theirs?).

If you've heard Martin Logans, you've heard dipole sound.

[charmerci]

Sorry, I don't agree.  I've been to enough classical and jazz concerts where PA is either no-existent, or minimal, to argue that it's not the live part of music that sucks, it's the way certain types of music are amplified that screws up the sound / experience.  If your reference is arena rock, well then yes live music does suck.  But you can listen very critically to a symphony or jazz quartet, paying attention to inner detail, imaging, depth, even page turning with no difficulty.

I've also been to an unamplified big band jazz concert and - probably due to the acoustics, though the place was filled with people - all the horns blasting away was anything but smooth and warm!

[dlaloum]

Last time I heard a big band live it was dreadful....

They were playing in a relatively small Jazz venue, and every one of them was plugged into the PA, with the volume turned up to max....

PA distortion to the max overlayed on Big Band loudness did not make for a good combination! Very disappointing.

[*Scotty*]

The last time I heard a live big band was about 30 years ago when Woody Herman and The Thundering Herd played a gig in our town on a community concert tour. They played in the 2500 seat high school auditorium which had Voice of The Theater speakers for sound reinforcement plus their own amplification.
They didn't mike the horn section or the drums and even at the back of the venue where we were seated the sound was excellent.
 It should be noted that the acoustics of the auditorium are very good. The Denver Symphony also performed in there more than once and everytime they did they sounded wonderful. No sound reinforcement was ever used during one of their performances.
Unfortunately these experiences are the exception not the rule. Most of the time that sound reinforcement is used the results have been less than favorable. Venue acoustics have been the other half of the problem.
I have heard what might have been state of the art sound reinforcement using line source arrays with some sort of earthquake inducing bass modules outdoors and it was very impressive. Clear as bell and no listening fatigue.
 I generally avoid live performances where I know PA systems are going to be used. Having heard a number of live acoustic performances I have never encountered one that I could apply the audiophile term "warmth"to. Live performances without sound reinforcement and in a venue with good acoustics can be described using audiophile terminology but it sounds ridiculous to do so. Live sound simply is, you know it when you hear it, it doesn't require a willing suspension of disbelief to appreciate.
 I think close miking instruments creates many of the problems we encounter in reproducing music in our homes. A close miked recording can be exciting the first time around but may quickly become fatiguing with extended exposure. Avoiding this is key to long-term satisfaction with a system.
Scotty

[mcgsxr]

I grew up playing music including violin and trombone, so I have heard a lot of live music - from inside the orchestra!

Live brass is a very vivid experience, and few reproductions can live up to it.

Smaller ensembles are easier to reproduce better - but as with all the threads that reference live vs recorded, there are very very few systems that can even come close.

I replay music for enjoyment, not in an attempt to reproduce the live event.  Burn me at the audiophile stake I suppose!

My own experiences with warmth vs detail this past 12 months would play out like this.

B&W DM305 towers - warmth, lacking in resolution and musical involvement.  Lasted a week.
Paradigm Studio Reference 20 V2 - lack of warmth, tons and tons of detail and resolution.  They lasted around 8 months.  Took me a long time to replace what they did well.
Totem Sttaf - warmth, and musical involvement, but for me lacking in detail.  They lasted around 3 months.
Totem Model 1 biwire - less warmth, much more detail/resolution than the Sttaf - much musical enjoyment.

I kept the Model 1's.