r3nø wrote:Whenever i hear "warmth" i take my gun.
Forever,
Kim.
What is "warmth" anyway?
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRAF
- 10361 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
I see audio in colours. "Warm" is the red/brown spectrum while "cold" is blue/gray/white spectrum. Simple as that. When using the term correctly it is very informative indeed. Warm does NOT equal good.. neither does Cold equal bad. I find it truly sad that we've lost the audio language because of overuse/hype/people who don't know shit.. etc.
When speaking to some of my closer colleagues we can easily communicate with the terms "warm, cold, shrill, blue, boxy, punchy, flat, sloppy, bassy, dull, nasal" etc. they all have a distinct meaning to uss. Some of these are even described in several books on audio recording/mixing/mastering. For instance, boxy is usually means too much 150-300hz, warm is usually a slight low-mid/mid dip and gentle high-frequencies with well pronounced but balanced bass. Also, cutting certain 'nasty' frequencies a bit(around 1125-1175hz and 2250-2350hz) in some material can make it 'more warm' as it doesn't hurt the ears any more.
Warm, when talking about a synth, is basically the opposite to harsh. If it hurts the ears, then it ain't warm. If it pleases the ear and has a top end that doesn't disturb it can be called warm. However, there's a fine line between warm and dull.
EDIT: I just noticed that I forgot to add that 'thin' and 'thick' are also attributes of warm & cold. I guess the thickness in warm can come from 2nd harmonics or..?
my 2 cents,
-bManic
When speaking to some of my closer colleagues we can easily communicate with the terms "warm, cold, shrill, blue, boxy, punchy, flat, sloppy, bassy, dull, nasal" etc. they all have a distinct meaning to uss. Some of these are even described in several books on audio recording/mixing/mastering. For instance, boxy is usually means too much 150-300hz, warm is usually a slight low-mid/mid dip and gentle high-frequencies with well pronounced but balanced bass. Also, cutting certain 'nasty' frequencies a bit(around 1125-1175hz and 2250-2350hz) in some material can make it 'more warm' as it doesn't hurt the ears any more.
Warm, when talking about a synth, is basically the opposite to harsh. If it hurts the ears, then it ain't warm. If it pleases the ear and has a top end that doesn't disturb it can be called warm. However, there's a fine line between warm and dull.
EDIT: I just noticed that I forgot to add that 'thin' and 'thick' are also attributes of warm & cold. I guess the thickness in warm can come from 2nd harmonics or..?
my 2 cents,
-bManic
Last edited by bmanic on Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRist
- 493 posts since 9 Mar, 2003
When you here someone talking about "warmth" in relation to audio, thats just the new world order way of saying "sperm"grease wrote:I'm just wondering what that quality called "warmth" is that we ascribe to analog stuff. I mean what exactly are we talking about here?
-
- KVRist
- 339 posts since 9 May, 2001 from Greece
I believe the origin of "warmth" in the context of audio originates to the tubes which actually got physically pretty warm during operation.
It is actually very easy for the human brain to relate the physical warmth with the sound that goes through it and somehow believe that that the sound gets 'warmer'... or whatever. Therefore tubes have been associated with warmth.
(This is MY personal explanation. I have very well seen how easily our brain and beliefs get manipulated. )
Transistors and digital technology do not glow, nor do (did) they get physically warm.
The irony of it is that today's digital technology (i.e. CPUs mostly) can get very warm physically as well
In recent years, I believe the term "warmth" has been heavily abused for marketing purposes. It's a great way to sell stuff to the vast number of people who have gone digital and simultaneously sustaining the belief that digital equals cold.
Having said that, I believe it's perfectly fine to use the term 'warm' (among other words which describe various sensations) to describe sound. But it is very subjective and heavily depends on context. Somebody's warm pad can be somebody else's dull pad. Somebody's transparent compressor may be somebody else's cold compressor... and so on and so forth.
It is actually very easy for the human brain to relate the physical warmth with the sound that goes through it and somehow believe that that the sound gets 'warmer'... or whatever. Therefore tubes have been associated with warmth.
(This is MY personal explanation. I have very well seen how easily our brain and beliefs get manipulated. )
Transistors and digital technology do not glow, nor do (did) they get physically warm.
The irony of it is that today's digital technology (i.e. CPUs mostly) can get very warm physically as well
In recent years, I believe the term "warmth" has been heavily abused for marketing purposes. It's a great way to sell stuff to the vast number of people who have gone digital and simultaneously sustaining the belief that digital equals cold.
Having said that, I believe it's perfectly fine to use the term 'warm' (among other words which describe various sensations) to describe sound. But it is very subjective and heavily depends on context. Somebody's warm pad can be somebody else's dull pad. Somebody's transparent compressor may be somebody else's cold compressor... and so on and so forth.
-
- KVRian
- 1119 posts since 29 Jun, 2004 from within you without you
I think Evan's dead on. Software developers created the "digital=cold" myth to peddle analogue modeled software. And the key hype term is "warmth".
There's two kinds of sound:
Pleasing and irritating.
Farts are warm.
There's two kinds of sound:
Pleasing and irritating.
Farts are warm.
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 231 posts since 20 Jul, 2002 from Connecticut
I love your post, even if I have no idea what you mean. In any case, I'm going to try to put sperm in my music now.Gymnopedies wrote:When you here someone talking about "warmth" in relation to audio, thats just the new world order way of saying "sperm"grease wrote:I'm just wondering what that quality called "warmth" is that we ascribe to analog stuff. I mean what exactly are we talking about here?
[url=http://www.dangries.com]
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 231 posts since 20 Jul, 2002 from Connecticut
That's interesting - it's probably correct too!Evan wrote:I believe the origin of "warmth" in the context of audio originates to the tubes which actually got physically pretty warm during operation.
It is actually very easy for the human brain to relate the physical warmth with the sound that goes through it and somehow believe that that the sound gets 'warmer'... or whatever. Therefore tubes have been associated with warmth.
(This is MY personal explanation. I have very well seen how easily our brain and beliefs get manipulated. )
Well, it seems people can get very emotional about this issue - that is, the vague claim often touted that analog is somehow superior to digital. It seems that it is complicated by the fact that terms like "warmth" are used so inconsistently, and subjectivity is such a strong influence. Plus I think when it comes to sound, we can easily deceive ourselves and be influenced by the knowledge of its source, completely without regard to what it sounds like!
In any case, I just meant this thread to be a discussion of what the actual differences between analog and digital sounds are, and specifically what sonic qualities are the trademarks of analog equipment.
In addition to the obvious differences - for example variability - there are some interesting comments here. The comments on the attenuation of higher frequencies, and the emphasis of 2nd order and even harmonics are interesting.
But just one thing I want to be clear on - I really had no intention of starting a thread about "Hey, why is analog stuff so much better than digital stuff?", because I don't even believe that. I mean, if some people like analog stuff so much better than digital stuff, my feelings are that (1) they may be fooling themselves, and (2) there may be a kernel of truth to the claim that analog is different from digital, and if we can pinpoint it, then maybe we would want to make our digital stuff do those things. Or maybe not. Really, it was just something I was curious about. I'm just a hobbyist here with some curiosity about these things!
And for the record, I don't think I could ever use analog equipment again! I love doing everything on one computer!
[url=http://www.dangries.com]
-
- KVRAF
- 10361 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
I can't believe I'm the only one that sees audio in colours??? Warm.. it has NOTHING to do with tubes. Heck, a cello can be either warm or cold sounding and it has nothing to do with if it burns or not. Looks like the term is created by some people that actually think it has meaning and interpreted by a whole bunch of 'foreigners' (not understanding the language) and suddenly it's bullshit? 
.. HUOH..
EDIT: well, ok, I kind of see the point with the tube glowing (which has a warm colour too btw, darkish orange/yellow), physical warmth thing but.. no, kind of not, if that makes any sense..
- bManic
.. HUOH..
EDIT: well, ok, I kind of see the point with the tube glowing (which has a warm colour too btw, darkish orange/yellow), physical warmth thing but.. no, kind of not, if that makes any sense..
- bManic
-
- Skunk Mod
- 21249 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture
I can personally vouch for this: in the days of tube equipment, there was DEFINITELY much more warmth in the studio. It was the switch to solid state circuitry, not digital, that got rid of much of the warmth.
And good riddance, says I -- you can't very well run a noisy air conditioner in a studio!
And good riddance, says I -- you can't very well run a noisy air conditioner in a studio!
