Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[SWAN808]

I always thought warm was fairly well understood to mean attenuated high frequencies and more lows, accompanied by a bit of saturation...like the effect of a slightly lofi tape process...

[IncarnateX]

I always thought warm was fairly well understood to mean attenuated high frequencies and more lows, accompanied by a bit of saturation...like the effect of a slightly lofi tape process...

What does that sound like? This description could go for a lot of sounds. I have associations to high freq saturation or distortion but usually they do not mean "warm" to me, but "harsh" and as such annoying. Look at other descriptions of warmth throughout his thread and you will see how they differ.
Anyway, can you give examples? (for fun and discussion only) You have the skills: Take some patches you like (e.g. from Diva). Something simple though. Record/process/master them in pairs of one warm and one cold example of each patch. Not as a blind test but just to illustrate what you mean.
I do not know what "warm" is, so I am open minded and just curious to know.

[2ZrgE]

Should be easy: Just download the Satin demo from U-he - this thing is supposed to do magic on everything.

[PAK]

Problem is not about "warm" either referring to temperature or nothing. That approach is useless.

It is rather that "warm" apparently means different things to different people, metaphorically or concrete, to an extent where it is hard to see any consensus at all. And if no one will post and discuss any examples, it might be as hard to explain as describing color red to a blind person. It may already be hard to explain in words because it may refer to a feeling only.
To that extent AD has a point (though his argument is disastrous), namely that the term becomes empty. This has nothing to do with the term’s reference to temperature, but because the varied uses of it make it all inclusive and don’t signify anything in particular.

Of course your overall point is correct. It's always best to try to explain what you are hearing in ways which describe things in non-vague terms. But sometimes people struggle, and there's usually some logic behind their language..

Subjective terms are merely attempts to explain what is heard in the context of everyday cues. Because of this, some people do seem to attach whatever random thing they want. Just because they do that, it doesn't mean their usage is totally invalidated. But they do need to say enough to know which cues they probably mean.

Some are cultural. For example, theremin-like sounds could be called "creepy" or "sci-fi" based on their usage in movie soundtracks. It's such a strong cue that it quickly became cliche.

Warm and cold sounds are usually related to what we experience when feeling that way. Warm is about being wrapped, usually under bed covers. There is a sound associated with that. Sound will still make its way through the material, but high frequencies are reduced and the sound may become less distinct.. ie muffled or fuzzy. Analogue is a natural partner for this term because of high frequency roll-off. The slightly distorting fuzzy quality, of a more driven signal, plays into this too.

Digital isn't cold. Instead it has to go out of its way to model so-called "warm" qualities. In the absence of these things some will assign it as having the opposite quality. So sometimes people are reacting to what something is not, rather than what it actually is.

Digital was/is also strongly associated with reverb, which is more often (not always) linked to "colder" sounds. There's obvious reasons for this too - our ears perception of distances and surface materials. A large room, with hard surfaces which reflect sound, is (in our experience) likely to be colder than a small room which absorbs sound (carpet, curtains etc)

As for actual cold sounds? As well as large space/hard surfaces there's another thing - refraction. That is, when you experience very cold air, the sound tends to travel differently. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, there is a higher background noise - the sound of distant traffic travels further etc.

Imagine sampling the sound of steam coming from a boiling kettle. Can't get much warmer than that. But what do you think people will perceive it as if you add a reverb to it, or if you slow the sound slightly? Unless you give other cues, they'll probably call it a "cold" sound.

So, even though such terms should indeed be avoided, many people frequently know (roughly) what is meant when they are used

[whyterabbyt]

Ive said this before, but I always find it amusing that when analogue synths were first making it into music, one of the chief complaints about them was that they sounded 'cold and sterile'. In fact that connotation of them was one reason they were preceived as fitting so well with the kind of alienation and science-fiction-y themes of Foxx, Numan et al.

[fluffy_little_something]

Ive said this before, but I always find it amusing that when analogue synths were first making it into music, one of the chief complaints about them was that they sounded 'cold and sterile'. In fact that connotation of them was one reason they were preceived as fitting so well with the kind of alienation and science-fiction-y themes of Foxx, Numan et al.

Probably because they didn't know, yet, what would come after analog synths
And all they could compare them to was acoustical instruments and electrified clones thereof. So that verdict was natural.

[PAK]

I have associations to high freq saturation or distortion but usually they do not mean "warm" to me, but "harsh" and as such annoying.

Yes. Our ears pick up different elements of the sound. Take your colour example.. It doesn't require blindness. Your trichromacy is individual to you. The colour you see is slightly different from everyone else. The same is true for ears.

At least harsh is less vague - the association with unpleasant harmonics. When someone calls a digital synth harsh, the first thing to try is reducing the amp sustain on the ADSR. Often it's related to clipping at certain frequencies (which might not trigger a DAW meter to show as clipped).

I think instrument makers would benefit from looking at how levels are dealt with - How signals are "squeezed" at certain frequencies, reducing the need for later compression which seeks to boost (rather than tame) levels.

I think one source of analogue = better can come from some gear generating a louder signal at the same measured peak level. It's not just about emulating distortion when a certain level is exceeded, but how levels are handled throughout. Whilst analogue equipment can sound harsh, arguably the reason some things become popular is because of the way they handle hotter levels, or the perception caused by the way they roll off highs etc.

[IncarnateX]

Warm and cold sounds are usually related to what we experience when feeling that way. Warm is about being wrapped, usually under bed covers. There is a sound associated with that. Sound will still make its way through the material, but high frequencies are reduced and the sound may become less distinct.. ie muffled or fuzzy. Analogue is a natural partner for this term because of high frequency roll-off. The slightly distorting fuzzy quality, of a more driven signal, plays into this too.

Digital isn't cold. Instead it has to go out of its way to model so-called "warm" qualities. In the absence of these things some will assign it as having the opposite quality. So sometimes people are reacting to what something is not, rather than what it actually is.

Digital was/is also strongly associated with reverb, which is more often (not always) linked to "colder" sounds. There's obvious reasons for this too - our ears perception of distances and surface materials. A large room, with hard surfaces which reflect sound, is (in our experience) likely to be colder than a small room which absorbs sound (carpet, curtains etc)

As for actual cold sounds? As well as large space/hard surfaces there's another thing - refraction. That is, when you experience very cold air, the sound tends to travel differently. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, there is a higher background noise - the sound of distant traffic travels further etc.

Imagine sampling the sound of steam coming from a boiling kettle. Can't get much warmer than that. But what do you think people will perceive it as if you add a reverb to it, or if you slow the sound slightly? Unless you give other cues, they'll probably call it a "cold" sound.

You cannot have much more vivid explanations than that. No examples needed. I rest my case.

[PAK]

You cannot have much more vivid explanations than that. No examples needed. I rest my case.

But what is your "case"? That there's no such thing as warm just because different people can mean different things?

I'm not even arguing that point. What I am saying is that it's frequently possible to know what people mean by subjective terms. Warm is usually always about varying combinations of high frequency roll off, sometimes accompanied by distortion, sometimes not, as well as the space it sits in - with more harmonically rich chorused sounds more likely to be described as "warm" than sounds placed in a cavernous reverb space.

I think a lot of people "understand" the term, even if it isn't the best way to describe something..

[fmr]

Ive said this before, but I always find it amusing that when analogue synths were first making it into music, one of the chief complaints about them was that they sounded 'cold and sterile'. In fact that connotation of them was one reason they were preceived as fitting so well with the kind of alienation and science-fiction-y themes of Foxx, Numan et al.

Curiously enough, being Switched-on Bach one of the first albums (if not THE FIRST) featuring the analogue synthesizer, I don't remember anyone talking about its sound as cold or sterile.
https://books.google.pt/books?id=oJHFAg ... ch&f=false
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... chedOnBach
Maybe you have some references I'm not aware of...

[IncarnateX]

You cannot have much more vivid explanations than that. No examples needed. I rest my case.

But what is your "case"? That there's no such thing as warm just because different people can mean different things?

I'm not even arguing that point. What I am saying is that it's frequently possible to know what people mean by subjective terms. Warm is usually always about varying combinations of high frequency roll off, sometimes accompanied by distortion, sometimes not, as well as the space it sits in - with more harmonically rich chorused sounds more likely to be described as "warm" than sounds placed in a cavernous reverb space.

I think a lot of people "understand" the term, even if it isn't the best way to describe something..

I have no case. It was a joke. My "case" was just to make someone give examples or at least descriptions to demonstrate what it is. Yours were brilliantly funny and better than nothing. And yes it can mean a lot of and be meaningful individually, but whether we really know that we are talking about the same when we talk about a sound being "warm" is not given from the associations with the term used in this thread. I would have stronger sense of a sound if you say "silky" (like a smooth filtered VA lead), "harsh" (Like BONES's synths and music) or "metallic" (FM like). All imprecise terms but meaningful to me. To you "warm" may be just as meaningful. It isn't to me, so I just want to know what it is. I am the blind man you have to teach about the color red here.

Example of warm and non-warm sounds where people could say: "Hey that is what I mean with warm" would still be the better way to illustrate it.

[fluffy_little_something]

You can't make a blind (from birth on) person "see" the color red with words. Either a person sees colors or they don't. But the color red is there regardless whether or not person x sees it.

[IncarnateX]

You can't make a blind (from birth on) person "see" the color red with words. Either a person sees colors or they don't. But the color red is there regardless whether or not person x sees it.

Not all types of blindness are inherited and/or incurable. Don't judge me ahead. If you have to be born with the ability to recognize warm sounds, then there is no hope left for me. Give it a shot at least.

[whyterabbyt]

Ive said this before, but I always find it amusing that when analogue synths were first making it into music, one of the chief complaints about them was that they sounded 'cold and sterile'. In fact that connotation of them was one reason they were preceived as fitting so well with the kind of alienation and science-fiction-y themes of Foxx, Numan et al.

Curiously enough, being Switched-on Bach one of the first albums (if not THE FIRST) featuring the analogue synthesizer, I don't remember anyone talking about its sound as cold or sterile.
https://books.google.pt/books?id=oJHFAg ... ch&f=false
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... chedOnBach
Maybe you have some references I'm not aware of...

And the usual suspect strikes again, with the usual sophismas.

[fluffy_little_something]

You can't make a blind (from birth on) person "see" the color red with words. Either a person sees colors or they don't. But the color red is there regardless whether or not person x sees it.

Not all types of blindness are inherited and/or incurable. Don't judge me ahead. If you have to be born with the ability to recognize warm sounds, then there is no hope left for me. Give it a shot at least.

Red is just a term such as warm or cold or soft or sharp. We might as well call the underlying physical phenomenon (certain wavelengths of light) vrkhfeiuzrekgufwifth instead of red. It is just a word, but it stands for something a healthy human eye and brain perceive in the same way, no matter who it is.
I think one might also be able to define such physical properties for warm or cold or soft or sharp sounds as well, properties the vast majority of people perceive the same way. But it is probably more complex than mere wavelengths of light. But even with colors there are wavelengths where it becomes difficult to say whether they are still red or already purple or orange or whatever.