KVR Audio

grease · Post by **grease** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:16 pm

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? Has there been any research - formal or informal - on what is considered "warm"? Point me towards any references if you know of some.

I suppose things like this might be mentioned:

saturation
harmonic complexity (which could result from saturation)
A little bit of noise
randomness in frequency content
randomness in tuning
Lack of aliasing

I suppose the easy answer might be "all of the above," and might include a few more things. And there is some overlap and interplay among the things I listed. I'm curious whether if anyone has been able to pinpoint "analog warmth" a little more precisely - I'm sure the pro plugin makers have done some research on this. I guess I'm just posting here to ask for references...it's just interesting to me.

I suppose I should go Google...but I expect to find all kinds of stuff that isn't what I'm looking for!

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:17 pm

warmth is oscillation.

e-phonic · Post by **e-phonic** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:28 pm

warmth is oscillation.

May i call this warm?

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:28 pm

"All of the above and then some" would be my guess. To pin this down would be way over my head... but I can maybe help you to narrow down web searches.

If you specify "psychoacoustics" along with "warmth" and whatever else you are searching for, that ought to eliminate a lot of irrelevant content. :-D

Good luck,

Meffy

[edit] ... or maybe not. I just tried it, and though it helped, there's still a lot of bogus/unscientifically supportable audiophile talk and the like. =>_<= Ah well.

MickGael · Post by **MickGael** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm

e-phonic wrote:May i call this warm?

Yes, you may.

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:33 pm

It usually just means that the high end is tapered off and there are alot of 2nd harmionics as opposed to 3rd.

emdot_ambient · Post by **emdot_ambient** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:41 pm

That's kind of like asking what the qualities "dark" and "intense" mean when referring to a wine. It's a way of describing a sensual quality that cannot be quantified or mathematically calculated.

I suspect what most people mean by comes from two of your first three selections: saturation and noise.

It's far easier to demonstrate warmth than it is to define it. Listen to a vinyl recording of any song you like, then a CD of the same song (preferably one that wasn't remastered).

Vinyl = warm, CD = digital.

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:43 pm

Topic: What is "warmth" anyway?

"warmth" is what you feel "down there" when it sounds good.

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:47 pm

e-phonic wrote:
warmth is oscillation.
May i call this warm?

You should! Very exciting news, even for a filters-spoilt sod like me

REwire · Post by **REwire** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:59 pm

An analogous reference would be Digital Characters in movies (Jar Jar Binks, Polar Express) vs. Living Ones. Living organisms are made up of millions of living cells and are sort of in constant flux. We perceive real sounds the same way, as ever changing. Analog curcuits behave in a way that give a feeling of life as they are also in that same changing flow. Warmth is simply a aural feeling of life as if one were hugged by a loved one vs. a robot.

I fear in 20-30 years no one will feel Warmth from their Music, Loved Ones, Media or the Sun.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:03 pm

It is what can be precisely referred to as inspecific gobbledygook. Often employed as a misleading marketing term, used to say this digital sounds like that analog. Check against phat/fat, tube-like...

Its origin probably lies in the resistence to the transition towards digital equipment in the late 70s early 80s. Part of it comes out of a lot of nonsense, like an irrational objection to microcircuitry in favour of tape, etc. Part of it also a reflection of the overbearing high-register frequencies - or brightness - in early digital equipment. There are of course differences between the two, but note that analog was always cuddly warm, digital always prickly cold.

That said, SAP gave you as good an answer as any.

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:05 pm

REwire wrote:I fear in 20-30 years no one will feel Warmth from their Music, Loved Ones, Media or the Sun.

That's entirely up to us.

Left Headphone · Post by **Left Headphone** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:06 pm

"warmth" is over-rated

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:22 pm

Vinyl is warm? Screw that. Vinyl is very cold, indeed. And no, I'm not making a joke, I'm actually referring to the sonic characteristic of vinyl records.

Vinyl is meant to be very pristine and hi-fi, and it IS. The only time it gets 'warm' is when it gets dirty and crackly or old and warped. <grin>

Warmth, in my experience, SHOULD be introduction of subtle harmonic information in a non-linear fashion. An aural exciter is more likely to cause what *I* think of as "warmth" than a tube distortion.

On the other hand, what my experience of "warmth" according to OTHER people has been mostly an attenuation of frequencies. Give it a try. Roll off the high frequencies, and play it as an A/B to your friends. Ask them which sounds warmer. I wager they'll pick the one with the high frequencies removed.

Greg

Rusty Shackleford · Post by **Rusty Shackleford** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:53 pm

Vinyl is warm because you DO get that harmonic distortion that colors the sound. You hear it immediately- punchier bottom end, and rolled off higher frequencies. If I mix a record at a club and then mix the same track on CD they won't sound the same at all.