Let's try to shed a little light on this whole "warm" vs. "bright" thing.... (1 Viewer)

[Larry B]

Holadem:

First time I heard anything "warm" in my
home, but I recognised it immediately. The sound is not in your face anyome, is is... way back there... (deep soundstage).

Depth of soundstage and warmth, while potentially related, are actually distinct phenomena.

Larry

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Holadem, you should've read through what was already said... You should know that a Onkyo 575x and a Denon 4802 are no where in the same league. You would've gotten the same results comparing the Denon to a JC Penney receiver.

 

[DavidMich]

I have an interesting way of dealing with all of this (well, maybe not completely, but it does help!!)
Bass/Treble/Tone circuits just plain suck, so I won't even approach this.

BUT.....my M&K speakers have an adjustable tonality knob for the midranges and the tweeters. You can adjust these depending on the source. According to the owner's manual, you can make them have a characteristic "German" or "Bright" sound.....or.....an "English" or "Warm" sound.
They are not completely independent of each other. That is, adjusting one has some sort of effect on the other.
When my friend brought over his Yamaha reciever, which, from what I've read here, is described as bright; we were able to adjust the speakers to make it sound much like my Denon. And we didn't have to mess with the tone circuits.

Just a thought.......!!!

 

[Lee-c]

Jason is right, of course. Stereo enthusiasts are, as a rule, on a search for high fidelity
equipment. As in that which will reproduce the music as accurately as possible. But since
no piece of stereo gear is perfect, compromises must be accepted. The only question is
in what direction do you want those weakness to go, given that you are going to have weaknesses
to one degree or another.

What I'm saying is that regardless of what gear I might be using, I never want the equipment
to make the music sound fatiguing over long hours of listening. If that means getting
a speaker or preamp or whatever that leans a little toward the "warm" side, then so be it.
I'm all for accuracy, but I'm willing to give up some in some areas if it means a pleasing sound
that one can soak up all night without it grating on the ears.

Since no stereo gear is perfect, the question becomes, "What flavor of imperfection do you want?".

 

[Saurav]

Stereo enthusiasts are, as a rule, on a search for high fidelity equipment.

Personally, having fun is also pretty high on my list. And let's face it, most of the music I listen to is recorded pretty poorly (60s/70s rock, jazz/blues from the same era or even older), and there's nothing I can do about that. So, I have to choose how I spend my time, and I choose to spend my time enjoying the music, and not thinking about the recording. Consequently, I've set up a system which isn't the last word in detail. The result is that it slightly glosses over the flaws in the poor recordings, because I find that this allows me to enjoy the music better. Sure, this results in less-than-optimal reproduction of the good recordings, and that's a compromise I choose to live with. If all of my music collection were well recorded, I'd probably choose my system differently. Right now, I'd rather enjoy 90% of my collection and not get the best possible from 10%, than get the best possible reproduction of 10% and not be able to tolerate the other 90%.

That's just the choice I've made, others will of course make different choices. So think about it - if you have a CD of an artist you really like, but you hesitate from playing it because it sounds harsh and irritating - what exactly are your goals for your system? Why do you have a stereo in the first place? I know some people enjoy hearing the tiniest details in the recordings, flaws and all, they enjoy being able to hear those little imperfections - if that's what you're after, then by all means you should assemble the most detailed system you can. That's just not what I'm looking for when I sit down to listen to music, that's all.

Like Larry said, in a perfect world we would all have perfect equipment in perfect rooms playing perfect recordings of perfect musicians playing... you get the idea. In the real world, you have to pick what you want to maximise, and what you're willing to compromise.

 

[Lee-c]

Saurav: That is *exactly* the same position I take. Since many recordings are less than optimal
(either due to age, incompetent studio people, etc.), I would rather my equipment not be so
revealing that it makes it impossible for me to really enjoy a large portion of my favorite music.
I'm for high fidelity, but only to the point that it will not make every flaw in most of my
perferred recordings painfully obvious. I'll take full enjoyment of the 90% of decent,
average or good recordings and a little less than ideal reproduction of the 10% of great recordings
over super accurate reproduction of that great 10% at the expense of significant loss of
enjoyment of the 90% any day!

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

maximise

Hey, your British is showing
Larry

 

[RichardMA]

Jason is right, of course. Stereo enthusiasts are, as a rule, on a search for high fidelity

No, they are on a seach to find which component's colouration of the sound appeals to them the most.

 

[Larry B]

Richard:

No, they are on a seach to find which component's colouration of the sound appeals to them the most.

By and large that is true, especially since in most cases we don't know what the original sounded like. OTOH, I do prefer components that make acoustical instruments sound more like they do in the "flesh."

Larry

Edit:

Computer-induced screw up fixed.

 

[RichardMA]

Right, especially since in the vast majority of cases, we have no idea of what the origianl actually sounded like.

You are probably right, unless some people go to many
live performances in good quality venues (acoustically
good, that is)but I know what basic instruments sound
like and it's easy to pick up things that make them
sound unreal. When I listen to something, either musical
or a movie, sometimes what I do is close my eyes and try
to feel if what i'm hearing makes it sound like the
instrument or person is really in the room with me.
Amazingly, sometimes it does.
-Rich

 

[Holadem]

Holadem, you should've read through what was already said... You should know that a Onkyo 575x and a Denon 4802 are no where in the same league. You would've gotten the same results comparing the Denon to a JC Penney receiver.

Kevin, I believe I acknowledged this in the last paragraph. Again, I know the relative brightness is normal because of it's much lower price, but I suspect I in the same price range, I would take warm over bright. Now time to go audition that JC Penney receiver
--
Holadem

 

[Geoff S]

The way I always defined it is as this, and correct me if I'm wrong or comment to back me up if I'm right:
BRIGHT: Imagine sticking all the speakers and equipment found in your local large multiplex theater right into your home with nothing changed except perhaps the volume - the sound is very edgy and harsh, rather echo'y in the home, where most rooms are not dead rooms, making details in the playback harder to hear, also it sounds a little overdone. "Bright" sound can also be caused by room acoustics, Ex. you can have a system condsidered to be warm sounding pretty much unanimously, but it may sound bright in a room with all marble floors walls and cielings (lets suppose something like that exists). Again that slap echo effect degrading sound.
WARM: A more intimate sounding playback. The deatils are easilly heard and there is minimal slap echoing in the room. Defining warm sound is harder to discern than bright sound, but easier when you consider them to be complete oppisites. Being clearer, more intimate, and more directed at the indivisual rather than the masses is why warmer sound is prefered. The best way to acheive warmer sound is in purchasing components that are considered to be warm (ex. Denon receivers are considered by more to be warm than bright, I mention them cause it's a brand I know). Having a room with carpet, and acoustically textured walls and cieling or even carpeted walls with acoustics cieling tiles can create a room with very warm sounding audio.
Personally I believe that sound in the home is capable of sounding even better than that in the theaters when the right components and setting is selected. Afterall, how many people here who own dedicated, and even non dedicated home theaters even go to the Movie Theaters anymore, or at least be even be impressed by them?

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Geoff, again, your comments are saying that there is only one definition of brightness, and it equals harsh and edgy which is a bad. Your comment is also saying that there is only one definition of warmth, and it's clearer, more intimate, and more detailed. My point is that what some call brightness is not always harsh and edgy and can yield an accurate and detailed sound w/o compromising a sense of warmth. Just as some feel brightness can be overdone, what some call warmth can definately be overdone as well, affecting the sound in a negative way and rolling off the upper frequencies. I think one of the posters above said it best when he said in essence that the pursuit of Hi-Fi sound is our own personal quest to find the equipment that best colors the sound to our own personal liking. No piece of gear will render sound reproduction perfectly, and to say that one is warmer or brighter (or better or worse at coloring the sound) than the other is strictly a matter of opinion. Isn't this a fun discussion?

 

[John Royster]

Bright = edgy, harsh, in your face, digital, peeling-your face off with a violin.

Warm = wrap yourself up in smooth, silky, mellow, sound.

means differnt things to different folks I guess. Sound can be TOO bright, just as it can be TOO warm.