Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Bright or Warm?

Bright and Warm, what do those terms mean to you?

I have been asking myself that question ever since I came back into the audio market. I just don't remember those terms being used before, to the extent that I now see. The only thing that I do recall is some folks saying that tube amplifiers have a "warm" sound as compared to solid state amplifiers.

If your receiver or amplifier really has a flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz and total harmonic distortion of less than 1%, how are you going to hear a difference anyhow?

Are we talking about some processing before the amplifier chain where some manufacturers may used different algorithms?

Just something to think about the next time you see the terms "bright" or "warm!"

It is my understanding that people refer to what they are hearing as Bright, Warm, Harsh, etc... Before I became an Axiomite, I used to live on AVSForum. Like you, it had been some time since I was serious about getting back into the AV world. I had an old Pro Logic JVC receiver and a mixture of speakers from Pioneer (still have these babies), Infinity, AR, and Advent. Anyway, for months I was looking for advice on speakers and AVR's.

I almost didn't buy Axiom, since many of the biased people on AVSForum basically said they are to bright sounding. Some people like a more rough, oh boy I just started a new word , or one that is not as detailed or accurate. They are probably not used to speakers that are as efficiant as Axioms I'm guessing.

When I started looking at Denon, people said "Oh man, whatever you do, don't combine Denon with Axiom, you will get a very mechanical, bright, harsh sound" This crap just kills me.

Anyway, after talking to many of the members on this forum and Alan,Joe, Brent from Axiom, I could not be anymore happier with my selection.

Randy

60's, 150, 350, 4-Qs8's
Denon 2805
Panasonic s97s HDMI DVD
Sanyo Z2 WXGA Projector
Samsung OTA HD Tuner

So, exactly what do the terms "bright," "warm," and "rough" mean to you?

In reply to:

---

So, exactly what do the terms "bright," "warm," and "rough" mean to you?

---

Bright = Highs are over pronounced and the speaker is too forward overall. Some call this accurate. I still say it's bright. To this day I won't budge on my comment that Axiom M80's are what I view as a bright speaker. This isn't a bad thing, it all depends on your taste.

Warm = Highs are rolled off and the edge is removed. Equal balance of sound. I usually equate "Warm" to high current equipment.

Rough = I don't think any speaker is rough or for that matter any component. I have heard a few recordings that I would call rough.

None of these are great explanations as I think everyone hears there own thing and listens for what they like to a certain extent.

Hi Ratpack,

Those two terms have been in common usage among some of us that participated for 20 years or more in the double-blind listening tests of loudspeakers conducted at the National Research Council in Ottawa.

If you were on the listening panel, there was a vertical rating scale for "Brightness- Dullness", with "very dull" at the bottoom and "very bright" at the top, as well as a kind of ideal mid-position. Dull signified a depressed midrange and rolled off highs, so it was "muffled" and "lacked detail".

"Very bright" verged on harshness; too much midrange and high-frequency emphasis. But you could use "bright" as a compliment as well, meaning "bright, quite detailed" or you might qualify that a bit, if you heard treble resonances that were annoying.

"Warm" was typically used to describe a speaker whose frrequency response had an audible boost in the upper bass octaves from about 80 Hz to 500 Hz. It might be about 3 dB or so, but it lent a kind or "rich" (another synonym) fuzzy resonance to male voices, double bass, cello, etc.

"Warm" was also used to describe a kind of rich, harmonic wash that characterized speakers with lots of even-order harmonic distortion in the bass octaves, and that was also applied to some tube gear, which typically adds that kind of "musical" distortion to signals. Audiophiles mistake that quality for some ethereal or mysterious trait that belongs to their particular tube device. In fact, it's just a different kind of musical distortion, but distortion nonetheless.

The opposite of "Warm" might be termed "Lean", lacking bass content or "Thin"--too little bass relative to midrange and treble.

Regards,

these two terms annoy the @#$@#$ out of me.

What drives me more crazy, is the misuse of them, or peoples different idea's as to what each one really is.

Terms like my amps sound really nice and warm, and so detailed and clear.

like what the #$#$? If an amp has it's high end rolled off, how is it clear, or detailed?

When I hear the term warm, i think of standing at a concert, listening to a band, with pillows strapped over my ears. Muffled, the opposite of clear.

lets take my latest hunt for the right receiver. 3805 vs nad t773. I have heard people describe both as warm, and bright. Honestly I have. Then there's the question of what speakers are they using, eq settings?, type of music or movies. Man it just gets nuts trying to get advice on the net.

In an area that has good hifi shops around you, I wouldn't even pick up a computer. I'd just go listen for myself. But for people like myself where there is no good hifi shops, all I can say is thank god for companies like Axiom that will let the customers try their product for 30 days and make their own decision on whether they want it. Honesty, I don't think I'll ever buy from another company again that des not offer the same sort of deal.

In reply to:

---

Bright and Warm, what do those terms mean to you?

---

Sounds like our sun to me. Duh.

In reply to:

---

If your receiver or amplifier really has a flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz and total harmonic distortion of less than 1%, how are you going to hear a difference anyhow?

---

a) Placabo. Proof that audiophiles hate to admit to here.

b) Elitism. The big penis contest - "OMGZ I CAN HEAR WHAT YOU CAN'T HEAR!!!1111one"

Just slightly oversimplified:

Bright
Hey, that hurts my ears!!

Warm
I'm sorry; I missed what he said...too muffled.
















M3s..........Juuuuuuust Riiiiiiiiight!

Warm speakers can be detailed. With their bump in the 90-110hz region, I think the M3's are a good example of this.

when I think of muffled, I think of laid back, like I was sitting far away from a live acoustic performance.

Great article Thasp. Really interesting especially at the bottom seeing the comments when they knew which amp they were listening to and comments when they didn't know. I still feel a need to get more power in my system (for really loud listening) but I will look for one of the best $/watt amplifiers that I can find rather than name recognition etc.

In reply to:

---

When I started looking at Denon, people said "Oh man, whatever you do, don't combine Denon with Axiom, you will get a very mechanical, bright, harsh sound" This crap just kills me.

---

Every receiver I've heard so far sounds mechanical.

If they didn't, I don't think I'd hear anything.

That stuff is hilarious. People love to believe their hearing is godlike, which makes blind test articles all the better.

It really has no meaning to me, everybody hears things differently, and has various definitions to describe what they are hearing, which also varies from person to person.

I say trust your own ears, but also consider what others offer for advice.

Sure glad I was able to demo Axioms, otherwise I may have made a terrible mistake based on hearsay

Thanks Alan!

As I recall, 20 years ago many of the speaker enclosures had only one speaker in them which was used to "try" to cover the entire audio spectrum. I fully understand that a single speaker may have problems covering this spectrum. And, I am not surprised that some of the better (relative flat frequency response across the audio spectrum) like the M80s use multiple speakers in their enclosures with cross overs to overcome some of these limitations.

I think that it may be misleading to use these terms with receivers or amplifiers if they actually meet their specifications. Why? Unless the reviewer is considering some of the processing algorithms or like, the differences simply are not there.

Thasp: it is excellent to post that article from time to time. It is a GREAT article. I have read it before, several times. I think that JohnK may have posted it on a thread on this board a month or two ago.

There was another article about how participants for a few minutes in a blind session won't be able to detect differences but over time, they surely would.

What you are missing from what Mr. Lofft or others might say is that the terms bright and warm can only have value in the context of what other speakers sound like. I believe Axiom M60s are bright and forward when compared to many other speakers. Were Axioms no different sounding than other speakers, you would have no reason to consider Axioms over other speakers.

In terms of speakers, I think that you can realistically say that there are differences from speaker type to speaker type. You can look at their spectral response and actually see the difference.

But, one of the points that I was bringing up was that these terms have migrated to descriptors of receivers. I believe that there should be NO difference between the amplifiers in the receivers if they are meeting specifications. The difference, if any, should be in the processing or pre processing algorithms. The receivers playing music from FM stations, CD, phono or other input (without processing) should sound NO different.

Now, if they really do sound different, WHY?

In reply to:

---

Now, if they really do sound different, WHY?

---

Well to start, not everyone uses the same power supply. Not everyone uses the same output stage. Not everyone uses the same capacitors. Some are still using MOFSET based power amps and some are not. Some pay more attention to current then wattage.

That is just a few. I can come up with more.

Guy's I'm not trying to get this whole debate going again on receivers all sound the same but take it from a guy who has tried 7 different receivers with the exact same speakers located in the exact same position, in the exact same room etc etc etc, that to my ears, there is no way they all sound the same. A lot of them do but not all of them.

Never: no, my friend, this is not about power supplies, capacitors and the like. If you have "linear" amplifiers specified to be spectrally flat from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz and distortion products way below 1 %, THEN THEY CAN NOT SOUND DIFFERENT, unless there is something different input to them. I'm sorry, that is just the definition of a "linear" amplifier. What goes in the input is reproduced "exactly" at the output, but with a higher power/ voltage/ current. If it isn't, then you don't have a linear amplifier. That much is clear. Or, could it be, that the so called "linear" amplifiers really aren't linear. As I recall. the FTC specs are tested with a single tone???

So, given the above, what makes one receiver "brighter"
than another if it isn't the preprocessing?

I'm not saying that you haven't heard differences. Maybe you have. But, if you have, what caused them?

I know that I have learned a lot about amplifiers/ power supply design and implementation on another thread on this board. I would like to better understand what is going on before the amplifiers.

Before I buy another receiver or separates, I would like to better understand what games manufacturers are currently playing!!!!!!!!!!

Question:(and NOT to get fight going, cause John asked us not to, while he's on vacation)

But, from your experience, do the electronics that generally fit within the range of cost/quality that the vast majority of "us" would use, sound pretty much alike?

F107: I have no intention of fighting with anyone. LOL!! My only intention is to find out a little more before I purchase a new unit.

However, when I see a post that "appears" wrong, I will make a comment. With power supplies, the fundamental considerations are output current and voltage capabilities/ regulation as a function of load. If the power supply is adequately specified for its load and is performining to its specifications, then, we should notice NO difference because of its component parts.

In this discussion we are not talking about RAM (Reliability, Availability, and Maintainabilty). Those are different and different parts can make a huge difference.

To answer your question, I simply do not know. If you believe the specifications, there should be no differences. Yet, many people comment that there are.

Are they correct?

Are they fooling themselves?

I don't know, but would like to know the answer.

I have an opinion, but I will save that for a later post.

Unless I’m mistaken, the article refers strictly to Amplifiers, not processors or controllers. They used the same pre/amp throughout the tests with different amplifiers.

I think folks get confused when this conversation comes up. Half the audience considers an amplifier the magic box that makes it all happen…IE: the AVR. The other half is talking about he amplifier, so then the arguments start, even though half the group thinks the other half is discussing the same thing……but they aren’t.

So, when referring to the possibility of differing SQ from an amp, stick to the amp and don’t include the processor. Big difference.

mdrew: I may get flamed for this, but, I think that the main issue/ problem is that some (perhaps most) really don't know what they are talking about? Electronic theory and physics are not exactly the simplest of subjects.

I understand the use of "bright," "warm," etc. when referencing a speaker, but I am still lost as to exactly what causes a receiver or pre processor to be "bright" if it is not processing algorithms or some sort of pre-emphasis?????

And, I am still looking for a good explanation of what do you get in a separate pre processor that you don't get in a receiver. In general the processing/ switching/ upgrading seems to be a generation ahead in the receivers.

Comments??

Well if you’re asking me specifically, my short answer is…..beats the hell out of me. I’m still learning this hobby as I stumble along. I have some experience with instrumentation and electronics from the technical trade, but that’s not saying much.

That being said, an amplifier does absolutely nothing to the signal but "amplify" it. It does not manipulate it in any way shape or form. However, I suspect that the basic physical size and real estate that the separates have over a receiver will dictate the time and quality of gizmos the manufactures can design and install. I’m just guessing, but I strongly suspect that this alone will enable the sound to be “cleaner”. And this would be due to a higher level of isolation between electronic components. But sound different??? Warm or Bright??? No friggin way do I by that. It’s impossibility from a theoretical perspective.

Now pre / pros, and receivers? Absolutely. Just think about how the signal is passed from the source to the amp. It goes through the processor. This is where all the magic happens. Including tone controls. Just the different sound options that a person can make on an AVR (dolby, pro logic, etc…) is a pretty good indicator that the signal isn’t simply passed through, but manipulated.

In reply to:

---

And, I am still looking for a good explanation of what do you get in a separate pre processor that you don't get in a receiver

---

There is very noticable difference. I can tell you that from my own experience. I switched from Rotel RX-1052 stereo receiver to Rotel RB-1070 first and then RB-1080 (2X200W) power amp, and RC-1070 stereo pre/amp, and notices an improvement right away: sound was cleaner, better soundstage, crisper highs and, the most important, I noticed a kind of separations between the highs and bass, if I can explain it right. The music gained a kind of "punch" that I had not noticed before. Also, I could hear things that I had not heard before (guitar strings, singer's breath, instruments had not noticed before). Also, the silence in between tracks (or in a silent part of a track for that matter) was much "more silent" and then boom!!! something would start!! Does it make sense??

thyname: OK, what parameters caused the difference that you are seeing? What metrics can I look for in the specifications that can help me discriminate one from another?

Comments?

I have been told not to look to much at the parameters and specs, since they are often similar from one piece of equipment to the other. It is the build quality that makes the difference. In the case of separates vs. receivers, I believe it is the fact the two pieces handle separately two different functions instead of everything been handled by one. It is a matter of efficiency in peforming a duty, kind of labor division to compare it with. Again, I am no engineer or a technical expert on audio to be able to explain above scientifically, however, my ears can easily tell the difference.

Your describing the difference I heard when I added the monoblocks.

<<I could hear things that I had not heard before (guitar strings, singer's breath, instruments had not noticed before). >>

I think my words were very close to being the same.

My take on it exactly. And Rick (Wid) said the same thing. So unless we were all puffing off the safe pipe (passing it back and forth, several thousand miles away from each other), I think that’s a pretty strong argument that there is a noteworthy SQ improvement when going the separate route.

Everything just sounds, well…..better, even at lower volume levels. There’s more punch at the lower volumes, which I really do not understand why or how this could happen. In some of my favorite tracks, I now hear things that I didn’t before.

And I went from the HK 7200, which is no slouch of an AVR, to the Rotel combo. When I initially swapped over, I spent a fair amount of time listening to both the HK and the Rotels. Back and forth with the speaker cables, over and over. I had to know for myself, and when I initially did it, I did not believe that I would be able to tell a difference. I’ve been pleasantly surprised ever since.

mdrew: I think what both you and Bug may have seen was the difference in amplifiers. Recall the link on another thread describing receiver power supplies? Price points indicated 1/8, 1/3 and full power. The author also mentioned that under certain conditions some audio required 40% power supply capability. Well, at 1/8 or 1/3, you just don't get that 40%!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think this effect is exactly what you and Bug saw. I also think that we have a good handle on this.

Now, for the part ahead of the amplifiers, I'm not so sure. What can a separate preprocessor do better than the receiver section? Why should some receivers be labeled "bright?" I don't have a handle on this.

I've looked at a few more of the preprocessors and they really don't seem to have the HDMI switching and USB capabilities of some of the newer, lower priced, receivers.

Don't really understand this.