Buzzwords: "Tube" and "Warm"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dolemite
  • Start date Start date
Dolemite

Dolemite

New member
I'm pretty new to the recording scene but I can't help but notice the constant reoccurance of these two words: "tube" and "warm". It seems that if a preamp or other piece of equipment has a "tube" in it, it then must be "warm." Also, it seems that any large diaphram condensor mic is good, it must be "warm."

Everything that is warm is good by default.

OK, I know it's soooo much more complicated than that but if I had no knowledge of recording and was not technically-minded and started reading these forums, these are the conclusions that I would draw. Basically, I think there is a huge amount of hype surrounding these terms that is created by manufacterers and propagated by the misinformed/inexperienced. For example, ART is selling thousands upon thousands of their Tube MP's despite the fact that many people with extensive technical backgrounds and years of recording experience have determined that the tube itself plays a minor role in the Tube MP's amplification circuit and it does not sound particularly "warm." People buy it knowing there's a magical "tube" inside and it will make their recordings "warm." They use it and are convinced that their vocals/bass/synth/whatever sounds "warm" through the Tube MP, but what do they have to compare it to and do they even know what "warm" is? Somehow I doubt it. I tend to think that a similar phenomenon occurs with microphones. People buy a Rode NT1 as their first LD condensor, they then recommended it to others, saying it sounds "warm." Do they know whether it's "warm" compared to other LD condensors? I'm not sure they do. I know I wouldn't.

I know there are a lot of really knowledgeable and experienced people here who could probably write a book about this topic. I would really appreciate an explanation of "warmth" for the benefit of myself and my fellow newbies. I would like to know:

1. What "warmth" is
2. What it sounds like
3. Why it is so desirable
4. What results in a "warm" sound from a microphone
5. What results in a "warm" sound in other gear
6. How can "warmth" be added to a recorded track

Also, if you're new to recording like myself, what clued you in that you were getting a "warm" sound? Was it an obvious audible difference or were you convinced less by your ears and more by marketing hype?

All insights are appreciated.
 
hey....don't forget "PHAT"..............make me puke!!!

I think having a learned ear for comparision is a valid point, as you mention...and I also agree the manufacturers have come a galloping to supply the new consumer/recordist appetite. Fisrts of all, I believe anyone is full of shit if they can hear these differences on a pair of <$500 nearfield monitors. I think the difference are tooooo subtle to appreciate the difference in MOST home bedroom setups. Monitor in a "big boy" environment, you'll hear the differences. "Warm occurs when the fundemental overtone (like the root note) is augmented by "distortion"...like tape saturation....with beneficial overtones that help "boost" things in a "humanly kind way." There is plenty more on this, but that is my main statement on it.
 
I don't know if I agree with ya mixmkr.......

When I think of the term "warm" I think of a rounded, full, smooth sounding sound.

Heres an example between a "cold" and "warm" tone in instrument terms
IE: the difference between someone who's been playin the violin for 6 months and someone whos been playing for 15 years

the person whos been playing for 6 months won't have very good tone production, the sound will be there but it won't sound as pleasent to the ear as the persons tone whos been playing for 15 years........

See what I'm getting at????

And U can hear the difference of "warm" and "cold" on a decent set of monitors that cost around $500. I can hear the difference when I DI a bass through my Presonus Bluetube and when I pull it through my Mackie's pre's......... big difference, the Bluetube is more rounded, full and "warm", while the Mackie sounds a little harsher and just lacks that full sound.....

And why do U want a "warm" sound, a warm sound is just easier to listen to....... itz hard to explain =)
if givin a good A/B comparison it would be a lot easier to understand

Thats just my opinion though....... hope that helps

Sabith
 
mixmkr is right about distortion making things sound "warm". For whatever reason subtle, or not so subtle distortion is often pleasing to the ear. Tube preamps and tube microphones have their place in recording, it just depends on the type of sound you're after. I use a couple of the ART products, the Pro VLA compressor and the Tube Channel. I like them a whole lot. They do have a different sound than my solid state preamp and VCA compressor. Would I call it warm ? Yes, kind of.

I love to layer synthesizers together to create a more full, rich sound. You might even call it warm sometimes. The problem is that it's hard to describe sounds.

I see it like this. There are a hundred different ways to create sounds that have character. Tube pres, tube amps, and tube mics are just a few. Music is an art, and the more colors you have at your disposal the more interesting and vivid your art can become. A well equipted studio should probably have some tubes in there somewhere. Unless you are recording classical music where you just want a pure, uncolored sound.
 
The way I think of 'warmth' is like this; have you ever seen a 'soft focus' photograph? It's kinda blurry, but for some reason it looks dreamy or pleasant. The same with film and video, video give a crisper image but film looks better. Tube warmth is the audio equivalent of the above visual examples (IMHO).
 
Dolemite,

might not have an answer for you, but your questions sure are interesting.

the fact that you can't see actual sound waves makes it hard for people to find audio specific adjectives to describe what they hear or what something sounds like. people end up borrowing from other vocabularies such as temperature, food, feelings, weather or whatever the listner/reader might have had a first hand experience with (this is probably no news for you, but anyway). what i think is really interesting about this is when you think of that tubes acutally get warm, produce a sense of warmth with their glow, they are round etc, and then think about the violinist Sabith mentioned. what did they call that guy's sound back in year 1807 trying out for the beethoven gig coming up in two weeks. 'hey, dude you've got a really warm tone, just like that torch over by the door." or "wow! you sound like me stove!".

(DavidK, if you read this, i'd really be intrested in your thoughts.)

i agree, descriptions of sound are more than often extremely lame. just look at what music journalist write today. if it isn't overused entries from a thesaurus, it's standard name dropping.

though, however pathetic it might be to call a sound warm, fat, punchy, sweet, hard, soft, hot, cold, light, heavy and so on, it still is a vocabulary that, once you understand it, is used to make references to different kinds of sound. to learn what specific terms mean or stand for, is probably much like learning a new language. you study, memorize, practice, remember, use, refer to. some people might do it in a slightly different order, but the basics are still pretty much the same.

gotta go eat,

cheers,
micmac
 
Thanks for the replies, guys!

Hehe, "Phat," I forgot that one - used most often in reference to synths, which brings up another huge buzzword: analog.

Anyway, yeah, I kinda know what warmth is (at least I think I can distinguish warm vs. cold). I do think that if I had to describe the sound characterisitcs of a mic or mic preamp or related gear, I would struggle with the terminology.

I have heard about how tubes, when implemented correctly in a gain circuit, can generate "even-order harmonics" which is a kind of ear-pleasing distortion. All of that makes sense to me. I just think that people, especially those just getting into recording like myself, could be easily misled by all of the hype and think that every piece of gear they buy has to have this magical "tube" in it or else their recordings will sound "cold" and "digital."

Personally, I think there are two main problems here:

1. Recording gear marketing would have you believe that tubes are necessary to get a warm sound and only warm sounds are good.

2. People who have less recording experience may not have heard enough of a range of different sounding gear to be able to provide an accurate description of the sound they get from their gear relative to other gear. Furthermore, they might not have a command of studio vocabulary, as micmac suggests. As a result, if something sounds good to these people and/or their gear has a "tube" in it, they describe the sound as "warm."

In response to this, first of all you have to take a skeptical approach to a manufacturer's claims about a product. Secondly, you need a command of the language used to describe sounds, both in the ability to understand others and to verbalize what you hear. Since I'm already a skeptical bastard, I need to work on my sound vocab by listening to lots of different mics, preamps, etc. and figure out which sound corresponds to which word. Its not too hard to imagine what punchy, harsh, sweet, mellow, light, etc. sounds like but I think the trick is in picking out the subtleties in a recording. I read a thread about a recent mic comparison where someone commented how similar all the mics sounded. I would imagine this is the case for most related gear. I've been going through the Mixing Clinic forum and paying close attention to the gear being used to try to identify the effect the gear (especially mic/micpre) has on the sound. This is pretty difficult, since there are so many other variables that affect the sound of a final mix, but I've definitely learned a few things.
 
I grew up with valve mikes like the U67 and when the first transistor mike the U77 came out we jumped up and down saying "listen to the top end on that mike!!" Slowly we replaced all the valve mikes and their cumbersome power supplies with the new transistor phantom powered mikes. You must understand that in that era late 60's tape machines and consoles were pretty noisy, a tape machine was lucky to give you more than 58 - 60db signal to noise so if you didn't have to EQ the tops you could get better noise figures.

When 16/44.1 digital came in the top end was a worry as it sounded hard and harsh but we loved the convenience. Soon everyone had discovered that if you recorded through a valve mike with it's smoother top end the digital sounded smoother or WARMER

We were testing a pure valve pre recently (i.e. no transistors, feedbacks, transformers etc in the circuit) we noticed that valves all sound different (hence the post I made in the Cave ) but to be perfectly honest the DA7 pres sounded as warm as all of them but one, the 12AX7ws which was round and smooth yet still had a nice clean top end.

Personally I think it is all overrated, some of the best recordings come from that era when we had thrown our valves away. I remember going to a TV studio where the audience mikes were their old valve mikes, about 10 U47s!!!


my 2cents worth.
cheers
john
 
Although I am a fan of tubes but I thought I'd post some negetive things about tubes in the spirit of this thread.

* Tubes need high voltage to work well
* They have a tendecy to break
* They need Transformers -causing then to be more
expensive - heavy - bulky
* In the long run of time, they tend to degrade
* They heat up which might cause them to be less
reliable ( and add heat to the room )
* There electornic system tends not to be symetrical as
well as transitors
* Some of them sound real good only after they are
turned on for a couple of hours ( who has the time ?)
 
John,

So I guess its just a matter of time before valve technology makes a big comeback! I can't wait ;)

Shailat,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking tubes. From what little I know, I'd say when implemented properly they can be very useful. I'd just say that when their main purpose is to sell units rather than shape/color the sound, they can't be doing much.


BTW, check out this article I just ran across at prorec.com:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/09DD76C854FA066186256616001150F6

Apparently we're not the only ones to notice the tube phenomenon. Those tube simulators plug-ins look interesting. Anybody used one of these before?
 
I've used all of those plugs @ one point or another. Magneto is good, but eats a hell of a lot of CPU. If I were going to use it, I'd use it on a final mix only. I don't use Tube Warmth from 3rd ear or Gadget Labs' Wavewarm at all anymore. I have a few tube mic impulses with my Acoustic Mirror plugin that sound better. YMMV.
 
What about "antares microphone modeller"?

Could a person theoretically get a cheap mic, with a good dynamic range, and just use the modeller to get a "warm" sound of sorts? Is it really necessary to buy a tube just for warmth?
 
Some more technical views on it:

Difference between analog and digital (as for synths...):
Analog is NOT perfect. These imperfections will cause the tone to be spread over a bigger freq spectrum, which is what we call a 'fuller' tone... Digital uses more precise techiques, and will have less imperfections. This really IS a fact, and modern digital modelling synths are even trying to get these imperfections modelled, so they can sound as 'phat' :D too.

Difference between tubes and transistors: this is my explanation for guitar amps, but I guess it could apply here too... The difference occurs when overdriving the amp stages: tubes will, when overdriven, slightly round the waveform. Near the point where they are overdriven, their amplification will decrease more gradually.
Transistor amps will break the waveform more abruptly, thus adding more high frequencies. Near saturation (point at which they will overdrive), their amplification will decrease faster. So the difference lies in the frequencies the amp stage adds. Transistor stages will add more higher frequencies, and generally sound more crispy and clear, tubes will add less high freq, and sound fuller and warm.

The imperfections off analog also sortof apply to tubes. Transistors can be made very precise, and will have less imperfections than tubes...

Now translate all this to the frequency domain, and you'll have a nice 'definition' of warmth and full sounds. :)

And tubes do indeed wear out. Part of the way they are...
 
OK, I'll bite:

The term warm, to me, is VERY subjective. It is a very person preference statement. What one hears and percieves as "warm", someone else may not. Much like the term "Pretty". You defination, and perception of pretty may be different than mine. But, if I said, "I think she's pretty", you may or may not agree, but in general, you'd know what I meant.

I have a post in the "Recording Techniques" thread on this forum titled "Please listen, and try to help".

I included some recorded samples of a piano. The files are called piano1.mp3 and piano2.mp3.

If you get a chance, D/L both files. Listen to piano1.mp3
it is not so "Warm".

Then listen to piano2.mp3, to me, its warm.

-Post Script: The iintent of the post in the other thread wasn't to demonstratte the differences between warm and not warm, but i think its a good comparison.

-CHEERS!-
 
There was a guy in my Harmony and Ear Training class in college who insisted on discussing musical timbre (tone) in terms of colors,and I have since met a few more guys who do exactly the same thing.
"Warm" can be a convention if a group of folks use the term with a definate meaning.But its not really so cut and dried.In one sense,I've heard guys talk about adding warmth with an EQ in the 100 cycle range.Another use is how tubes compress the signal and emphasize even-order harmonics to give warmth.Also how experienced musicians produce such a warmer tone than tyros.
Might as well try to explain "feel" and why it is more important than technique to a newby.

Tom
 
Tekker said:
While we're on the subject, heres an article on pretty much everything you ever wanted to know about tubes, how they work, how to use them, ect....
http://www.svetlana.com/docs/tubeworks.html
Click to expand...

Great page. This startled me though:
"By comparison, today's transistor makes use of electric fields in a crystal which has been specially processed--a much less obvious kind of amplifier, though much more important in today's world."

"Much less obvious"!?! I find Transistors more MORE obvious than the complex and semi-magic of tubes! :)
 
Tom Hicks said:
There was a guy in my Harmony and Ear Training class in college who insisted on discussing musical timbre (tone) in terms of colors,and I have since met a few more guys who do exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

if you ask people with "perfect pitch", they'll often tell you they see different muscial tones as different colors or sometimes different shades of a few colors. on a kind of similar note, i once met a guy who is just awsome with numbers. he'll do (almost) anything you throw at him more or less instantly without any help and he said he sees numbers, starting at 0, lined up after each other on a line, and at some points the line curves left or right. like at 40 it slightly curved to the left and at 80 a sharper right. reminded me of a road map sort of. there was more to it, and it just blew me away.

micmac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top