Catching that "warmth"

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoe1
  • Start date Start date
Most of the terms apply to the mids in relation to everything else. A track that is lacking mids and lows will sound 'thin'. A track that has more mids then highs will sound "warm". A track that has more low mids then everything will sound "muddy".

The problem is that a few marketing guys jumped on the warmth bandwagon and now everything that sounds good is described as being warm and all gear is marketed towards giving you warmth.

It was largely a backlash to digital recording when it first came out because the highs had a lot of distortion and were described as being brittle or harsh. Tape and tubes have a natural way of smoothing out the high end with their own compression and saturation and that was consided warm in comparison to digital and solid state.

Good digital gear can now sound great and it's not as big of an issue as it was in the late 80's/early 90's but the marketing guys keep pushing the concept of warmth.

Instead of saying you want warmth you should say you want something that doesn't boost the high end too much.
 
OR.....since everybody knows exactly what you're talking about when you say "warmth", "warm"..... you could just say "warmth" or "warm" and not worry about the fact that someone doesn't like the term. I doubt the "descriptive term police" have arrest authority around here. We all know what you're talking about when you say warm. It's as valid a description as "thin" or "brittle." Dang neurotics. :D
 
You know, Steven, you might have a point. Maybe we've gotten to the point where there really is a commonly-accepted definition or description for the term "warm" that most of us do agree on.

But if there was, I think I would have noticed it by now. I mean who else gets out on these boards as much as me? :D I guess that may/may not be something to be proud of.

Perfect example: TexasRoadkill is someone whom I consider to be one of the more knowlegable people on this board. And he seems to be getting more and more advanced the more posts of his I read. Yet his description of warm is quite a bit different from mine.

Tex makes a very good observation in that oftentimes warm has to do with the tonal balance. However, I have to disagree with a lot of his statements:

Tex: "A track that is lacking mids and lows will sound 'thin.' "

Chess: True, but only in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. Tamborines can sound warm, and they have almost no mids or lows.

Tex: A track that has more mids then highs will sound "warm."

Chess: Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. Mids tend to sound "honkey" and oftentimes "thin." Midrangy vocalists, for example, sound nasal and irritating. Boost the mids enough on a given track, and it will sound like it's coming from a transistor radio or a Pignose amplifier.

Most people don't consider that effect to be very "warm." It can be cool, mind you, but definitely not warm in a lot of people's books.

Tex: A track that has more low mids then everything will sound "muddy."

Chess: Or "warm," depending on what kind of other harmonics it's generating, and how it interacts with the rest of the tracks in the mix.

And there's yet another definition I have for warmth that a lot of you are looking right over. Think of the words "natural," and "organic." To some people, myself included, something that sounds realistic, or that creates the illusion of "being right there" in the same room as the instrument gives me the feeling of "warmth." To this camp, it's the organic, natural dead-on accuracy that creates that effect.

Ironically enough, this particular experience of warmth runs very counter to what a lot of other people think of as "warm." To these people, it's the inherent inaccuracies and anomolies created by added harmonics from tubes and/or tape saturation. And even under these conditions, no one really knows which harmonics are the "warm" ones. Is it the even-order, as most will tell you, or is it the odd? Or some combination of both? A lot depends on which designer you're talking to, and even what part of the world you come from, according to some theorists.

I really don't know who's definition is right. There are no audio dictionaries that I can think of that can give a definitive, agreed-upon definition. So until that time, I'm going to need some more specific information about someone's situation before I can relate to their questions pertaining to the word "warm." And I'm sorry, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I like the term. :D In fact, I rather like the word "warm." Granted, I'd like it even more if it actually meant something, but it's a rather lovely term that sounds good when you say it.

Try this with me. Say "warm" like 100 times warmwarmwarmwarmwarmwarmwarmwarmwarmwarm

Kinda' sounds primitive after a while, doesn't it? :D
 
Last edited:
Personally, before I go to those lengths to worry about the definition of the word "warm", I'm just gonna tell these people to go get a tube "something." That satisfies most of them anyway and keeps me from having to think too much about things that are, in the grand scheme of things, worth very little effort. :D
 
StevenLindsey said:
Personally, before I go to those lengths to worry about the definition of the word "warm", I'm just gonna tell these people to go get a tube "something." That satisfies most of them anyway and keeps me from having to think too much about things that are, in the grand scheme of things, worth very little effort. :D
Click to expand...

Therein lies the crux of the problem, lol. Personally I find that most toob gear just sounds thin or muddy.

On a recent project that I tracked we had it mixed by a fairly big name ME. I think his mixes sound a bit dull especially in comparison to some stuff on the album that was tracked/mixed at another studio. The high end was in the tracks but he prefers a 'warmer' more tape-like sound and that is what he went for. One man's warmth can be another man's dull.

Chess - I agree with you but when I talk about the mids in relation to the other bands I am talking about subtle differences. A lot of mids would definately sound 'honky'.
 
I'm still trying to determine the definition of the word "is." Think I'll call Bill and get his views on this since he's had some time to ponder it.

By the way Tex.......tongue in cheek.
 
I just think that we're in such a subjective area that there are always going to be arguments.

I use the term warm but I mean it to sound smooth and natural. And thin.... and muddy.... and harsh....

It's still art. There will never be the pure mathematical way around. If there were then there would be no discussion here. Everythings would have a flat frequency response with no color and we would do everything by the numbers.

I totally ride the fence on these issues. If there weren't the unknown arty, metaphorical side then why would everyone be hesitant about giving recommendations on settings? It's because there's always going to be a little voodoo when humans are involved in a subjective area.
 
QUOTE> Alright dudettes, maybe its not WARMNESS, but the tone of tubeness is definately different, regardless what dipshits and assholes on the internet want to name it.
----------------------

Apparently, the term "warmth" has even more meanings that I thought it did...

I've always interpreted "warmth" as having to do with the harmonics which are generated due to the degradation of the signal as it passes through preamplifiers (or any equipment)... I probably got that idea long ago... since the term "warmth" is almost always associated in idiot terminology in the audio magazines when referring to amplifiers...

Now, I read this thread... and I see people refer to "warmth" as the range of frequencies which are cut or boost with an EQ.

Well.... whatever... Its a BS* term anyway.... I'm no more right than anyone else when it comes to vague BS8 terms...

...but when people start referring to EQ'ing as adding warmth... well then all these audio magazines just need to be burned to the ground... because their writers have just gone out of control misleading people with increasinly vague terminology which seems to get worse year after year.

Audio magazines have become "dumed down" the same as computer magazines... they cater to too many people with no electrical engineering background, and so they have to insert vague and mystical terminology (dumbed-down words) in place of very specific electrical engineering and physics (acoustics) terminology which would really just solve the whole problem to begin with if these writers would just use the proper terminology.

.... I mean, whats next... do we start referring to reverberation as "warmth"? Theres no end to this vague madness. Lets just stick to the old, tried and true definition of warmth.... which is (IMHO) harmonics which are added due to a signals waveform being distorted as it passes through some piece of electronic equipment.
 
Last edited:
Industrial said:
Lets just stick to the old, tried and true definition of warmth.... which is (IMHO) harmonics which are added due to a signals waveform being distorted as it passes through some piece of electronic equipment.
Click to expand...

What kind of harmonics, though, and how much is the perceived "warmth" attributable to these harmonics? Really.

Oftentimes we like the effect because it covers some of the deficiencies we might have elsewhere in our signal chain. Like suppose you're using a mic that just has too immediate of a sound to it, or has some of that high end goop that's pretty common these days to the typical Chinese condenser?

What I'm saying is that if you use gear that doesn't have these odd peaks, or just naturally produced a pleasing sound, then there would be no need to cover anything up or to smoothen out. To the average person, and to many of us even, that might come off as being "warm" . . . no added harmonics necessary.

You'e also dismissing the possiblility that the instrument itself might produce a lot of natural harmonics on it's own, and without having to pass through anything in order to sound full and harmonic-rich. Some people might mistake that as "warmth." Or someone who just naturally has a soothing voice, you could swear it was going through the best tube gear.

So to me, warmth can come in many shape or forms. Too many, to where I don't think it would be either necessary or productive to come to agreement on a definition.

Maybe people can just start saying stuff like . . .

"I was wondering if you could help me. I'm trying to get more warmth in my tracks. Let me explain myself further and give you some background: To me warmth means _____ and it has to do with _____ and some examples of what I consider to be warm are the lead vocal on _____ , or on track #6 or _____ ."

. . . and so on and so forth. Maybe in a perfect world.
 
Warmth debate

I have found that one of the biggest culprits in that dull sound that we all agree we hate is the microphone preamp. I have recorded hundreds of guitars with a Shure 57 mic. Assuming it is not broken they are great mics. Try to get them near the edge of the amp speaker pointing in slightly towards the center. (For more detail check our website) First you should eliminate any outside sources of hum like computer monitors and the like though. Then what I do is turn the amp down low and put my ear close to it. If that sounds good then the distortion must be in your recording chain. (ie the preamp cables and sound card if used.) Try a Avalon 2022 Preamp and some high quality cables if you can afford it. Use a little EQ if you need it. You never said whether you record to tape, DAW, computer, etc. Some people refer to warmth as the tape hiss so maybe try a high quality tape recorder also. You might also try a large diaphram mic if you dont play too loud. My bet would be your preamp. Try a new one and I bet the SM57 will sound great. Hope this helps. David Lazarus www.silver-dragon-records.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top