The fine line between "Warmness" and "Openess"

[A1A2]

I have a joemeek unit, and I've been using it very carefully. It does give a track some "warmness", if my understanding of that term is correct, however, I feel the "openess" is being compromised.

Often, people would say, "this mic/pre gives that openese" and sometimes they say this and that gives a warmness. Can these 2 characteristics go together? From my observation, openese is when there is some nice sparkle in the highs, and warmness is kinda like a little boost in high mids, fuller sound; therefore, makes the sparkle highs less audioable.

Is my understanding correct? I like the so called "warm" tone meeks create, at the same time, I feel the nice sparkle is being compromised. So I often have hard time making decisions in this area.

Any opinions?

Al

 

[Richard Monroe]

I think you've basically got it. All pres and mics represent compromises between color (warmth) and clean (transparency). That's why there's no perfect mic, and no perfect pre. I use Joemeek and an Avalon, B.L.U.E. Kiwi and Rode NTK, mostly. By mixing and matching those components, I get a wide range of recorded sound. You never know what will sound good on a specific source, and it's a matter of opinion about what "sounds good" really is.-Richie

 

[Tonio]

A1,
ya know I was just thinking about those terms also. Thanks to you and Richie confirming tha warmness means more on high mids, and killing the highs.

Not to add, but what would splatter mean? some kinda artifact in the HF? Are tube (not toob) supposed to do that in the utilization of 2nd harmonics?

Tony

 

[mallcore pop]

You got the idea, and usually the two are inversely proportional. Up the warmth (smeared attack/transient, compressy sound) and you lose the air. Luckily, a mix will be a combo of both elements, you just gotta make 'em fit.

MP

 

[chessrock]

I tend to think of warmth more in terms of texture, accuracy, and transient response.

Frequency response has little to do with it.

Imagine two photographs: One is crystal clear, sharp, perfectly in focus, etc. That's a sharp, accurate photo.

Now picture photo number two: It's slightly blurred, fuzzy, somewhat less accurate but in an artistic sort of way. It's somehow softer and more pleasing to the eye with an almost airbrushed sort of quality.


The brightness and color contrasting of each photo can be very similar, but somehow the warm texture of photo #2 makes the brightness and sharp contrasts in the photo somehow easier on the eye simply do to the way they are presented.

I believe there's a word they use somewhere out East that is applied a lot to Sushi. To them, the texture of the food, and how it feels on your tongue and throat is more important than it's flavor. Jaleno Pepper sauce and butter have very different flavors, but if you put them over noodles, the texture will still be soft and warm.

 

[A1A2]

Chess,

I aggree with your use of "texture" to describe warmth, but "accuracy" seems the oppisute of what I understand. People always say tapes are more forgiving, so, wouldn't that be less accurate then?

Anyway, so, do you agree that air and warmth can't go together without compromising one or another? I'm asking this is because I don't know how much meek compression is enough. I compared the current project I'm working on to Great Gig In the Sky, and noticed that the vocal I've got is alot brighter (air?) but colder compare to the ladies in Great Gig.

Al

 

[chessrock]

I always thought the meek kind of helped out the texture somewhat, depending on how it's used, and what it's used with. There's a certain human element (non-linearity) to the way it works. But it's an effect more than anything. Works about half the time . . . sucks the other half. But there's nothing at all warm about that 2017 preamp chip it's got in there.

I know it's kind of clice' but it sounds like you'd get in to the sound of some good tube gear. A Rode NTK Tube mic, for example, is very warm, but it's also very open. Probably a little too open, but I know what you're saying.

I just think that the whole less-open thing is an auditory illusion. I think our ears perceive it as being less open because we're hearing slightly less accuracy and therefore detail, and we normally associate detail with the higher frequencies. For the most part, I think you're right though. I'm just babbling right now.

 

[A1A2]

thanks for sharing your take on this subject. Yeah, it's a tricky one, I will probably just have to use a lot of reference CDs to figure when to add some and when is enough.

thanks Chess

ps: I'm sorry that my buddy ended up not going to your studio, I really thought he was gonna be there.

Al

 

[chessrock]

I forgot about that one.

No problem. I've been busy enough lately.

 

[donkeystyle]

chessrock's post made me think about movies and music videos today.

sorry for changing the subject, but it's really been bothering me.

u know how movies and videos have that weird harsh brightness to them now? it bugs the hell out of me and i think it's hard to watch them.

i think the whole louder is better thing is affecting more than just music.

sorry i just had to vent.