accuracy..warm or bright

[AnalOg]

----------------

On 11/14/2003 7:59:19 AM maxg wrote:

My take:

Forget accurate, warm, bright, harsh, soft, etc

Does it sound right to you?

If it does then that is your sound - congratulations - now go listen to some music and enjoy....

That is what I now do. Friends tell me I dont have enough bass. I smile, nod, and carry on enjoying what I have.

Its your system - tweak it to suit.

----------------

I believe Max's statement is cause to end this thread.

Tom

[v3spitfire]

His was a good end. I'll amplify it by admitting that I sometimes use the treble and bass controls sometimes, and I no longer feel guilty doing so. There. I've admitted it.

[D-MAN]

Oh-oh. Semantics.

Ok, source material, quality of recording, etc. aside, I think that if you can hear it and put a name on it (bright or warm) it may be because it is sticking out to the listener and is therefore a "coloration".

I would guess that some tube gear is considered "warm" sounding because they may tend to smear the lower mids and bass, due to slower rise times at lower frequencies, etc. which rounds off the waveforms so it sounds like a slight softening. Too much warmth may lead to "fat" or boomy sound, not a good thing. I would guess that a "too-warm" sound would be too soft in the lower mids and low end to be regarded as accurately reproducing the waveform. However, I would say that slightly warm sounding may not be a bad thing. That's a matter of taste.

As for a "too-bright" sound, that would be the other end of the spectrum, the highs being accentuated and probably sounding a bit on the harsh side. Not a good thing either.

The adjectives that we want with our systems would be more along the lines of "sparkling", "natural", and "crisp"; just about what a softdrink advertisement would say...

DM

[Manuel Delaflor]

Only semantics indeed. The only (somehow facts) I can see are these:

1) Every system will sound different, the equipment + the room + the recordings one use are always different.

2) Because of 1, there is not such thing as an "accurate" system.

3) Recording techniques can't capture what is going on, the real thing, the musicians.

4) Reproducing technques are imperfect, even when the goal is to try to reproduce what was recorded, not the original event.

5) The only way to reproduce what was recorded is going to the studio and use the same room/equipments the engineer used.

6) There is not such a thing as "accuracy" per se (not with current recording and reproducing technologies)

[WMcD]

In my view, many recording are warm, bright, reverberant, or dry.

Much of that is the acoustics of the original setting. Then the recording engineer gets to do something about it. Plus there are sounds which are synthecized to be any of the above.

A friend here on the forum suggested Telac's sampler of Surround Sounds. Thanks, and it is very good, even with no surround.

Taken as a whole, these cover a broad spectrum of all of the above qualities. Each track is accurate in its own right. They are so divergent that I can't believe that any amp, wire, CD player, room, is going to change them.

I see on amazon that the CD is out of print but used copies are available, cheap. No matter what style of music you like, something close is in there. Let me suggest you buy a copy. It is a nice way of exploring mixes and music. Highly recommended.

Best,

Gil

[neo33]

"Neo, you're a trip."

I am the One, Dean-o .