Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

Blizzard · Dec 26, 2015

There's a lot of variables that contribute to "Analogue Warmth". This article does a great job of explaining what exactly causes the warm sound profile so many audiophiles love:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

Al M. · Dec 26, 2015

Blizzard said:
There's a lot of variables that contribute to "Analogue Warmth". This article does a great job of explaining what exactly causes the warm sound profile so many audiophiles love:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

Good article, but my experiences with analog vs. digital tend to go into a somewhat different direction.

While I am a digital-only guy, I still think that the best analog playback on vinyl sounds better than almost all the digital that I have heard, including mine (I'll come to the possible exception later). While early digital indeed could sound 'cold', and lesser analog in many cases may have 'warmth' that tilts the tonal spectrum beyond neutrality of sound, the differences between the best analog and most current digital lie elsewhere.

The main difference is not 'warmth', but timbral richness, a combination of tonal density and timbral resolution. Here the best analog wins. The tonal density provides a kind of fullness of sound that simply comes closer to the sound of the real thing (unamplified live music; with amplified music all bets are off as to how it 'should' sound). Interestingly, that tonal density is also heard in neutral or even somewhat 'cold' sounding live acoustics, as it is in top-level playback of vinyl recordings with the same tonal qualities. It thus has little to do with 'warmth'.

A second difference is transparency and openness of sound, something that would actually run counter to 'warmth' as well. Also here the best analog is superior to almost all the digital I have heard.

The exception that I have experienced is the full four-box dCS Vivaldi digital stack (transport/DAC/clock/upsampler). It comes close in tonal density and timbral resolution, as well as transparency of sound, to the best vinyl playback I have heard (I haven't heard it in the same system, where it might actually equal the vinyl, I don't know). Again, the difference between this top-level digital playback and lesser playback is not 'warmth' but it lies in the qualities mentioned. In fact, you could easily engineer digital gear to be 'warmer' sounding that this neutral sounding, all solid-state, Vivaldi stack. But you can't fake your way into achieving the qualities that I described.

the sound of Tao · Dec 26, 2015

Great observation Al ^^^
While digital can do tonality it is a hard fought battle for the digi 1s and 0s.

This is a lot like what I believe is the fundamentally mistaken belief that people might choose tubes primarily for distorted warmth and the colouration or bloom while I've always felt that it was actually more the tube strength in resolving timbre and an easy, more accurate natural tonality that made valves in fact so desirable.

Audiophile Bill · Dec 26, 2015

Al M. said:
Good article, but my experiences with analog vs. digital tend to go into a somewhat different direction.

While I am a digital-only guy, I still think that the best analog playback on vinyl sounds better than almost all the digital that I have heard, including mine (I'll come to the possible exception later). While early digital indeed could sound 'cold', and lesser analog in many cases may have 'warmth' that tilts the tonal spectrum beyond neutrality of sound, the differences between the best analog and most current digital lie elsewhere.

The main difference is not 'warmth', but timbral richness, a combination of tonal density and timbral resolution. Here the best analog wins. The tonal density provides a kind of fullness of sound that simply comes closer to the sound of the real thing (unamplified live music; with amplified music all bets are off as to how it 'should' sound). Interestingly, that tonal density is also heard in neutral or even somewhat 'cold' sounding live acoustics, as it is in top-level playback of vinyl recordings with the same tonal qualities. It thus has little to do with 'warmth'.

A second difference is transparency and openness of sound, something that would actually run counter to 'warmth' as well. Also here the best analog is superior to almost all the digital I have heard.

The exception that I have experienced is the full four-box dCS Vivaldi digital stack (transport/DAC/clock/upsampler). It comes close in tonal density and timbral resolution, as well as transparency of sound, to the best vinyl playback I have heard (I haven't heard it in the same system, where it might actually equal the vinyl, I don't know). Again, the difference between this top-level digital playback and lesser playback is not 'warmth' but it lies in the qualities mentioned. In fact, you could easily engineer digital gear to be 'warmer' sounding that this neutral sounding, all solid-state, Vivaldi stack. But you can't fake your way into achieving the qualities that I described.

Hi Al,

Fantastic post there. I absolutely agree with your comments on timbral richness and tonal density. I also agree that on the analogue neutral or cold recordings, this trait still abides. I personally haven't found the same success with the Vivaldi stack however but I admit that I have only heard it at shows albeit numerous times with a range of speakers and electronics. The only DAC that I heard that starts to replicate that tonal density is the GG in my experience.

bonzo75 · Dec 26, 2015

GG will be better than vivaldi in all systems. Vinyl will be better than both. Sorry to sound absolutist. The density of brass and the tone of violins can't be equalled on digital. Maybe very good master files can come close, but there will be few of them. The liquidity of vinyl will also be greater. Just heard a vivaldi stack with Dan agostino pre and momentum, transparent opus cabling, on Wilson Alexandria x2s2. It was much superior to a Rockport avior I heard on crap digital. However that avior system, once the spj alba with koetsu coral stone was plugged in, did things to me this vivaldi Alexandria system could not achieve ten percent of. I am off on Monday to look at a kuzma xl4 with 4 point tonearm.

Ron Resnick · Dec 26, 2015

This is a very astute and very clearly written observation, Al. I agree that the more important difference is timbral richness. Thank you for making this important point.

Detlof · Dec 26, 2015

Let me join you gentlemen here in your agreement with Al.s point. From a violin for example you can evoke icy shrillness and smooth comforting warmth as well as practically any hue inbetween. As system described as "warm" for me has always been synonymous with coloured. The old Jadis preamps come to mind here. Very seductive but simply wrong. Timbral richness, broken up into density and resolution of sound seems a much better term to judge a system with, because both of those factors can be used to describe a system that does justice to the music, which at times expresses " warmth " and then again less so, as intended by the performers. Warmth is much too narrow a term to my mind, even "icy shrillness " must be " timbraly rich " to come across right.
Thank you Al, I think you have added something important to the language we converse in and which we use to describe what we hear. An fff in a score must perforce come across rich to sound right, but also a ppp, decaying slowly away must have density and resolution, otherwise it will simply sound washed out.

Purite Audio · Dec 26, 2015

It is an interesting article but have any of you actually read it?
Keith.

microstrip · Dec 26, 2015

bonzo75 said:
GG will be better than vivaldi in all systems. Vinyl will be better than both. Sorry to sound absolutist. The density of brass and the tone of violins can't be equalled on digital. Maybe very good master files can come close, but there will be few of them. The liquidity of vinyl will also be greater. Just heard a vivaldi stack with Dan agostino pre and momentum, transparent opus cabling, on Wilson Alexandria x2s2. It was much superior to a Rockport avior I heard on crap digital. However that avior system, once the spj alba with koetsu coral stone was plugged in, did things to me this vivaldi Alexandria system could not achieve ten percent of. I am off on Monday to look at a kuzma xl4 with 4 point tonearm.

It would be great to have a few more details on your challenging post. What was the system behind the Avior's? What were the recordings you listened in both systems?

A few times I went through similar experiences - we were listening to a great and enjoyable system listening through digital. Then the owner moved to a good vinyl recording. And yes, to my great regret, the vinyl could do things the digital could not even dream. In all fairness some aspects were better in digital than vinyl. But for music such jazz or chamber music the vinyl won by a large margin. And yes, my 2016 high-end decisions will be listening to the GG and Lamm's in my system - the Vivaldi is out of my reach ...

Detlof · Dec 26, 2015

Purite Audio said:
It is an interesting article but have any of you actually read it?
Keith.

Merry X-mas Keith! What makes you think that we didn't? I did in fact, but I only chimed in here, because I dislike the term "analogue warmth" , because in a certain sense, though not so in this article, this term subtly discredits analogue and especially valves as coloured and digital not.
Cheers,
Detlof

microstrip · Dec 26, 2015

Purite Audio said:
It is an interesting article but have any of you actually read it?
Keith.

Yes, it was even debated in WBF before. It deals mainly with recording techniques to add warmth in recordings during the recording and mastering phase. However the second comment of the OP drove the debate in a different direction. But he is right - most audiophiles want systems that preserve the good thinks sound engineers encode in the recordings!

Purite Audio · Dec 26, 2015

Detlof said:
Merry X-mas Keith! What makes you think that we didn't? I did in fact, but I only chimed in here, because I dislike the term "analogue warmth" , because in a certain sense, though not so in this article, this term subtly discredits analogue and especially valves as coloured and digital not.
Cheers,
Detlof

Merry Christmas to you too!
Well the article is about recording and mastering and the creation of music not its reproduction!
I enjoy vinyl, and am always amazed how good it sounds despite its technical deficiencies , wow,flutter, bearing and motor noise,
tracking,tracing and intermodulationdistirtion distortion, limited dynamic range, susceptability to structural and airborne vibration
what else
I have forgotten, tonearm and cartridge compliance I am sure you can add to the list.
Keith.

FrantzM · Dec 26, 2015

Happy Holidays to you all...

I have been an audiophile for most of my life. I started earlier than most people: Around 8 years old when I started paying attention , thanks to my dad, to the differences between components and how better reproduction takes us closer to the music. I am however lost in the current jargon and apologize to those who have taken the immense challenge to explain what they perceive. Allow me to say that , however I twist my mind, I can't fathom what "Timbral Density" or "Timbral Richness" mean... and in what ways digital is not able to provide all the goods. The better digital definitely sound different from analogue but they don't lack anything in the way they portray the musical event: They simply sound different and IMO better. I am willing to bet that even for those who staunchly favor analogue they will be unable to distinguish a properly digitalized LP from the original LP. I know that this won't change anybody's mind but many replies are pushing the idea that analogue is better than digital I think it is only fair for the other camp to voice an opinion.

Detlof · Dec 26, 2015

FrantzM said:
I am willing to bet that even for those who staunchly favor analogue they will be unable to distinguish a properly digitalized LP from the original LP. I know that this won't change anybody's mind but many replies are pushing the idea that analogue is better than digital I think it is only fair for the other camp to voice an opinion.

Hi Frantz, I am pretty sure that I woudn't. I don't favour any one of the two over the other. I use both extensively, sometimes preferring the one, sometimes the other. Please let us not get into that stulifying battle of what is "better", because neither are. Only REAL music is " better ". Speaking of which, I strongly feel, that those absolutist phases such as "best", "better", "the best" should be banned from these pages and replaced by something like "I personally prefer "! It think that would definitely be the best!

Detlof · Dec 26, 2015

Purite Audio said:
Merry Christmas to you too!
Well the article is about recording and mastering and the creation of music not its reproduction!
I enjoy vinyl, and am always amazed how good it sounds despite its technical deficiencies , wow,flutter, bearing and motor noise,
tracking,tracing and intermodulationdistirtion distortion, limited dynamic range, susceptability to structural and airborne vibration
what else
I have forgotten, tonearm and cartridge compliance I am sure you can add to the list.
Keith.

Keith, I know, but i-am not interested in the recording but in the reproduction process and in the way we describe what we hear and please note, that I belong to neither camp, only in the camp of music. I will therefore refrain from boring you and myself included in joining that worn out litany again of all the defects of "that perfect sound for ever".

Groucho · Dec 26, 2015

Detlof said:
Please let us not get into that stulifying battle of what is "better", because neither are. Only REAL music is " better ".

So cassettes, 8 track, 78s, wax cylinders are not inferior?

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 26, 2015

Pass the popcorn.

Tim

Purite Audio · Dec 26, 2015

Detlof said:
Keith, I know, but i-am not interested in the recording but in the reproduction process and in the way we describe what we hear and please note, that I belong to neither camp, only in the camp of music. I will therfore refrain from boring you and myself included in joining that worn out litany again of all the defects "that perfect sound for ever " will portay vis a vis the real thing.

D ultimately you have to listen to your system, so you must choose the type of sound you like, an artist/producer can use any distortion they like to create the music, but personally I want to hear that music as intended, therefore I choose to add as little distortion as possible of my own when I choose components to replay that performance.
Vb Keith.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 26, 2015

Groucho said:
So cassettes, 8 track, 78s, wax cylinders are not inferior?

Don't push this one. There are people here who will swear cassettes are "better" than digital.

Tim

bonzo75 · Dec 26, 2015

microstrip said:
It would be great to have a few more details on your challenging post. What was the system behind the Avior's? What were the recordings you listened in both systems?

A few times I went through similar experiences - we were listening to a great and enjoyable system listening through digital. Then the owner moved to a good vinyl recording. And yes, to my great regret, the vinyl could do things the digital could not even dream. In all fairness some aspects were better in digital than vinyl. But for music such jazz or chamber music the vinyl won by a large margin. And yes, my 2016 high-end decisions will be listening to the GG and Lamm's in my system - the Vivaldi is out of my reach ...

The aviors were driven by a spectral system (dma 400) and MIT cables. The room was pretty small and not really a good room. The digital was acoustiplan, nothing high end.

By way of background, I was extremely resistant to vinyl, probably because sub consciously I wanted to keep myself away from such a ridiculous expense. However last year, I heard Marty's goldmund studio (which has a ridiculously low used price) wallop his emm labs going through an ADA conversion. Then this year, both Bill and I noticed that every single room in Munich sounded better on analog by a wide margin. The 15k Euro Thomas Schick was KO ing the Scarletti in the western electric room on every track. Then I heard a 2k TT, diy, on the WE 16a provide amazing tone and soundstage.

Granted, some TTs do nothing for me. But when they do, the soundstage, realism, liquidity, tone, especially brass and violins, make me overcome with an emotion that digital just cannot. Listening to live violins once a week has probably made me a stronger vinyl lover.

I have replaced a vivaldi with an oppo in a relatively high end system (top of the line radiho with soluution and Odin), and though I lost out on details, what I lost wasn't musically significant. All of the other digital sounds the same to me as the differences I hear are not musically significant to me

You will be fine with GG, or even with Big 7. It is a separate category that sits between digital and vinyl. Because of the DHT high level NOS tubes, once you like it, just like with vinyl, it is tough to like otherdigital. Obviously all statements made by me are imo.

Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

Banned

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Member Sponsor

banned

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

banned

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

banned

New Member

Member Sponsor

Similar threads