MajorFubar said:
To be fair, it may be so the OP can make sense of reviews/comments that regularly use such adjectives.
To be fair, it may be so the OP can make sense of reviews/comments that regularly use such adjectives.
Yeah I realize that, just saying put it in a bit of perspective and don't end up routinely treating all listening experiences as an analytical exercise. Listening to music is all about the holistic enjoyment.
CnoEvil said:As it gets late, I've the habbit of stating the obvious.
.....and my spelling goes out the window!
CnoEvil said:
Exactly!!!
I enjoy every moment of my listening experiences... it's just to read and get the meaning of what I am reading
nopiano said:acalex said:Any advise on the meaning of full body and warm sound which I read everywhere?!?
It is, as you perhaps could imagine, the opposite of thin and cold sound! Full bodied tends to mean weighty and rich-toned in the lower ranges, not just the deepest bass (imagine a heaviliy curtained room -v- an empty unfurnished one). Warm is similar, though might also mean rolled-off higher range, mellow. More cello than violin. Think cosy country club with log fires -v- modern glass and aluminium building with air con.
Any help?
PS. I probably exaggerated a bit to make the point. Often these things are quite subtle.
That's a great explanation! I love all these examples...really make the point much clearer, thanks as usual!
acalex said:nopiano said:acalex said:Any advise on the meaning of full body and warm sound which I read everywhere?!?
It is, as you perhaps could imagine, the opposite of thin and cold sound! Full bodied tends to mean weighty and rich-toned in the lower ranges, not just the deepest bass (imagine a heaviliy curtained room -v- an empty unfurnished one). Warm is similar, though might also mean rolled-off higher range, mellow. More cello than violin. Think cosy country club with log fires -v- modern glass and aluminium building with air con.
Any help?
PS. I probably exaggerated a bit to make the point. Often these things are quite subtle.
That's a great explanation! I love all these examples...really make the point much clearer, thanks as usual!
It may help to give practical examples, so imo:
Valve amps/CDPs from the likes of Pathos, Unison Research and Audio Note could be described as "rich and full bodied". Whereas brands like Cyrus would be seen as leaner and more clinical.
Different makes of speakers can also display such traits eg. Sonus Faber and Spendor would be on the warm and dark (opposide of bright) side; ATC and Focal would be on the leaner more clinical/neutral side. I find (for my taste) that ATC can sound a bit "dry", unless matched to Class A/Valves which offsets this. Also Focal can sound too bright and forward (opposide of smooth and laid back), unless carefully matched to something with the opposide characteristics.
I also believe these differences can even be heard in cables (shoot me now!) eg. Nordost (lean, fast and detailed) vs Cardas (richer mid-range and more musical).
Proper understanding of all this, and how it applies to different componants, is what allows good synergy to be achieved in a system.
Cno
nopiano said:
Are you talking about the dynamic range of the recording itself, or the dynamic range of the electronic equipment used to replay the recording, they are two different things.
MajorFubar said:
Which sums it up to a tee. Music is all about enjoyment and it can be enjoyed on all manner of equipment, in all manner of ways and in better and in more faithful fidelity that meets the vast majority of people's needs than ever before. Dissecting each piece detracts from the experience - been there, done that and it was ultimately a less than satisfying exercise in the end.
nopiano
Well-known member
scienceguys said:
Yes, but that is not really material in the context of the question. The DR of the gear is usually quite enough for anything you replay. This is more about the overall impression - the musical context, if you like - not whether the DR is 55 dB or 95 dB.
What's your take on it?
steve_1979
Well-known member
Dr Lodge said:
Agreed. Have you ever heard the live version of Big Love? The live recording isn't as good quality as the original album version but it has so much emotion and passion in it that it makes any system really shine. www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZZp76M4NGc
Dr Lodge said:
I've been laughed at several times (both on this forum and in real life) for commenting on the sound quality of Michael Jacksons music. I think that the quality is every bit as good as the very best classical or jazz recordings. Michael Jackson worked extremely hard at every stage of the production to make his music sound as perfect as possible and it really shows in the quality. From the initial performance to the recording, the mixing, the mastering and even to the reproduction of the LP's and CD's he was obsessive that it had to be perfect.
Dr Lodge said:
Some of the stuff he did in the 70's and 80's was quite good but his later music was rubbish (that's only my opinion of course).
nopiano said:
Yes the Dynamic range of modern electronic equipment is more that adeqaute to replay todays recordings. If the the term "dyanmic range" is used to decribe the recording then some music has a higher dynamic range than other recordings. This is determined when the music was mixed in the recording studio, the recording levels for the instruments, vocals, frequency adjustments etc. CD's have a maximum Dyanmic range of 96db however and this is fixed irriespecitve of the music recorded on it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram