I am with Ceno on this one (if I keep agreeing with him I might have to change my name to Erenoevil)For me, they are different.
The Sterephile Glossary is usually spot on imo.
FWIW. I think smooth is at the upper end of the spectrum and is the opposite to Harsh.
Warm is lower down in the spectrum and is the opposite of lean/cold.
These adjectives are the only means of describing what we hear to others. It should be possible for people with different tastes, still to describe the music in the same way....But...These descriptions can easily be be influenced by personal preference/perception.
The secret is finding people who give descriptions that match your own perception.
I really don't see your point at all here, with warm and smooth being no more subjective than any of the terms you chose to use yourself.No, we don't. What we need to describe is what we hear in the music. Can you hear the full texture and impact of the note? Can you hear the opening strike? Can you hear the decay? Is the tone correct? On one system I heard, it sounded like Paul Simonon had taken too much weed before he played on the Clash' 1st album. In reality, however, I know that his drug of choice was cocaine.
Subjective descriptions of sound - warm, smooth, detailed, cold, dark, thin etc, etc - are purely academic and mean different things to each of us. Tell me what it does to the music.
having only read your post and nothing moreI know that this is a very stupid question coming from someone who has been in the hobby for sometime now. But my experiences with 2 tube amps has really left me confused. So confused that I even don't know how to put it across
1. I've been through class D ( a devialet D-premier long time back which sounded detailed and powerful but lean)
2. Then i went to a class AB integrated amp ( a parasound halo integrated, which is class AB with a class A bias for the first 8W , this sounded mellow, but not sweet. I felt there was some treble roll of to avoid the bite in the treble, there by making it me )
3. Subsequently I switched for a pre+ power combination of a T+A preamp (P1260R ) and a vintage class A krell KSA100, both bought used. This combination sounded great with massive bass slam, enough details and a sweet treble. I was very happy with this combination. Thought I'd take the krelll to my grave. But the below modest tubed amp, just blew the krell away.
4. I had this terrible itch to try tubes, and at that time, I was sailing in the USA. So I bought the first 220V switchable mono blocks I could find. These were some cheap TAD-1000 mono blocks ( originated as some cheap Chinese company tube amps, imported into the USA by Mr. Paul Gryzbek, and fettled to improve the cheap design and components within a fixed price bracket . These just blew the krell in all aspects, when running on KT-88 tubes and outputting 100 watts each. The details was on par with the krell, and sounded exactly the same from 100hz and upwards, but had better bass slam below 100hz. And these sounded very much like SS amps to my ears. Though they did sound inoffensive in the treble even at high volumes. So I sold the krell to fund my next purchase. But I have still retained the TAD amps as they are great VFM amps for the 1800 usd I paid for them.
5. Then I got a pair of LM 503PA mono blocks running 845 output tubes fed by 300B tubes. These are at a different level when it comes to details, and just not compared to my previous amps, they also hands down beat the kinki studio integrated I recently heard on the end of a B&W 802 D3, and a macintosh 8900 I've heard at the end of a B&W nautilus 803. Despite all the details, they have immense bass slam and pace. But as put across by my friends who had a listen a few days back, they always sound smooth, despite being fast and ultra detailed with immense bass slam.
So iam now confused what this warmth is , as referred to in various posts. Is sounding smooth equal to sounding warm. I have a pair of qacoustics concept 40 speakers, which I love for long listening sessions, they are smooth too, but laid back in my opinion as the bass is a little slow. And people refer to qacoustics as being warm sounding. So iam really confused interpreting, if slow bass is warmth or smoothness is warmth
Nah, you're all wrong.
Smooth is about resolution, or the lack of it if something sounds smooth.
Warm is about tonality, with increasing warmth being a reduction in treble or an increase in lower frequencies.
I bet you're all glad that I came along to sort this out.
I can go along with this. If something is smooth and lacking resolution then it must have some form of distortion hiding the fine details ?Nah, you're all wrong.
Smooth is about resolution, or the lack of it if something sounds smooth.
Warm is about tonality, with increasing warmth being a reduction in treble or an increase in lower frequencies.
I bet you're all glad that I came along to sort this out.
You might not see my point, but you're helping to prove it (as are most of the posts on this thread).I really don't see your point at all here, with warm and smooth being no more subjective than any of the terms you chose to use yourself.
For me warm and bright (distinct from smooth) are actually the two most useful terms for anyone to use when describing a system in terms of potentially trying to be able to offer suggestions of changes to make to improve things. How useful such terms are does of course depend on the extent to which there is a shared understanding of what the terms mean which actually makes this a helpful discussion .
For me the use of the term warm is actually principally as a relative rather than an absolute term. If someone says they find a system/component too warm for them then this is helpful for others to suggest changes, based on their own experiences. We could get into absolute definitions based on measured data but I generally choose not to as they aren't generally helpful.Your idea of bright might be my idea of neutral. My idea of dark might be your idea of warm. However, if we describe what is happening with the music then we can be a little more precise and meaningful when it comes to trying to explain ourselves.
f you tell me that the system sounds too warm, I don't know what your reference is for that compared to mine. It's personal preference. But, if you tell me that Paul Simonon's bass line sounds slow or lost or notes are merging into one, then I have a much better idea of what you mean (and not just about frequency response).
Listening to the music will tell us all we need to know about the system. Describing what we hear when we listen to the music will be more useful to others than merely describing the sound.
That approach isn't at all universal, it's very dependent on musical taste.If you tell me that the system sounds too warm, I don't know what your reference is for that compared to mine. It's personal preference. But, if you tell me that Paul Simonon's bass line sounds slow or lost or notes are merging into one, then I have a much better idea of what you mean (and not just about frequency response).
I'm all for sharing experiences but I never make recommendations to others about what they should buy. I stay off those threads, simply because the answers are always the same - everyone telling the OP they should buy what they've already bought, themselves.For me the use of the term warm is actually principally as a relative rather than an absolute term. If someone says they find a system/component too warm for them then this is helpful for others to suggest changes, based on their own experiences. We could get into absolute definitions based on measured data but I generally choose not to as they aren't generally helpful.
Where I don't agree is that a description of a perception of music is somehow more universal. Frankly that all gets wildly more vague/unclear than what to me is a relatively simple term like warm.
In case it's helps I'd draw an analogy of terms like warm to people defining what say red and blue mean in relation to discussing art. Both are useful.
Simonon was the bassist with The Clash, but you should choose a recording that you know well, yourself, Jerry.That approach isn't at all universal, it's very dependent on musical taste.
Who the hell is Paul Simonon? I've never heard of him or his music. So your descriptives would mean nothing at all to me. At least warm / smooth allows me some sort of idea.
I think I can see where your coming from.. but that does not mean anything reallyOf course at the end of the day the only reference we should use is our own ears.
Fair enough but I'd suggest that the majority hear like to be able to discuss the sound of systems and so a shared vocabulary to do so it helpful. As it is for people lookng to buy new equipment and having discssions with dealers.I'm all for sharing experiences but I never make recommendations to others about what they should buy. I stay off those threads, simply because the answers are always the same - everyone telling the OP they should buy what they've already bought, themselves.
That is no different to saying something is warm. You're just referring to a different aspect of the sound reproduction. Both are useful.Describing what is happening in the music is more insightful, IME, because it talks of more than just frequency response. For example, there are many slimline ported floorstanding speakers that have had their crossover engineered to give a fairly even frequency response (as loudspeakers go), but they are dynamically dull as dishwater.
Agreed. But this doesn't make the observation useless for the reasons discussed above.If someone tells me that they found a system to be too warm, for example, I take it for what it is - too warm for them.