View Full Version : Warm - Laid Back - Bright - Analytical
These terms used to describe amplifiers and other components interest me.
Is there any agreement about what in the specifications gives rise to the descriptions?
For example, does a "warm" amp have slower rise time than a "bright" amp?
Do "analytical" and "warm" amps have different harmonic distortion characteristics.
Does a "laid back" amp have very low odd harmonics in its measured distortion?
How do we correlate what is heard whit what is measured?
As for me, I have spent my adult life with Quad and Sugden, so that must colour my tastes - if I can so use the word "colour"!
These terms used to describe amplifiers and other components interest me.
Is there any agreement about what in the specifications gives rise to the descriptions?
For example, does a "warm" amp have slower rise time than a "bright" amp?
Do "analytical" and "warm" amps have different harmonic distortion characteristics.
Does a "laid back" amp have very low odd harmonics in its measured distortion?
How do we correlate what is heard whit what is measured?
As for me, I have spent my adult life with Quad and Sugden, so that must colour my tastes - if I can so use the word "colour"!
Each one of those descriptions mean a different subjective opinion and none of your descriptions are correct ;)
Not really anything to to with rise times, slew rates, harmonics, or distortions, because that means some subjective views are measurable - which they are not.
Speaking generally now, it has more to do with emphasis or lack of in particular band(s) of the audible spectrum, so an amplifier with a bias towards bass output higher than the proverbial ruler flat frequency sweep, can be described by some as being "warm". Similarly, an amp or whatever with an upper frequency emphasis can be described by some as "bright". However, this does not apply to everyone's hearing or PERCEPTIONS of how a component sounds, because one man's perception of "bright" can be someone else's "detailed". to someone else's "cold" sounding, or as you say "analytical". All a bit messy to be honest.
The weirdest part of all is that these perceptions cannot be accurately forecast from studying objective measurements alone.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 14:50
I'd say it's all subjective-one man's neutral is another's bright.I daresay some sort of correlation exists in measurement v perceived sound though.
Brian, you've opened another hornets' nest I think..
The sound of speakers and turntables are possibly the easiest to identify and I think that amps can be sonically judged by measurement if the engineer doing the testing has good ears and is very experienced in his field. CD players are coming together more I think and build quality is more to do with it, coupled with cost-cutting..
The thing is, I think we'd ALL be right on this one, but certainly, the high amount of odd order and crossover distortion in CB and early Olive series Naims was clearly audible, together with the unshielded inner conductors in their pre-supply-power interconnects, the leads to 250's and 135's being no more than 6A mains cable! I also remember the input stage of the Linn Intek power amp (Powertek) having crossover distortion and this was amplified up through the amp, the result sounding horrid (it sold because it looked ok and had a Linn badge on). I read somewhere that Conrad Johnson deliberately engineered in chunks of 2nd order distortion to enhance the valvey-bloom they wanted.
At the end of the day, the best designers know the compromises involved and juggle the parameters around to minimise the audible effects of their circuits if there are any..
Jeez, Dave, I can't think of anything more horrid.... No wonder I detest CJ gear.
Thanks goodness valve equipment doesn't have to sound that way, and when done well, actually sounds the polar opposite!! ;)
Marco.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 15:24
Yes indeed Marco,though a smidge of 2nd order never did anyone any harm!
Nope, a little is much better than a slap in the foreskin with a red-hot teabag!
Marco
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 15:49
What you get up to behind the little door is your business mate!
Can we return to the correlation of the language we use to describe our impressions of equipment with how that kit measures?
Not all colourful language is useful!
I would say (from personal experience and taste):
A "warm" amp has very low distortion in the mid frequencies.
A "bright" or "aggressive" amp usually cannot drive correctly the boomer (usually means a difficult speaker with impedance accidents in the mid-low frequencies) while drives correctly the tweeter.
A "laid back" amp is usually an amp with a lot of negative feedback.
But, I may be wrong. I never really tried to associate technical characteristics with listening "feels" with enough precision... :o
A "laid back" amp is usually an amp with a lot of negative feedback.
Would that mean not a very fast rise time?
Would that mean not a very fast rise time?
Not sure... :scratch:
Perhaps a low rise time, too... I have to say that often amps don't mention rise time.
Do you mean that you noticed a connexion between rise time and "laid back" sounds ? :scratch: I'll have to check that.
Not sure... :scratch:
Perhaps a low rise time, too... I have to say that often amps don't mention rise time.
Do you mean that you noticed a connexion between rise time and "laid back" sounds ? :scratch: I'll have to check that.
I don't know. I haven't owned or listened to enough amps to have formed an opinion. And I dont know what "laid back" sounds like. I know what Quad and Sugden sound like, and I know what cheap amps sound like -they set my teeth on edge.
From my electronics - 40 years ago, I seem to remember that negative feedback reduces rise time - it slows the amp. Laid back?
These terms used to describe amplifiers and other components interest me.
Is there any agreement about what in the specifications gives rise to the descriptions?
For example, does a "warm" amp have slower rise time than a "bright" amp?
Do "analytical" and "warm" amps have different harmonic distortion characteristics.
Does a "laid back" amp have very low odd harmonics in its measured distortion?
How do we correlate what is heard whit what is measured?
As for me, I have spent my adult life with Quad and Sugden, so that must colour my tastes - if I can so use the word "colour"!
I think these terms are actually unhelpful, because so much depends on the quality of hearing of the reviewer and/or his taste in music. Many reviewers are the wrong side of 50, and it's hard to believe they will perceive sounds in the same way as, say, a 25 year old.
There will be some who will say that it should be possible to determine the sound of a component from its technical specification, others will say that the sound is everything and measurements (assuming electrical safety and a reasonable degree of competence in the design) are irrelevant.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 18:50
I think you could say both Quad and Sugden are a little on the laid back side of things.
It's said that the older we get, the less tolerant of distortion we become..
hifi_dave
18-06-2010, 19:26
I think you could say both Quad and Sugden are a little on the laid back side of things.
That certainly doesn't apply to the latest offerings from Sugden.
Surely as we get older we are less able to hear distortion? I'm fairly old, and I'm no more or less tolerant of distortion than I was when I were a lad.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 19:35
That certainly doesn't apply to the latest offerings from Sugden.
Have they changed a lot then? I have an old wooden sleeve A21,which is a great little amp.I'd characterise it as sweet and a little laid back.Quite valve-like in fact.I've not heard any of their more recent stuff.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 19:37
It's said that the older we get, the less tolerant of distortion we become..
I think your right there Dave.
hifi_dave
18-06-2010, 20:06
Have they changed a lot then? I have an old wooden sleeve A21,which is a great little amp.I'd characterise it as sweet and a little laid back.Quite valve-like in fact.I've not heard any of their more recent stuff.
We had various Sugden amps back in the 80's and early 90's and they were warm, mellow and not very exciting to my ears. I haven't bothered with their amps until a couple of weeks ago when I borrowed a new A21 and it is anything but mellow. It's upfront, pacey, clean and open with a really solid, tactile mid which places vocals right there in the room. I'm quite impressed.
I'm a bit slow to catch on and never gave a thought or a look at the specs to discover that it is a mere 21 wpc. I mean - A21 is a bit of clue....:doh: However, I haven't knowingly managed to clip it yet and I do like my Zeppelin loud.
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 20:37
The original is about 7w/ch I believe.
twelvebears
18-06-2010, 20:42
Yes indeed Marco,though a smidge of 2nd order never did anyone any harm!
I prefer a bit of New Order.....
Ali Tait
18-06-2010, 21:38
Seen them at Glasto!
Surely as we get older we are less able to hear distortion? I'm fairly old, and I'm no more or less tolerant of distortion than I was when I were a lad.
No. I do think we become less tolerant of distortion as high frequency hearing loss progresses. I guess it's down to the way the ear works. Yes, I know it's counter intuitive, just as is the fact that the deaf are less tolerant of loud noises.
An audiologist explained it to me this way. "It's like listening to a radio with poor reception. You turn the volume up to hear but that also magnified every crackle and pop." When I was measured for my digital hearing aid . . . I never wear it, but the Army gave me it . . . the audiologist measured my threshold of hearing at a range of frequencies (that is done regularly to everyone in the Army). I was used to this, but now he measured my threshold of pain. With impaired hearing the gap between the two narrows considerably at the impaired frequencies. The digital hearing aid is programmed to work right up to the threshold of pain, but never exceed it.
Certainly, in recent years, I have found big churches with powerful organs tiresome. The trumpet stops and other powerful reeds I find painful. The reeds pump out a tremendous amount of energy in the high treble.
So those with high frequency hearing will react more to unwanted components in the higher frequencies - the harmonic distortion.
Odd isn't it.
In fact, I have impaired hearing on the left from being a child, and am now at -40dB at 4kHz. That might explain my life long preference for Quad and Sugden, but doesn't explain why I have enjoyed speakers for the last 20 odd years with titanium tweeters and an aluminium tenis ball for a mid range driver.
(And now I have to go a hunting - why am I not getting email notifications from this forum - prefs are set to instant - maybe by junk filters have made a command decision - might have to "White list" the board!)
Put it this way, how many of you guys bought CB era Naim because it made any music sound "exciting?" I certainly did, yet moved onwards and upwards after a number of years.
Today, a properly fettled CB 250 and especially the 110 (ghastly little yapper) would have me running for the hills. Even Naim have mellowed with their recent range, although I don't think they'd give the best ss amps any trouble, let alone decent valve jobbies.
Put it this way, how many of you guys bought CB era Naim because it made any music sound "exciting?" I certainly did, yet moved onwards and upwards after a number of years.
Not me; I hated the Naim/Kan sound with a passion even back then. I loved the sound of a valve amp and Quad ESLs, but they would not have matched either my pocket or my living space.
Steve Toy
19-06-2010, 09:39
Negative feedback does not make for a more laid-back sound unless the speakers are overdamped as a result.
My Copper amp has adjustable negative feedback (I say "my" and not "the" because Marco's doesn't). Through the Heco Celan 700s a high feedback setting has lower gain but it does not sound more laid-back.
According to Anthony the amp measures better at a higher setting.
Warm/bright/forward are deviations from ruler-flat measured frequency response - or that perceived subjectively by the listener, representing overemphasis in the bass/top/mid respectively.
Laid-back suggests lacking in both dynamics and harshness.
A perceived bright sound is more often upper-frequency distortion than emphasis though.
Our goals in pursuit of the aim of of musical nirvana are not simply to lower perceived distortion and seek a sound devoid of emphasis in any given frequency but also one that is phase coherent - all frequencies arriving at your ear at the same time.
The human ear is very sensitive to even very tiny phase errors caused by amps, speakers and or cabling.
Then there is the issue of time smear caused my microphonic feedback causing overhang and poor leading edge definition - literally a smearing of the sequence of events of music.
Eliminate phase errors and reduce time smear to a minimum and you'll have a system that will capture all the temporal nuances in a recording and will also capture pitch/melody and harmonics more accurately on a subjective level.
Steve Toy
19-06-2010, 09:48
PS: Forward can also mean that the sound stage is projected forward of the speakers, closer to the listener. Certain preamps, amps and speakers, especially those from the solid state flat earth brands like Naim and Densen can have this effect.
Laid back can also mean the opposite I the soundstage occurs behind the speakers and further away from the listener.
Good soundstaging should have depth of field including both a degree of projection toward the listener in front of the speakers extending back to well behind them.
Ali Tait
19-06-2010, 10:48
Valve amps with a lot of feedback may measure better,but they sound much inferior to a feedbackless design to my ears.
Stratmangler
19-06-2010, 11:14
Steve
Seeing as you have variable negative feedback on your amp, which do you prefer, a high or a low setting ?
If I remember correctly early transistor amps used lots of negative feedback (and needed it). Valve amps could never work with so much - something to do with the output transformer. (Now I really am dredging the limits of my memory!)
In the mid 70's, loads of negative feedback was used for one reason only - to get the THD figures down and sell the product which was chosen by basic specification only.
The thing is, THD is possibly the most benign of the distortions. It's what happens in the time domain that's one of the worse ones, as well as intermodulation effects.
Like I said, you really need to be an electronics expert (and good layout engineer!) to really tie specs into meaningful sound differences. For myself, I reckon that there aren't really any unknowns in audio, just implementation of known ideas and the abilities of the components to do the job within their tolerances.
There is no recognised correlation between the subjective terms used to describe the sound of hi-fi and technical specifications. There isn't even a general consensus as to what the subjective terms mean in their own right. One mans (persons) warm and lush is another's tedious and bland whilst another's upfront and dynamic is harsh and distorted. Some of the responders to this thread have already shown their political (with a small p) leanings by the manner in which they have chosen their responses. On occasion, one can look at the output of a speaker, for example, and go 'oh look it sounds like there is a mid bass hump and sure enough there is a measured big rise in the mid bass output at the port frequency' - but often things are much more complicated than that.
Do "p"olitical leanings matter Mark? I mean, all the *best* stuff out there has been designed, often from the ground up, by good engineers with a "feel" for the best technical compromises...
No , one's 'hi-fi politics' don't matter as such; but my point is really that one is always observing through a perception filter even before the task of differentiating between subjective terminology and then trying to extrapolate the results to objective measurement.
(what a long sentence!)
Warm - The Beach Boys
Laid back - JJ Cale
Bright - Pet Shop Boys
Analytical - Kraftwerk
... are more useful descriptors
Nice, Joe ! ;)
There is no recognised correlation between the subjective terms used to describe the sound of hi-fi and technical specifications.
Indeed, I've seen some tries, but never any valid conclusions. As Dave says, IMD is worse than THD, but I haven't seen IMD figures for ages...
magiccarpetride
24-06-2010, 16:55
These terms used to describe amplifiers and other components interest me.
Is there any agreement about what in the specifications gives rise to the descriptions?
For example, does a "warm" amp have slower rise time than a "bright" amp?
Do "analytical" and "warm" amps have different harmonic distortion characteristics.
Does a "laid back" amp have very low odd harmonics in its measured distortion?
How do we correlate what is heard whit what is measured?
As for me, I have spent my adult life with Quad and Sugden, so that must colour my tastes - if I can so use the word "colour"!
These are all very good questions (to which I have no answer;)
Hi fi is like beer. We can spend the whole day discussing various brewskys, and their various attributes, but at the end of the day, it's what you feel is the most satisfying brand that really matters to you.
Who knows what is it that makes that brand over there more to your liking than that other brand? There are millions of variables that contribute to the overall taste. I don't think we can pick those apart and come up with a reasonable explanation.
In other words, I proudly subscribe to the voodoo/witchcraft club of audio nutcases.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.