Warm/cold subjectivity

[monolith]

(the MS-10/CS-10/SH-09 thread in buyers guide got me thinking about this...)

Some Synths are referred to as being warm sounding, others cold, agressive, sterile etc.

I've read some things referring to the Juno-6 as being 'cold' and 'sterile' often on account of the DCO. When i got my sh-2 i expected it to be really warm and organic sounding as it was VCOs and all analog. However, in my opinion i find it to be metallic, totally lacking the 'warmth' of my juno, and dare i say it, somewhat 'sterile'.
(dont get me wrong, I love it, but it just was different to what i thought it would be)
Playing a mono/poly last week, i perceived it to be 'warm'.
I understand these are subjective terms, but i was curious as to what makes a synth 'warm' or 'sterile' or 'organic' etc. to you?
e.g. to me 'warm' is like a wah pedal heel back or turning the tone knob down on a guitar.

Along with the synths in your collection, where do you rate the sh-2, juno-6 and Mono/poly on the subjective thermometer?

M
(I hope that all made sense )

[spookyman]

Boaaaah...

like you said, it's all subjective. Personnal. For the one, a Roland Juno 106 will be warm sounding, for another one, it will be cold sounding.

Mostly, i'm talking about "warm sounding" when the general character of the sound is more soft and not agressive at all, but also full sounding, near. Cold is perhaps more agressive, distant, with a lot of high frequencies.

But it's not allways paired with a synthesizer. My Yamaha TG-77 can sound warm (on pads) or very cold (on DX-7 sounds). My CS-15 can sound warm (on soft leads with a slow attack) or allmost cold with FM, metallic sounds. But thats only my point of view.

My string synths and machines are all warm sounding (for me...). The OB-X is "organic"...why ? Beacause it seems that the sound is not static, it moves allways a little bit. It's flying from left to the right, from the floor to the top of the sonic space. And at the same time, it's very rich and full sounding. And all theses charachteristics helps me to say that the sound is "organic", in my ears.

It's not easy to give an answer...really not !

[Automatic Gainsay]

It can be quite subjective.

I think there are a lot of averages/bell curves/perceptive interpretations/physiological aspects in play in any assessment of a synth by a person. Because of this, people seem to gravitate to the notion that there are no extremes... if something can be cold, it can't be warm. If something is warm, it can't be cold.
Any time an assessment is made where there are only black and white options, people find the exceptions and come to the conclusion that only grey exists... there is no such thing as warm or cold, good or bad, etc.
All aspects of the human experience are averages, though. The concept of warmth or... uh... coldth... exists, it just isn't an is-or-is-not situation.

I hate DCO synths, but I find myself always coming back to the JX3p... while it does sound very 80s and often even digital to me... it is also capable of some very warm fuzzy sounds. I have often described the JX3p as the warmest of the Roland DCO polysynths... and many disagree.

I find that everyone describes ANY synth with a high pass filter, and especially a resonant high pass filter as "cold," "harsh," or "aggressive." Certainly a high pass filter makes those sounds possible, and a low pass filter is far less likely to... so it makes sense. However, a lot of synths with resonant high pass filters are capable of some achingly warm sounds with the proper programming.

The CS-15 and CS-15D, both with 12dB per oct filters (resonant, high, band, and low) are capable of some of the warmest sounds I have ever heard from a non-Moog synth... yet they are also capable of extremely cold digital-type sounds.

The Minimoog can be positively grating. The ARP 2600 can be earhurtingly harsh.

I believe that there are no "cold" or "warm" synths, just synths that excel at colder or warmer sounds.

[otto]

It is a very subjective subject and until you completely describe warm and cold in technical terms it is a vague meaning. However, the fact that many synths are viewed as being warm, cold, fat or thin by many people suggests that the descriptions are not completely superfluous. We must also take into account that many people consider a synth to be one way or another because they read it or heard it from another person rather than being an honest opinion. Also some people base their opinions on the specs of the synth (i.e. that synth only has one oscillator therefore it can’t sound fat/warm).

I think that fatness and warmth are a composite of various ideas that sometimes may even be mutually exclusive. I think some people equate warmth/fatness with distortion thus some of the synths with more buzzy, squelchy or aggressive properties are “warm” and/or “fat”. I think others associate general fatness with a more breathy/woody quality that is solid, organic, favors the low end, tuning drifts. Some may even associate fatness with a chorus circuit being on board even though the synth might not be particularly fat or warm without it and anyone can add effects to any synth. On this note I think there might be two trains of thought on the warmth/fatness debate and they are somewhat associated with 70’s analog synths on one hand and 80’s analog synths on the other (organic vs aggressive? You might be able to put, say a Minimoog in the former category and Mono/Poly in the latter. Of course there is overlap).

Cold I think is often associated with a more sterile sound that favors higher frequencies. Usually digital synths exhibit this quality but that doesn’t mean all digital synths are cold and all analog synths are warm. Another idea we have to face is that many synths can cover a lot of ground and could possibly sound warm or cold dependent on programming. However, I think we should ignore that idea for now because I think we are discussing the general properties and sound qualities of synths. I prefer to talk general sound qualities of synths as that is the whole reason we own multiple synths. Your Juno might be better at making a certain sound than your Jupiter and vice versa even though both might be able to “do” that type of sound.

My main point is that I think most synths have inherent sound qualities that tend to come out quickly and easily and that most people associate with said synth. That doesn’t mean it isn’t capable of other characteristics with careful programming – I’m just saying it is at ease being what it is. I hate when people say things like the ESQ-1 (this applies to any synth) can do a good mini or 303 bass line. Sure you can make ESQ-1 do mini or 303esque sounds but that doesn’t mean it excels at them or really particularly sounds like the real thing or is characteristically anything like the other synths in general. If this were true we would only need/want 1 synth for everything and we might as well make it something cheap like an ESQ-1

Some thoughts on some of the analog synths I’ve owned. Keep in mind that these are vague generalizations and my opinion:
CS-30: This one is kind of hard to characterize and my best description would be “nasal”. It did exibit an organic quality to it but it was not warm in the same sense that you might call a minimoog warm. It wasn’t sterile either. I think the filters on it do their job but they don’t add a lot of coloring thus you get a strong uncolored osc sound that would be great for tight basses, keys and sound effects. I liken it to the way that some compressors color sound and others are transparent. I think the CS-30 filters are somewhat transparent if that makes sense – they definitely shape the sound of course but I’m not sure they color it as much as a ladder filter would for instance. I think I will get another CS someday because of the unique sound and versatitlity.

Prophet 600: This would fall into the buzzy aggressive qualities category, I think that is one form of fatness and warmth. From what I’ve heard I would put a mono/poly in this type of category.

Moog LP: Offers IMO classic moog sounds and does that whole 70’s woody, organic type of thing I was talking about as the other type of warmth as opposed to the aggressiveness of, say the P600.

SH3: similar to the moog but perhaps more angular qualities more rough around the edged and less sweet-spot than the LP. Thick enough for one oscillator IMO. Actually, even the examples I’ve heard of the SH3A – they are more round and fat than I think people give them credit for. Definitely an underrated family of synths IMO. I bought mine with pretty much the sole intent of selling and have liked the sound enough to keep it around.

Waldorf Pulse: Kinda sterile and boring – even muffled IMO. I think a lot the sound qualities created from this synth could easily be duplicated if not bettered in the VA realm. That might be harsh and I know a lot of people like the Pulse but I think it rests on its laurels as being an analog synth. Great capabilities and price point for an analog synth but one has to question if there is any value to that if it doesn’t excel at a very analog tone.

X0XB0X, FR Revolution, Novation Bass Station: These were characteristically similar the Novation being the least similar of the 3. Everyone knows the 303 sound: squelchy, round, punchy although I wouldn’t consider that sound to be particularly warm in the organic or buzzy categories.

[Automatic Gainsay]

otto wrote more than I did! It's a miracle!

otto... nice points!

[clubbedtodeath]

I believe that there are no "cold" or "warm" synths, just synths that excel at colder or warmer sounds.

The man speaks the truth.

The Oberheim Matrix 6 excels at buttery-smooth pads, despite having DCOs. The Nord Lead on the other hand, I find icily digital, although I've managed to get very warm Pro One-ish style basses out of it.

Question is, can something sound warm but thin, or are warmth and phatness immutable?

otto wrote more than I did! It's a miracle

=P~

I submit to the jury that AG is Otto, or at the very least related to him.

[mis psiquicios y yo]

Subjective as h**l, but Ithink there are synths that define the terms warm, cold, fat, thin, clinical, etc. IMO, a juno is warm, a minimoog fat, an odyssey clinical, etc, but the curious thing is, for example, a juno 60, which in my opinion is a very warm sounding synth, can make cold or thin sounds and yes, it can, but it is easier to make a warm pad on that synth. So, i think it really depends on the sound you are making, not just the synth.

[Untouchable_888]

Boaaaah...

like you said, it's all subjective. Personnal. For the one, a Roland Juno 106 will be warm sounding, for another one, it will be cold sounding.

some patches are colder than others, like the preset b-21 is cold. but you can make it warm. to me, that is.
others are really soothing and warm.. like the synth leads....

[Automatic Gainsay]

Question is, can something sound warm but thin, or are warmth and phatness immutable?

That is a very good question, and I've been thinking about it quite awhile.
I'd hate to be semantic, but I think it depends on what people mean by "thin."

My theory is (and I hope everyone will weigh in on this): what we mean by "warm" is "more organic (acoustic?)," and what we mean by "cold" is "more electronic." Something along the lines of "more natural" as opposed to "less natural."

I think something can be fat or thin and still be warm... but it's really a minute sort of distinction.

Another theory I have is that "cold" has to do with a more static oscillation... so a synth without a static sort of oscillation but which has a more pointed or nasal sound can at least be considered more warm than with one.
Like: The PS-3100 has analog oscillators, but they are fixed-note crystal oscillators which are more static than VCOs... as a result, it has a sort of icy tone (which can also be warm with effort). But there is a enough variation in its oscillation to make it warmer than a sampled waveform...

[Solderman]

I would venture to post two theories regarding subjectivity of sound first:
1) Your perception of sound is the brain registering a ratio of the amplitude of partials across the audible spectrum for some fraction of a second, and can only apply meaning through either how these ratios evolve or repeat.
2) Most sound you can identify is adopted early in life while your brain is still developing, and all auditory semantics stem from this period

Therefore I venture to guess that perceived warmth in sound is a subtle reminder of the typical spectrum ratio of sound heard in the womb in the latter stages of prenatal development. Please discuss.

This reminds me though, how high of a pitch must you play before the same note was warm sounding an octave below, and no longer is at the next octave? Surely the human reaction is not as linear as the increase in pitch of the same sound. I kinda figure there are certain resonant ranges created by the ear canal itself(which would alter the ratio) in addition to however the brain is interpreting sound.

[OriginalJambo]

To be honest I think most synths can sound "warm" or "cold" with the right programming - however some certainly lean toward one direction IMO.

For example, I believe the Polysix sounds a lot more organic than the Juno/JX-3P simply because it has VCOs - the difference is night and day to me. However even though the SSM filters are rather syrupy and mid heavy making them ideal for "warm" sounds, the Juno and JX-3P can deliver these sounds too without any problems.

In fact so can the D-50. So can the ESQ-1. So can a decent VA. So can a sampler.

The only synth that I find has real difficulty at sounding "warm" is the DX7. I think this is because in most patches there isn't any beating or phasing going on and as a result you are often left with a sound that isn't evolving, changing, shimmering - it sounds a bit lifeless and unnatural. Even when there is some detuning it sounds a bit sterile, but that's what makes the DX7 the DX7. And with the right processing and programming it can still sound fantastic.

You could also say it generally sounds really bright, but that's another battle: bright vs. smooth.

[otto]

I submit to the jury that AG is Otto, or at the very least related to him.

I'll look into it.

[gfriden]

There was a thread like this here on VSE about a year ago. I believe it was Jexus who wanted to write synth reviews based on expressions like warm, cold, fat, etc. I'm going to do now what I did then and recommend two books: 'The Concept of Expression' by Alan Tormey and 'Mind and Art' by Guy Sircello. These are books that deal specifically with the language we use when discussing expressive rather than representational or physical features of art. Both books show conclusively that the idea that it is all 'subjective' is false. For instance, it is inconceivable that an anthropomorphic or colour predicate can be correctly applied to any sound feature.

[otto]

There was a thread like this here on VSE about a year ago. I believe it was Jexus who wanted to write synth reviews based on expressions like warm, cold, fat, etc. I'm going to do now what I did then and recommend two books: 'The Concept of Expression' by Alan Tormey and 'Mind and Art' by Guy Sircello. These are books that deal specifically with the language we use when discussing expressive rather than representational or physical features of art. Both books show conclusively that the idea that it is all 'subjective' is false. For instance, it is inconceivable that an anthropomorphic or colour predicate can be correctly applied to any sound feature.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the last 2 sentences. If descriptions of warmth or cold, applied to a synth sound, aren’t subjective than everyone would come to the same conclusions about a sound, no? To some extent this is true as we find many people describe certain synths as sounding warm and others not minimoog and DX7 are good examples. However, it is obviously not true all of the time.

You go on to say that we can’t correctly explain things in terms relating to color or anthropomorphic properties. This is a bit confusing for a couple reasons – first we do explain sounds using color predicates. Maybe this is inadequate and I venture to say words like buzzy, fuzzy, woody, hollow, organic, etc. might be better better associated with audio but words like warm seem to encapsulate a few or many of these descriptions and seems to be an easy term for people to grasp. As far as anthropomorphism goes – first we humans can’t escape our own ego and tend to compare everything anthropomorphically. I’m not sure I understand how you can objectively separate man from senses and using those sense comparatively. Maybe our language is lacking adequate terminology to describe what we are calling warm but it will still relate back to our human experience, no?

[Automatic Gainsay]

If descriptions of warmth or cold, applied to a synth sound, aren’t subjective than everyone would come to the same conclusions about a sound, no? To some extent this is true as we find many people describe certain synths as sounding warm and others not minimoog and DX7 are good examples. However, it is obviously not true all of the time.

I think what it comes down to is the fact that we're applying literal words in a metaphoric way... and each person has a different interpretation of those words. The resulting abstraction lends itself to interpretation and perception.
While I believe there is subjectivity involved, the idea becomes far more subjective, or maybe completely subjective, when there isn't an agreement on nomenclature!
Even the average of "pretty" varies greatly.

While violinists know how to play "sweetly," and can largely agree on what one does to do that, and how it sounds... it's different for synthesists because the musicianship involved is new, and has fractured massively in a short time.
If we had words to specifically describe these qualities, which had as-specific-as-possible definitions, the concept wouldn't quite be as seemingly subjective.

The synthesizer playing community needs to establish what defines a particular desired sound, scientifically hopefully, and then give it a name which nothing else has!