Perception of audio

I will use an example then explain as best as I can..
Ex: Running my mic into a mbox mini preamp & AD vs running into Aurora Audio GTQ2 or other Neve preamps into AD ...( class A transformer coupled i/o )

The signal through the Neve style would have more dimension depth and yes weight. When I say weight I mean body and fullness of the sound depth and dimension are factors in this. More audio info for the ear to soak in. Front to back top to bottom the whole sack of potatoes. I don't mean that it's heavier or has more 200hz or 100hz .. The weight term could also be used when describing components like transformers. ( transformers used for tone and color that is )

This is my opinion which probably varies from everyone else's. I try to use analogies to describe audio usually but adjectives like those ones you mentioned are almost always included.

I've had a couple clients who didn't understand audio that wanted to discuss audio in colors. COMPLETE insanity IMO. It's hard enough when you know a language and can communicate. Going into colors is liked getting dropped into Bejing and trying to communicate with someone who knows no english.

Weight / Density.  A solidifying of the bottom end and shifting of the frequency spectrum from more upper and high mids to lower mids and bottom end.  That's about as technical as you'll get from me, and I REFUSE to go colors.  

I guess I did say this earlier.

"Maybe it would be close to think of all of the different colors of sound as just that."

That WOULD be misleading. But its not what I meant. Forming ideas in text on the internet again. GREAT idea. Ha. Oh boy.

I know 'em when I hear 'em but explaining is....... problematical. "Weight" seems to me to be maybe a mixture of lower frequency presence and transient response, combining to create something almost physically palpable. Kinda. More or less.

Not gonna try "thickness" except to say go get yourself an nice milkshake, or even better, a double chocolate malt.

As to why any given piece ofr gear might manifest these things I think it has to do with a combination of factors encompassing how the various components (including layout) combine and interact with each other. It isn't any particular spec or set of specs and it isn't anything easily merasurable, it's synergy. Human perceptions react differently than machines.

The word I hear bandied about a lot these days that I really fail to understand is "creamy"....

"Creamy as in "distortion". Or "creamy" sounding compressor. Or "creamy" sounding microphone. Or "creamy" preamp.

Not as in milkshake. Or coffee. Or cheesecake. Or "extraneous content" of a can of nitrous oxide.... Which I'm frequently reminded of when people use the word "creamy" to describe anything associated with audio.

OK, thanks.

Weight and thickness...reminds me of a porn star Johnson.

But, I regress. When I hear people using these adjectives, I automatically think of a U 47 et el FrankSinatra's early vinyl.

But like you say, Bill, it's all relevant to each listener. We are all wonderfully different for a good reason.

I don't agree with the term "weight" being harmonic distortion. I have a small REL subwoofer in my home stereo system. REL subs piggyback on the actual speaker outs ending in a neutrik speakon connector, not a .1 cable. They call their subs "ambient retrieval systems", and they're right to do so. Take the sub out, the image flattens and shrinks, put it back in, depth returns, width is wider, height perception returns, and you can then sense the actual space the recording was done in.

I call that weight, and if anything, it's because it takes the load off of my mains and makes everything clearer, with a tighter, deeper, stronger low end that is not harmonically distorted. The pitch of the lowest notes is now easily heard, not just felt. The Symphony sounds like that when I compare it to tracks done with my Apollo.

I would say a strong, firm low end.  Headroom and power supply stability are also good descriptions.

I suppose these terms can be attached to many different aspects. Same in real life. Like a math problem. If "Bob" weighs 200Lbs, and  only loses 10Lbs, how much does Bob Weigh. 190Lbs. Does he look any better? Probably not.

To your point, I could imagine that is going to be more information [acoustic energy/depth] when you use the Subwoof. So, its clear we as humans can start to become circular in our meanings and descriptions of such things.

As you guys already rightfully pointed out. Its all about what it means to each individual and where is it coming from. That's probably an infinitely variable question. Perhaps not unlike any other audio descriptions of a subjective nature. 

But back to your experience with the Sub..I have similar findings when I add and blend in more microphones to a mix of sound. Its More. Each "thing" has a determined amount of space. Many people like to add more of that to signals. Many people also like gear that sounds like a hollow hole of death. I wouldn't know much about that, but there is plenty of "weightless" audio equipment out there. Some things are made to have very little size or additional sonic space, relative to the original signal. Somethings are just too colored and dense. Somethings have the perfect amount of it. You can find and control it using various amounts of distortion components. 

It seems to have to do with the type and amount of parts are inside the gear. Take a Sta-Level for instance. If you wanted to skip past descriptions, I would just recommend listening to this unit and you'll know how I define something that has weight. Plenty of other examples but I like that ones particular "size".

But I have noticed, the more & more parts something has in it, the more the signal gets processed by it. Specific parts add these distortions [measurable certainly!] and that leads to euphonious pleasure parties inside our ear drums when listening and making the music. And, it also leads to gross and disgusting distortions. Its a very fine line, most days. 

I have been using a Gefell UMT70s lately, which has less parts, has a less "weighty" sound. It sounds lighter, but its also very full. When I pull this mic up in my tracks I get more "weight" from the sound. So, circular and esoteric, the words we can use, may only dance around the feelings we have for sound.


BTW: When I compared the Apogee to the Apollo, I felt really sad for the Apollo. The Apogee has more low end, bigger sound. The Apollo is thin sounding on the bottom. Really hated it.

 

re: China Capsules, I call em squawkrophones! or maybe Roosterphones! sounds like: "shards of broken vodka bottles being sprayed across my face" - is my favorite description of that