Originally Posted by BIslander
jkkyler - Thanks for posting that link. The technical discussion is far beyond my level. However, I would note two things. First, at no point does the article attempt to link amplifier differences to what is being discussed here - that vendor engineering decisions produce identifiable sonic signatures. Also, the article says speaker wires could affect test outputs, casting some doubt in my mind on everything else the author says. But, again, thanks for the post. It's the first one to get beyond personal opinion.
To relate this to practical real world conditions I can only offer this hypothesis , vendor (producer) methods are most likely consistent within a product line or possibly an entire manufacturer supply. Logic leads me to believe that this may produce a consistent deficiency in one of the variables mentioned for example company "A" manufacturing leads to a consistently poor slew response. This in turn would/could/should produce a consistent
coloration/modification from true sound. As nobody I know can consistently identify what factor is inducing sound distortions - the fact that it is consistent tends to lead to subjective and descriptive terminology such as cols/bright/warm/muddy. As longer wavelengths of light are in the red spectrum they tend to develop the nomenclature as hot/warm and shorter wavelengths of light in the blue area receive the moniker of cool. Longer sound waves - the low bass notes I believe gather a warm moniker when these are overemphasized and the higher shrill notes get the inverse nomenclature of cool.
I, as well as others, tend to relate a specific pitch or coloration from true sound with one of these names as I am not sure of the technical nomenclature or why the deviations exist but my terms to my ear are consistent and I think others label these sound deviations in a consistent manner.