If Warmth Is a Distortion, Why Do So Many Audiophiles Still Defend It?

@sargonicuse Thanks for the NIOSH meter tip.  Does it give the SPL on transients?  I did like the Radio Shack meter fast response A weighting.  One thing I don't like about apps is the possibility of intrusive ads.  Any problem with this NIOSH app?

any sound signature — warm, tube-like, analogue, ultra-wide, hyper-detailed, and everything in between

While these things might seem to be at opposite ends of a spectrum, they are not. You can have all these things at the same time.

@atmasphere I respect your electronics expertise.  My experience with audio systems is that warm sounds come at the sacrifice of detail.  And detailed audio leans in the direction of cool.  However, what you said is only applicable to live music heard from a close distance.  But even that is only partially true.  Every time I take a walk and listen to sounds of nature, I ask myself whether these sounds are warm or cool.  Listen carefully to the low level crisp sound of stepping on dry leaves, bird calls, the breeze, ocean waves, louder sounds like slamming the microwave oven door, harsh dog barking.  If you've traveled to Europe, listen to street car bells, low freq bongs of large bells in the town square.  These sounds are cool, nothing but the raw, dry sound without fuzzy overlay of soft materials.  If the bell were coated by fabric, it would sound warm and fuzzy, like warm audio electronics lacking detail. My most recent eye-opener was hearing the true bright, COOL crisp sound of a golf club hitting the hard golf ball.  On regular low fidelity TV, I never heard that--it sounded mushy.

Decades ago, I had a Van Alstine modded Dyna PAS-3 tube preamp.  It sounded like the real thing, but only in comfortable relief in comparison to 1970's SS preamps which were harsh.  Later I got a Theta tube preamp which was much more detailed than the PAS.  It was also tonally cooler than the PAS.  Then I substituted Roger Madjeski tubes with the highest specs.  The sound got cooler still, accompanied by more detail.  I came to realize that my early preference for euphonic, warm sound was not consistent with the reality that natural sounds are mainly cool.  But they are coherent and smooth.

Back to the concert hall.  Cellos heard close have a raw texture, quite unlike the warmer sound heard further away.  The primary reason for this is the preferential absorption of HF and ambient reflections which are more numerous at greater distance. The reflections sum to more phase anomalies which basically are heard as tonal smearing.  This may be somewhat analogous to higher even order harmonics heard in warm tube electronics.  My analogy is loose.  Still it confirms the correlation I make between warmth and inaccuracy whether in audio systems or live sound. 

Comparing the live sound of cellos heard close, they have varying degrees of coolness and warmth.  I knew and heard Nathaniel Rosen playing his Montagnana cello from late 18th century.  Those 18th century instruments generally sound warmer than modern instruments.  Surprisingly, this Montagnana was quite cool and raw, shocking.  But all the cellos, violins, winds that I have heard live at close range are much cooler than recordings of them played on warm dynamic, inaccurate speakers with warm electronics.

My experience with audio systems is that warm sounds come at the sacrifice of detail.  And detailed audio leans in the direction of cool.

@viber6  This is a common experience but it does not have to be that way. Most of that is simply how the amp or preamp makes distortion, to which our ears assign a tonality. 

@atmasphere "...

any sound signature — warm, tube-like, analogue, ultra-wide, hyper-detailed, and everything in between

While these things might seem to be at opposite ends of a spectrum, they are not. You can have all these things at the same time."

+1 Absolutely!