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

I've found that the listening room and listening location have a huge impact on whether a system is "warm" or "cold".

I moved my acoustic traps around to see how their location alters the frequency response (see my system in the  Virtual Systems - the locations pictured are one optimum).

After fiddling for a while, I noticed that the better (flatter FR) locations had a dip from 40 to 300 Hz. The sound was "cold".

I flattened the frequency response (with assistance from my graphic EQ (GEQ) and REW) to +/- 5dB. Still on the cold side for me.

I re-adjusted my GEQ to gently boost these frequencies and to provide roughly a -1.8 dB/octave slope from 80 Hz upward (with help again from REW). The sound was "warm" and just as I like it.

One can achieve similar effects using digital filters although they must be used carefully. Calling for a lot of gain can cause railing (as can for GEQs). 

The lesson for me is that location and sound absorption/scattering effects are much more important than contributions from individual components.

If one were willing to insert analog or digital filters into the system, then one could alter the system FR to one's taste. Within limits, of course.

Everyone’s tastes are different.  Some like blondes, others brunettes.

There is no wrong answer in this hobby.  After all it’s art we are all listening to.  A Monet painting is no less beautiful than a high res photograph.

All that matters is the emotional reaction you get.

it was my experience too. People generally  had no idea of the power of  acoustics. In my case i used a grid of tuned mechanical resonators (Helmholtz) to tune my room  but we can use digital processing...

I've found that the listening room and listening location have a huge impact on whether a system is "warm" or "cold".

I moved my acoustic traps around to see how their location alters the frequency response (see my system in the  Virtual Systems - the locations pictured are one optimum).

After fiddling for a while, I noticed that the better (flatter FR) locations had a dip from 40 to 300 Hz. The sound was "cold".

I flattened the frequency response (with assistance from my graphic EQ (GEQ) and REW) to +/- 5dB. Still on the cold side for me.

I re-adjusted my GEQ to gently boost these frequencies and to provide roughly a -1.8 dB/octave slope from 80 Hz upward (with help again from REW). The sound was "warm" and just as I like it.

One can achieve similar effects using digital filters although they must be used carefully. Calling for a lot of gain can cause railing (as can for GEQs). 

The lesson for me is that location and sound absorption/scattering effects are much more important than contributions from individual components.

If one were willing to insert analog or digital filters into the system, then one could alter the system FR to one's taste. Within limits, of course.

I listened to my Benchmark gear last weekend and I need to retract my last post listed above.  It sounded great.  I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote it since it does not reflect my reality.  The benchmark DAC has amazing detail, allowing me to hear the fine details of each instrument and nuances of vocals.  Over the years, it has brought me countless hours of enjoyment.  It is a great gear and Benchmark quickly answered any questions I had.  I will never sell it and am transitioning it to my headphone setup as I move things around, since it can do double duty as a headphone DAC and amp.  It is a great value.  

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

There are many shades of distortion! Better SQ is a tradeoff between different kind of distortions, e.g., number even/odd  harmonics in the signal, time domain (transients) vs. single tone irregularities, inter-mods vs single tone, difference in phase vs frequency behavior, etc..

The key is a distortion of original soundtrack at the listener ear point!