Do Members use Live Music as a Reference

[RogerD]

I've been around live music all my life, acoustic, amplified, electronic, as a listener and performer. The term "reference" means different things to different folk, and I use it different ways as well. Sometimes it means the absolute best, the reference against all else is judged. Other times it is more like a baseline against which other things are compared, sometimes better, sometimes worse (or maybe just different). There are times I really appreciate a live performance, and times I much prefer the recording, for all the usual reasons (the enveloping sound of a concert hall, the intimate presence of a jazz club, versus the ability to really listen to the music in a great recording and pick up nuances hard to catch in a live setting, or maybe I just don't feel like going out, or want to listen to certain songs rather than whatever the group is doing, or listen to songs from multiple groups, etc.) Some venues are poor and yet the (live) music shines through, and sometimes the performance just isn't what I expected or hoped it would be. Sometimes the recording is poorly mastered or recorded and just has no hope of feeling "real". Too many variables.

I would not apply the word "reference" when considering how I judge my system with respect to live music; I would say live instruments, music, and performances (rehearsals, plinking at a friend's house, etc.) provide the context for my listening. That means at times the sound from my system may not be true to life but is the way I like to hear it. Sometimes I like the snap of a drum or piano hammer strike to be sharper and more percussive than it often is live, and I may prefer instruments more in the background behind a singer than they are in a live performance. Or vice versa.

All IME/IMO/FWIWFM/my 0.000001 cent (microcent), etc. - Don

Very good!

 

[jkeny]

This is true... for some. From selling cables I can tell you there is a fairly even split of folks who want their music as clear and uncolored as possible and those seeking their personal idea of what sounds good, which is ALWAYS based upon how much more warmth they want added. Also, for some adding warmth is a requirement to smooth out unpleasant distortion and they want just enough to do that... make the average recording sound a bit better, smooth out the grain from all the crappy brass connectors in the system, etc..

I come home from amplified concerts thinking my system sounds better all the time, because it is much better than the PA equipment at the venue. For live sound if it's mangled enough by room acoustics then a system might sound better too. But I get what you're saying... people with little experience in hearing live sound or other HiFi systems get acclimated to their own system and think it's the best thing in the world. VERY common, but I find with more experience this can be dropped.

Yes, there are many staging posts along the journey we allembark on in this hobby, one of which is that famous "synergy" thing which can often be a justification people use for trying to tame some distortion or brigthness in their replay system - there are many cul de sacs along the path.

AMIR... hearing defects and distortion is a different skill from evaluating realism of vocals and instruments. Both are very valuable though, I also hear issues most people miss but it comes with the territory... through experience I know what different kinds of distortion sounds like. For cables I pretty much know what they'll sound like before I even hear them as I've tried so many different designs and materials, I know the effect these things have on the sound. So, this indicates that hearing can be trained, you find your ability to pick out problems valuable but evaluating realism is just as valuable, maybe moreso.

I would suggest that the highlighted text is a gross understatement as realism is what is at the heart of emotional connection & realism is never delivered over longer term listening when there is distortion present in the replay. One can eliminate audible distortion & yet not have a realistic illusion but the opposite is not true.

 

[RogerD]

"Last night I went to a very nice house concert in a house in one of the nicest parts of Zürich. The house was of modern design and the room for concert was fairly large at about 6 x 10 meters (20 x 33 feet) with high ceilings. THe concert was a duo with two cellos. Both cellists were professionals from the Tonhalle Orchestra and so quite skilled if not at the uppermost levels of the soloist world. The pieces ranged from largely unknown to me to a final piece that was quite demanding from Paganinni (not sure if it was originally written for cello or transcripted).

Anyway, my wife and I sat in the front row, which was only 2.5 meters or so from the performers themselves but slightly "off-axis" from the center. The music ranged from light and playful to "hard and heavy" or deeply romantic. So, quite a wide variety of sound and styles and technical diffculty. It was clear that some of the pieces required an extreme amount of concentration whereas other pieces they were able to feed off of each other in a playful manner. Really great stuff!

Now, there were two really deep take home audiophile messages from this concert that had nothing to do with the musicians playing or the compositions but really the sound itself and the impact that sound created.

1) The tone of the two instruments was FAR richer sounding than 99% of the high end systems I have heard, either at people's homes or shows. This was driven home to me more than usual because we were sitting so close (I could easily hear the breathing of the cellist closeest to us). You expect a certain richness in a big hall when you sit in the middle to the back of the hall due to absoprtion of high frequencies. There was none of that here.

The other important point about tone was the disctinct and laughably easy differentiation between the two performers cellos. Now, this might also have to do with how they played their instruments but it seemed to be more the instrument (or bow) themselves. What do I mean? The cellist closest to us (by closer I mean about 50-75 cm closer) had a warmer tone that was also somehow less complex and more midrange centered. It also projected a bit more but was more tonally homogeneous and therefore somewhat less interesting. The other cello (ist) had more growl in the low notes with complex overtones in the lower strings and likewise a bit more "bite" in the upper frequencies, which were again more complex. It gave a more "hear into" quality on her solos. Mids were a bit less projected but still more interesting from the complexity of the tone.

Resolution was of course the real thing. Every nuance of their playing revealed, every squeak, squeal, fingering etc. all there without hardness.

This level of tonal differentiation is VERY difficult to get right with hifi. I have never heard a system with a SS amp get it right...ever. Very few tube systems get it right either though and none of the push/pull type from what I have heard so far.

So, next time you hear someone say that an all tube system sounds too rich for reality don't believe them in most cases because the reality for real instruments in a real space IS rich and harmonically complex...even up close where you get more high frequency "bite" to the sound. The problem with most tube systems is that the tonal richness often comes at the price of transparency and resolution of details. They get tone right but lose the nuance.

2) The presence of the music was THERE! It was in your lap, in your face and then fading back to the performers during quiet passages. It lived and breathed. It didn't sit back in space, it invaded your space but with all the richness and resolution without hardness described above. This palpability is nearly unprecedented in hifi playback. Of course you need a recording that is intimate (most small ensemble recordings are rather made this way). A big orchestra recording is often going to have a more distant perspective...just like when you sit mid-hall.

Small ensembles in the spaces they were designed for can generate powerful waves of music and it is immersive and present in the room with you. It is more visceral than going to a big concert I have found, unless you sit very close as well to the orchestra. For example, I was at a concert the week before at Tonhalle to hear Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" and we sat in the mid-back of the hall. It was powerful sounding and moving but from a more distant perspective. The horns did not land in your lap.

I have heard very few systems that do the presence I heard last night even remotely close to that live performance. The closest thing it reminded me of was the Schubert Festival in London where we heard quartet and quintet in the home of a London doctor. That was equally visceral.

This presence is one of the things that horns seem to do better than dynamic speakers. Whether it is the sensitivity or the directivity of the speakers it is hard to say...probably a comination of these and other factors. The presence I heard last night I have never heard with a dynamic speaker but I did hear it from time to time with big electrostats. I have also never heard it with a system driven with SS electronics...they tend to paint a more distant perspective of the soundfield and lack the dynamic bursts to capture that pulsing sound.


It seems to me now that in some ways, there are many systems that have even more trouble getting this presence, dynamic "breathing" and tone right of a small, two instrument, ensemble than do to recreate a nice panoramic orchestral sound (not a lifelike SPL mind you). It is severe even because most fall down on both the tone and differentiation of tone as well as the presence and microdynamics. Most are flat and gray compared to what I heard sitting 2-3 meters from the performers.

I have seen many people argue that SETs make an unrealistic sound in terms of tone and "projection" of the sound...artifacts and distortion some people say. And yet, they get closer to the sound I heard yesterday (coupled with horns in particular) live than any other technology I have heard. I have laid out technical reasons why but the best is just listening and realizing what the real deal sounds like and which technology gets us closer to that." - by morricab

Bob, we talked about our systems ability to convey emotion to the listener....presence is a big part of that. I must admit it is fleeting as I have switched out components and lost it. There is nothing like a Soprano singing Ave Maria to you and being unable to hold back the tears...they just come.

 

[Rodney Gold]

AARGH .. that screechy violin , the dull treble , the amorphous bass and the brass..talk about strident..terrible imaging.. lemme get outa this concert and go back to my hifi...

 

[jkeny]

Come on, guys - get a grip - stop all this blubbing

 

[PeterA]

If we accept the reality that our job is to critique everything from recording on, then one has to be a critical listener when it comes to distortions and deviations that come after that. You can have all the experience you want in live music. That enables you to critique the creation of music. It does little to help you diagnose playback problems. To do that, you need to develop a critical ear. One that can listen past the music, is able to know what distortion causes what issues, and enough experience with verifiable answers to be good at this.

Amir, your view seems to differ from what Robert Harley wrote in the latest TAS: "...Wilson's designs were informed by his recording work. The reference of live music was, and remains, the foundation for all development projects. Although no longer an active recording engineer, Wilson regularly travels to concert halls all over the world to calibrate his ears."

It seems that Dave Wilson is developing his critical ear ("One that can listen past the music, is able to know what distortion causes what issues, and enough experience with verifiable answers to be good at this."), in part, by listening to live music. He may feel it does more than a "little" to help him diagnose playback problems in his speakers.

 

[NorthStar]

Only 33 to go (one third).

* I've noticed that in the last few days there was more writing about the type of amps than the type of loudspeakers and the type of sources.
...Between this thread and the other one about Tone and Presence: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Tone-and-Presence-What-most-systems-get-wrong

 

[rblnr]

Very late to the party here, but

I would not apply the word "reference" when considering how I judge my system with respect to live music; I would say live instruments, music, and performances (rehearsals, plinking at a friend's house, etc.) provide the context for my listening.

I think this is well put. I use live as my reference in exactly this contextual way (thanks for naming it), whether the recording is live or in studio. And while I make a point to withhold judgement, particularly on unfamiliar recordings, in the first minute (or less) of sitting down in front of a system, I have a visceral reaction on whether it 'gets it' or not and this has everything to do with live as a reference/context.

 

[acousticsguru]

I think this is well put. I use live as my reference in exactly this contextual way (thanks for naming it), whether the recording is live or in studio. And while I make a point to withhold judgement, particularly on unfamiliar recordings, in the first minute (or less) of sitting down in front of a system, I have a visceral reaction on whether it 'gets it' or not and this has everything to do with live as a reference/context.

I never figured "reference" to have another meaning in this context than what one compares with/to. If it referred to (pun intended) the cutting-edge benchmark (whatever), that would be real life (live) in my book anyhow.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[amirm]

Amir, your view seems to differ from what Robert Harley wrote in the latest TAS: "...Wilson's designs were informed by his recording work. The reference of live music was, and remains, the foundation for all development projects. Although no longer an active recording engineer, Wilson regularly travels to concert halls all over the world to calibrate his ears."

It seems that Dave Wilson is developing his critical ear ("One that can listen past the music, is able to know what distortion causes what issues, and enough experience with verifiable answers to be good at this."), in part, by listening to live music. He may feel it does more than a "little" to help him diagnose playback problems in his speakers.

Sure.

 

[DaveyF]

Another one late to the party. I'm not understanding if one is NOT using live ( un-amplified...that's crucial IMO) music as a reference, then what the heck are you using??
Amir, when you heard the buzzing on the two tape recordings, I would have questioned the fidelity just as much as you did. Why would a faulty tape recording-- or the playback system, be anything that could be perceived as anything but what it is and was....a sonic problem! Whether that fault interfered with my ( or your) enjoyment of the music is perhaps another discussion; but a fault it certainly was....and one that would cause me to question why it was not disclosed by a certain well-known reviewer??? The answer to that lies with either a) he did not hear the issue on his system, due to some unknown issue, b) he did not hear the fault because he was unable to physically hear the problem ( due to a certain hearing loss at that frequency or??) or c) he did hear the buzz and simply chose to not disclose it! All three reasons are not imho good excuses. However, how many times have reviewers chosen to "not disclose" an issue to the public and their readership for fear of 'offending' their main source of income...the supplier/manufacturer???? As they say, you can't believe all that you read, LOL.

 

[caesar]

The poll results are in and my OP question has been answered. Everything else is either a discussion or statement in support of one's vote, or it is off topic. That is fine, and I have learned a lot about music versus sound and other topics, while Bob always provides a good vibe, grounding us in what matters most.
...

Peter, are you satisfied with the poll results alone? Even Wilson Audio now changed their marketing to mention the platonic ideal of music reproduction, not to make claims that their speakers sound "real".

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...marketing-edge&p=423931&viewfull=1#post423931

I know it is fun for many. Yet if this business of comparing to live music is all about imagination, how's this different than kids playing with dinosaurs and superhero dolls?

 

[NorthStar]

One thing I have to say; I'm glad to be in the top red band above (76.81%). :b

I grew up surrounded by music, all the family played instruments (I was a mediocre trumpet player, a dreadful clarinetist, an abject failure as a pianist (much to the disappointment of my mother - a concert pianist in her youth) but could carry a tune in a choir without much effort) and it was a steady diet of God, The Father and the Son - Bach, Beethoven and Brahms - in our household.

I have always gone to concerts of all descriptions, and have a very good idea what an instrument, and an orchestra, sounds like. It is that experience that I intuitively rely upon in my assessment of hi fi systems. Ultimately, and here is the subjectivist coming out, it is the ability of any system to emotionally connect me with the music being played that is important to my experience.

The corollary of that is I couldn't give a fig whether what I am listening to is accurate or not - I mean accurate to what exactly anyway? - rather I seek that magical time when a systems inherent musicality reaches out and touches me on the shoulder, so what I am listening to is not the system, but only the music.

I have learned that any dogma - tubes are "coloured", ss is "sterile" - is nothing but distraction to that experience. The other thing I have learned is we all like different things, and hear different things, according to our ears and experience. And it is a jolly good thing we do.

So perhaps we might all just learn to celebrate those differences, and respect each other's choices in this wonderful hobby. For me, I find vinyl is more enjoyable than digital for a variety of reasons, for all its inconveniences and expense. But really each to their own, and all power to you.

123 ... Color my world.

 

[NorthStar]

I've been around live music all my life, acoustic, amplified, electronic, as a listener and performer. The term "reference" means different things to different folk, and I use it different ways as well. Sometimes it means the absolute best, the reference against which all else is judged. Other times it is more like a baseline against which other things are compared, sometimes better, sometimes worse (or maybe just different). There are times I really appreciate a live performance, and times I much prefer the recording, for all the usual reasons (the enveloping sound of a concert hall, the intimate presence of a jazz club, versus the ability to really listen to the music in a great recording and pick up nuances hard to catch in a live setting, or maybe I just don't feel like going out, or want to listen to certain songs rather than whatever the group is doing, or listen to songs from multiple groups, etc.) Some venues are poor and yet the (live) music shines through, and sometimes the performance just isn't what I expected or hoped it would be. Sometimes the recording is poorly mastered or recorded and just has no hope of feeling "real". Too many variables.

I would not apply the word "reference" when considering how I judge my system with respect to live music; I would say live instruments, music, and performances (rehearsals, plinking at a friend's house, etc.) provide the context for my listening. That means at times the sound from my system may not be true to life but is the way I like to hear it. Sometimes I like the snap of a drum or piano hammer strike to be sharper and more percussive than it often is live, and I may prefer instruments more in the background behind a singer than they are in a live performance. Or vice versa.

There is so little time in a day...twenty-four hours, that it is quasi impossible to read all the good stuff from all the good people. :b

 

[PeterA]

Peter, are you satisfied with the poll results alone? Even Wilson Audio now changed their marketing to mention the platonic ideal of music reproduction, not to make claims that their speakers sound "real".

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...marketing-edge&p=423931&viewfull=1#post423931

I know it is fun for many. Yet if this business of comparing to live music is all about imagination, how's this different than kids playing with dinosaurs and superhero dolls?

Caesar, I have not thought about that except now to write that my satisfaction has nothing to do with it, and I can't say I am or am not satisfied. I was curious about the poll question, and people voted. In that sense, I'm satisfied that people took the time to vote in the poll. The thread has generated some interesting and worthwhile discussion, IMO.

Regarding the Wilson ad copy for their new WAMM design, I think if a speaker company wants to design and manufacture speakers which when put in an appropriate audio system contribute to the system sounding "believable", than that is a legitimate goal. Who are we to tell Dave Wilson how he should run his company or what his design goals should be? We can listen to his speakers and decide if we want to buy them or not. Perhaps Wilson is reading this thread and noticed that many members don't think that a system can sound "real" but they do think that it can often sound "believable". They preferred the latter term and chose it for their advertising copy.

I don't follow your last question. Do you consider people's memory - of how an instrument sounds based on having heard that instrument - really to be imagination? Perhaps I don't know what "imagination" means. I thought it was something made up, not real. Audiophiles don't go around saying that a system sounds indistinguishable from a real guitar, they say, a system sounds "like", or a system sound "convincing" or "believable". A system can remind them of what a guitar sounds like and can conjure emotions similar to hearing a live guitar. It is not the same as a real guitar being played in the room. I don't think anyone hear is saying that systems sound "real". And I'm not saying that I or others are constantly comparing the sound of our systems to live music. I am saying that one of the references that I use to assess the quality of my system is my memory of what live instruments sound like.

 

[853guy]

Ok, I'm reading through the paper now & these things pop out related to what defines music
-

Component 6, in contrast, responded primarily to sounds
categorized as music: of the 30 sounds with the highest
response, all but two were categorized as musical sounds by
participants. Even the two exceptions were melodic: ‘‘wind
chimes’’ and ‘‘ringtone’’ (categorized as ‘‘environmental’’ and a
‘‘mechanical’’ sounds, respectively). Other non-musical sounds
produced a low response, even those with pitch​

- later in the paper, it defines one aspect of what this component 6 responds to - temporal struture over relatively long timesacles

So it would seem that answers my question of what characteristic is used by auditory processing to determine if it's music or not - longish temporal structure

It's a heavy paper to understand & would take a while to absorb it all - not sure I have the time

Just another quick thought:

It occurred to me that sometimes it’s the most obvious things we overlook when confronting a problem.

The ‘problem’ of what makes music so identifiably ‘music’ is something that’s evident to any student learning to play an instrument around the globe. If you asked them to articulate the essential signifiers of what constitutes music, they’d pull out their sheet music, and point to a bunch of black and white dots arranged vertically (pitch), arranged horizontally into clusters of semi-breves, minims, crotchets, quavers, semi-quavers (etc.) and tied together into rhythmic groupings of triplets, staccato notes and legato notes dictated by the tempo/bpm and time-signature (time), with and without accents and rests (dynamics).

That is, when pitch is organised relative to time and given dynamics, we have music. For the last 43,000 years, this is the foundation of what has, and always will, comprised ‘music’. Even a five-year old can understand this, simply by reading a piece of paper, and without making a single audible sound.

Timbre and tone? They’re the sound of the the player and their command over their respective instrument. But, to be clear, they’re only ever the acoustical byproducts of an idea that’s always communicated as a inter-dependent and continuously modulating relationship between pitch, time and dynamics. We can talk about sound all we want, and even take it to a Valin-esque* extreme of how closely X mimics Y, but we’re not talking about music. That's something wholly separate from sound, hence the reason I believe the research is pointing toward the brain's division between processing music as distinct from sound and speech.

In my opinion - which, because I am some anonymous guy posting on an internet forum, is essentially worthless - the greatest musicians are the ones that understand the relationship between pitch, time and dynamics and can interpret that relationship in an aesthetically and artistically creative way via the medium of sound. That the sound itself may not reflect, represent or mimic the ‘reality’ of “real instruments in a real space” when played back on our systems need not necessarily be an impediment to the communication of the idea, nor the aesthetics and artistry of the artist(s) in articulating it.

*I actually like Valin. So there.

 

[morricab]

Only 33 to go (one third).

* I've noticed that in the last few days there was more writing about the type of amps than the type of loudspeakers and the type of sources.
...Between this thread and the other one about Tone and Presence: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Tone-and-Presence-What-most-systems-get-wrong

I would include the source generally as electronics vs. speakers and this is because they are generally generating the same basic distortions as the preamp...perhaps not the amp because of the loads and power delivery involved. The output stage of a DAC and the phonostage in an analog rig are VITAL to getting realistic sound. I would actually rate the phonostage as the most important component in an analog rig, over the cartridge and TT itself! It is for the same reason I see the amp/preamp as being more important to ultimate realism than the speakers.

Of course the speakers can ultimately limit the degree of realism possible but not to the extent, IME, as the electronics, which are mainly guilty of the artifacts that ruin a natural vs. synthesized sound.

 

[Detlof]

I grew up surrounded by music, all the family played instruments (I was a mediocre trumpet player, a dreadful clarinetist, an abject failure as a pianist (much to the disappointment of my mother - a concert pianist in her youth) but could carry a tune in a choir without much effort) and it was a steady diet of God, The Father and the Son - Bach, Beethoven and Brahms - in our household.

I have always gone to concerts of all descriptions, and have a very good idea what an instrument, and an orchestra, sounds like. It is that experience that I intuitively rely upon in my assessment of hi fi systems. Ultimately, and here is the subjectivist coming out, it is the ability of any system to emotionally connect me with the music being played that is important to my experience.

The corollary of that is I couldn't give a fig whether what I am listening to is accurate or not - I mean accurate to what exactly anyway? - rather I seek that magical time when a systems inherent musicality reaches out and touches me on the shoulder, so what I am listening to is not the system, but only the music.

I have learned that any dogma - tubes are "coloured", ss is "sterile" - is nothing but distraction to that experience. The other thing I have learned is we all like different things, and hear different things, according to our ears and experience. And it is a jolly good thing we do.

So perhaps we might all just learn to celebrate those differences, and respect each other's choices in this wonderful hobby. For me, I find vinyl is more enjoyable than digital for a variety of reasons, for all its inconveniences and expense. But really each to their own, and all power to you.

Thank you for this so music loving post, I agree with every word in it and need to say no more in this matter.

 

[NorthStar]

I would include the source generally as electronics vs. speakers and this is because they are generally generating the same basic distortions as the preamp...perhaps not the amp because of the loads and power delivery involved. The output stage of a DAC and the phonostage in an analog rig are VITAL to getting realistic sound. I would actually rate the phonostage as the most important component in an analog rig, over the cartridge and TT itself! It is for the same reason I see the amp/preamp as being more important to ultimate realism than the speakers.

Of course the speakers can ultimately limit the degree of realism possible but not to the extent, IME, as the electronics, which are mainly guilty of the artifacts that ruin a natural vs. synthesized sound.

This is important what you just said because we all vote according to our best accurate music experience.
It's not a black and white transfer; we all have our own sources, music material to play from them, and we all have a preamp and amp(s).
...From tubes to solid state, and like you said, the phono preamp, the cartridge perfect tracking adjusted device.
The way we all build our "sound" is a personal journey and preference based on our own set of references.
...The closer to one(s) the choice is ours, and our votes reflect that closeness.
I did not vote for a long time since the beginning of Peter's thread, only very recently to simply acknowledge my overall tendency and affinity.
...Which is Acoustic Live Music. I also like amplified music, in second place.
_______
_______

• A quote from Bob Dylan's written speech on accepting the Nobel Prize of Literature 2016:

"As a performer I’ve played for 50,000 people and I’ve played for 50 people and I can tell you that it is harder to play for 50 people. 50,000 people have a singular persona, not so with 50. Each person has an individual, separate identity, a world unto themselves. They can perceive things more clearly. Your honesty and how it relates to the depth of your talent is tried. The fact that the Nobel committee is so small is not lost on me.

But, like Shakespeare, I too am often occupied with the pursuit of my creative endeavors and dealing with all aspects of life’s mundane matters. “Who are the best musicians for these songs?” “Am I recording in the right studio?” “Is this song in the right key?” Some things never change, even in 400 years."

 

[jkeny]

I would include the source generally as electronics vs. speakers and this is because they are generally generating the same basic distortions as the preamp...perhaps not the amp because of the loads and power delivery involved. The output stage of a DAC and the phonostage in an analog rig are VITAL to getting realistic sound. I would actually rate the phonostage as the most important component in an analog rig, over the cartridge and TT itself! It is for the same reason I see the amp/preamp as being more important to ultimate realism than the speakers.

Of course the speakers can ultimately limit the degree of realism possible but not to the extent, IME, as the electronics, which are mainly guilty of the artifacts that ruin a natural vs. synthesized sound.

Yes, I wonder about this - is it because mechanical & electromechanical devices are constrained by the mechanical laws of physics from deviating too far from natural sound - their distortions are more easily accommodated to by our auditory perception at a fundamental level? That's my take on it, anyway.

Auditory perception is actually analysing all incoming signals & assembling an auditory scene based on best guess 'identification' of the auditory objects in that scene. 'Identification' is too definitive a term, auditory processing is in a constant state of insecurity, guessing, at every moment in time, at the best solution to what the signals represent & probably having a small remnant of the signals as unresolved. Depending on how big the distortion is & where the distortion is occurring in the full structure of the sound, defines how large an effect it has on our auditory perception. If it affects the attack stage of a sound, it will likely have a significant effect as this stage is more important for auditory perception, relative to other stages, sustain, decay, release. Furthermore, any set of these signals has a number of alternative possible solutions which fits our understanding of the understanding we have of the auditory world & minimises the number of unresolved signal remnants.

With that understanding comes my realisation that it's not just that an unnatural distortion is noticed as a singular issue, it can have a more disruptive & widespread effect across the auditory scene being built from moment to moment. The level of disruption perceived depends on so many factors. If it It's not that the whole created scene falls apart, my guess is that we are just thrown back to one of the other possible solutions or we are more unsure of our derivations.

An example may explain my meaning better - if we take very low level noise that is correlated to signal processing - in other words, common mode noise. This isn't a noise that is audible with ear to speakers when playing digital silence - it is only present & probably fluctuates with signal processing. As it is very low level fluctuating noise it is normally masked by higher signal levels found during sustain & decay stages of a sound. It will only audibly affect sound during the low level stages of sound build up & tail off - the attack & decay stages of a sound. The effect on the attack portion is again not directly audible as noise, as there's backward masking happening but more likely perceived as a less defined start to the sound. The release portion may also be perceived as a fuzzy end to the sound but I doubt it is as perceptible. So, how is less defined, more fuzzy, timing perceived? Probably as a less solid, not as clearly defined sounds with the result of a less solid sound stage - possibly a less realistic sound? This is all coming from the electronics & a fluctuating low level noise.

I don't believe this sort of signal correlated fluctuating noise distortion is usual in speakers? Fixed noise is perceptually far easier to accommodate to. In fact any signals which can be tied together into a separate sound stream can be accommodated by auditory perception - it's how we can focus on a conversation in a noisy room, it's how we can separate our room ambience from the ambience on the playback

Maybe others can correct or expand on my thoughts?