So how do you arrive at a supposition that learning is a principle and direct aim of experiencing music... it’s surely a tangential outcome and not a direct one. It may be more likely (since music predates higher order awareness and highly developed language) that music creates change and connects more fundamentally in feeling rather than ideas which may then also (or not) be abstracted from the experience of feelings and sensations through the music... so awareness created from that change (learning) is another parallel outcome in a coexistent state of awareness. The direct aim of experiencing music can’t be locked down into any more context than just whatever we get out of experiencing music. Learning anything doesn’t seem to be always an outcome and for some it is an unimportant side issue. The best part of music is that about which naught can be said.
I was saying natural was at the core of a compass in relating experience of fidelity in acoustic sounds... a limited reference and not at all exact, but a ballpark point at the axials of all the diverging poles away from the truth. Everyone chooses how to navigate differently but use the essential sense that acoustic instruments sound fundamentally right is just a valid way finding... no more than that. Micro I’d be surprised if you can’t listen to something with an archetypal sound say like an acoustic guitar and say whether what you are hearing sounds relatively natural or relatively synthetic but if you can’t that’s all good but plenty of people here seem to find no trouble in recognising a distinction like that. This isn’t about absolute exactness but rather close enough approximations in perceptions that require no noticeable effort to translate the nature of a sound into its context