"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

There is an argument to be made for "a pleasant sound". I have heard
systems described as "accurate" that were not at all pleasant. I imagine
that a perfect system would so closely approach the original sound that it
would satisfy both the soul of the listener and whatever is satisfied by
accuracy. My hope of attaining that perfect system is ZERO, so I have to
compromise. I have to compromise on the components that I use (because of
cost), the room that I use (because of cost) and the software that I use
(because the music I like may or may not be available well recorded) so if I
could be certain it would be a sufficiently pleasant system I would happily
compromise in that direction.
I could justify this by saying that I want the sound not for itself
but for the effect, and tI'd accept an inaccurate effect that is as much
enjoyment as the original sound. If the desired effect were to create a
measurably closer approach to the original sound for whatever end that would
serve I might prefer a "better" system that was not so enjoyable. I wish I
did not have to consider compromise, but I do and if I have to err let it be
on the side of enjoyment. For example, we all know that x dollars spent on
a system that would satisfy a listener of chamber music would purchase a
system that a rock and roll kid would incinerate in a matter of minutes.
And that the system that would satisfy the kid would not please the chamber
musiocc listener. So almost any system most of us can afford is a
compromise. The problem is figuring out how to go about making the best
compromise.

Wylie Williams