-
But they are already there in natural music. You don't need a bad amplifier adding more of them
Yes but... when it was recorded and mastered and played back, the people who did the recording did so in the knowledge that it sounded as good as they could make it on the enjoyably "flawed" equipment of the day, not in the belief that it would one day achieve perfection by being replicated on flawless future tech.
I'm not saying that modern design, manufacture and measurement can't improve the listening experience, i'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily follow that audio nirvana lies in being the closest to totally transparent.
Edit: Well, I suppose it does if that's how you set the criteria and measure success against it without using your ears...
Dooks-Fatberg-
You're really describing the difference between audio production, where the original sound is deliberately distorted to produce a pleasing result, and audio reproduction where the aim is that if you close your eyes you can't tell whether the band is in the room with you.
If you think your highly distorting playback equipment exactly matches what the artist had in mind when he created the recording, you are hearing his creation as he intended it to be heard. On the other hand, if the artist's preferred medium is live performance, then you will get closest to enjoying his work as he would have wanted by the most faithful possible replication of the sound you would have heard if you had actually been in the room with him.
gbj_tester
But they are already there in natural music. You don't need a bad amplifier adding more of them.