I'm new here, so pardon me if I'm barging in. I've been reading the posts in this thread, and I think there might be some slight misunderstanding regarding recording and studio work.
.Someone here had the opinion that professionals need monitors with the flattest and truest response. For project engineers, that may (or may not) be true. For editing and mixing , it is not. Audio professionals are involved in one thing and one thing ONLY; producing a finished product for their client, and that means a finished product that will sell. There are no other criteria. If the latest mega-money fad is deepfake cricket sex, then that's what they will be involved in doing. If they didn't follow that trend, they wouldn't make money.
And making money is priority number one. If they don't make money, they won't be there for their clients, and if they don't have clients, they'll have to get a job as a ditch digger. Most audio professionals make lousy ditch diggers.
So the studio personnel work at producing the finished product for the client. And like any workmen, they have their tools. Plumbers have tools, carpenters have tools, and audio personnel have tools. Tools for primary capture, tools for editing, tools for mixing, and tools to evaluate the finished product. Some tools are sophisticated and refined, and some less so.
If the tools work, then they're good, no matter how cheap they may be. If the tools don't work, then they're not good, no matter how expensive they may be. One carpenter may use Skil, one may use Milwaukee, and another may use DeWalt. But they all get the job done.
One good editor may need screeching high-mid response, to hit his target exactly. Another good editor may need screeching low-treble response. And they may not want to use EQ to get that sound; they may want to rely on native characteristics for consistency.
A mixer may need headroom more than anything, because he may need to compare raw-vs.-finished levels involving up to 30 dB difference. Some clients may want a mix that throws away the treble and boosts the bass, others may not involve themselves with bass at all. Instead, they may want to boost the mids.
As in all things, the client checks the end product and the producer okays it. The group may go back and forth several times to get the finished product.
The end product for pop usually ends up sounding NOTHING like the primary tracks.
BUT ...... then the studio personnel turn right around and work with the next client, who wants the best recording of a violin concerto. And the studio can do that. They'll probably reach into their toolbag and pull out a slightly different set of tools, but they can do it. Plumbers change tools, carpenters change tools, and audio personnel change tools. All in the interest of achieving their ends.
If you, as a client, pay for fad, you'll get fad. If you, as a client, pay for true, natural sound, you'll get true, natural sound. It will still be (maybe heavily) processed, mind you. Most people have no idea how much signal manipulation goes into 'purist" recordings.
And the people giving you that finished "purist" product? They may (or may not) be using the same screeching or booming or blatting monitors as before. They use them because they know them. They know how they correlate, both to the raw signal and to the finished product. They know and understand how to use them to produce this, or that, or some other thing.
They know how to use their tools.
And that's what counts. That, ..... and money.
