Of course everyone's taste, systems, and rooms are different, and I don't want to alter the artistic content, but if I follow your logic to the letter, it means that I should listen with the same little crappy speakers or similar that the content was mastered on, and who's goal is to saturate radio stations with a continuous compressed blast with no dynamic contrast. A lot of Classic recordings are now being remastered for this reason. Steven Wilson an artist, musician and recording engineer is highly solicited for this task. The same content remastered is now enjoyable on a large audiophile system.
You don't follow my logic. (And you're ignoring some rather obvious and central parts of my prior comment.)
The point is not to listen on the same system the music was mastered on, but rather to listen on equipment that most accurately reproduces whatever ended up on the source (tape, digital file, whatever). Listening on the same equipment the music might have been mastered on is an absurd proposition, precisely because different albums are mastered with different equipment - which was precisely my point.
In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of popular music is not mastered on
a particular set of equipment. It's mastered on multiple pieces of equipment, usually including quite revealing (aka high fidelity) equipment,
and also "crappy speakers," car stereos, headphones, and so on. And yes indeed, compromises are often made to ensure the result sounds basically balanced and in the ballpark of the artist's intent when played on a wide variety of systems and in a wide variety of situations.
To be clear, I do understand your point: if an album was mastered on equipment that is not itself accurate, then what the mastering engineer heard is not the same as what actually ended up on the tape/source file. And if an album was mastered, in part, using earbuds, car stereos and other non-hi-fi equipment in order to sound "punchy" and "radio-ready," then even if the mastering engineer's main system was accurate, the resulting final mastering is still going to be sonically compromised for audiophile listening.
My point is not that you are wrong about how some music mastered. My point is that you are wrong if you claim that you can "voice" your hi-fi system to magically compensate for all those compromised masterings.
You can't do that because bad masterings are bad in different ways; because masterings we might consider not quite as hi-fi as they could be all have different kinds and degrees of deficiencies; and because even if a system could magically compensate for mastering problems, it would negatively impact the sound of really good masterings that are already highly accurate and properly done.
As for modern remasters, some of them indeed are better than the originals, because they're made on modern equipment and targeted for an older, more audiophile audience than when they were originally released. And conversely, some modern remasters are
more compressed than the originals, because today's technology unfortunately enables more compression than the analogue equipment of the past.
But putting that aside, if you're going to buy modern remasters like Steven Wilson's - though it should be noted his stuff sounds so clean and dynamic because he
remixes from the multitracks, not because he remasters - then why on earth wouldn't you want to play those great, clean, well-balanced, dynamic remasters back on a home stereo system that has the highest fidelity as possible? Why play those great audiophile remasters back on a system that colors and distorts the sound to make certain older masterings sound more "musical"?
If you want to compensate for problems with mastering, that's what tone controls, equalizers, DSP, and other sound processing tools are for - tools that you can switch in or out of the circuit as needed. Turning your entire system into a giant tone control by chasing some kind of universal "musicality" that is supposedly different than and superior to accuracy, is a losing proposition and makes no sense.