Yes, humans like distortion... If I mount a postcard on the fork of the bike that touches the spokes of the wheel, I produce a noise (distortion
![Wink ;) ;)]()
), it could be pleasant and could give you the feeling of running faster. But this is not the case; this preference does not have a real and objective response to performance, in fact it probably worsens it, but it could, for someone, increase subjective involvement in the experience. This is a Preference!
Jokes aside! The example may be trivial but I think it can address the problem.
We measure everything to give a logical context, and that context is normally used to maximize performance, thus providing us with evidence of what is appropriate for the purpose we seek.
it makes sense to think that the best real system should guarantee the absolute best performance in every parameter, linearity, distortion, adequate power, SINAD, jitter, phase, etc etc even if not audible, to have a reasonable certainty of “process” as close as possible, to the "original message", and therefore to High Fidelity .
And this can only happen with a construction based on objective measurement data.
And certainly not of personal preference. Personal preference does not necessarily coincide with the reality of the facts.
It seems that the scientific research of recent years in the audio, has revealed that, the greater the spectrum of action of our systems, the greater the objective involvement in making a message as faithful as possible.
otherwise we wouldn't have succumbed to the temptation to evolve from the gramophone!!