This may sound rather snobbish but it is not intended that way. Just like there are folks who never learned plumbing, auto mechanics, fine wine or the intricacies of any other field, there are many who have never had the opportunity to educate their ears as to what sounds good and what does not. If someone has never heard real live people playing instruments in person, are they able to tell which recorded and then reproduced version of a performance sounds the most accurate or real? If all someone has ever listened to is snippets of sounds that have been stitched together is there a set of "better" sound characteristics to try to achieve as their goal? Is there a time when just plain louder is better without regard for timbre?
I suppose I am a sound snob because I do know what sounds real and I do have a strong preference for it. Very little brings more happiness than finding a new CD or LP that is well recorded and a great performance of good material. In a perfect world everything would be like this. Unfortunately, that is not the majority of what I listen too. There is too much other music I like that is just plain lousy recordings. I have CD's of early Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald & Eartha Kitt recordings. These were mono recordings that only exist now as transfers from 78rpm records. I consider Ella to be the greatest female jazz singer of all time and if this is the only way to listen to these performances then so be it. Another example came up earlier in the thread. The first Van Halen album is very poorly recorded. As much as that can annoy me at times, it is still Eddie Van Halen. I like the material and performance too much to let the poor recording stop me from enjoying it. (This is one of those times when maybe louder is better...)