The concept of "degregation of fidelity" misses the elephant in the room.
Note that I used it specifically in the context of conveying information. I do not actually believe that perfect reproduction is always the best choice.
When one needs to convey specific information, simplification and detail control is key. This is why emergency vehicles have that undulating sound (trivially recognized, as it does not occur in nature) interspersed with shorter noise or tones (to help humans perceive the direction the sound is coming from; it is very difficult to do if the sound is continuous), and why we use diagrams instead of photographs to convey visual data series.
Consider recording an orchestra in a concert hall. Where exactly should the microphones be placed? Conductor's podium? First row of the audience? Centre, right left? Centre of the audience? With or without a complete audience?
The concept of a single place for the microphones is, of course, too simplistic. But it does highlight the point that there cannot be a single "correct" sound - it is all a choice made by the recording engineer.
Furthermore, should the recording even reproduce a specific listening point, or a physically possible listening position?
An interesting similar choice occurs in 3D rendering and stereoscopic visuals. If you choose the view frustrum to match the typical viewing distance, the rendered image acts like a window to the rendered scene. However, you can increase the field of view, which lets the human view more of the scene at once than they could in real life; and for stereoscopic images, increasing the interocular distance enhances the depth perception.
One of the related tricks we have all seens in horror movies is when the camera zooms in while moving away, or zooms out while moving closer in, causing a field of view and depth scaling change that humans
relate to. (Something similar happens to our
perception in specific situations (danger!) due to hormonal surges, even though our eyes cannot zoom in or out per se.)
One thing that may distinguish "audiophools" (a common insult hurled about in this platform) from genuine music and audio lovers is if they attend actual live concerts of acoustic music, or not.
I use the term for those who believe their audio equipment
can have needs certain
je ne sais quoi that can be
felt but not
measured.
To me, live concerts are more of a social event – I'm not just listening to the music, but participating in it as part of the audience –; but I tend to listen to certain pieces of classical music simply because of the effect it has on my mind. In live concerts, there is always an interaction between the performers and the audience, which is a big part. Even with acoustic music and no vocals, the interplay between the audience and the musicians and the venue (especially large halls intended for music) is a huge part of the experience for me. Thus, I do not believe live music vs recordings is related to audiophõlery.