I'm simply failing to understand why a subjective improvement that is an absolute objective distortion of the waveform is considered nicer. I remember the friendly banter on early internet forums with Cadacs Tony Waldron. He cheerfully admitted technical mistakes in designs were suddenly appreciated as wonderful. His own designs along with Rupert Neve's were happy accidents - design flaws that people liked. Old Quad amplifiers that were actually perceived as special, when they weren't, technically.
I just have a problem with having flavours of distortion. I would rather have no change in the waveform unless I have control over it. Does anyone ever look at any other data stream in analague or digital and consider distortion a positive thing? Radio astronomy preamps for example? Those studying RF emissions from planetary bodies for example? would they consider adding distortion to be remotely positive in any sense? The camera folk with their quest for low light level, noise free imaging sensors? They'd quite happily add processing and non-linearity afterwards. You never find them actively seeking distortion in the source devices like we do. Hence my categorisation of this stuff as firmly in the hi-fi camp The avoidance of hum, noise and distortion remains my preference.
Many dont consider it nicer...
I remember reading some piece on Leo Fender and how distortion = failure in the era. Those years were spent trying to get louder without any distortion. Even Dick Dales extreme loud live sounds were without intentional distortion per Leo's goals.
Symphony crowd, Classic crowd all wanting clean, low noise, "hi-end" audiophile spec is one camp it seems. Clean, distortion free goals still exists for some recording applications.
But the "distortion world" happened...Jimi Hendrix and other pop-culture sounds like Rolling Stones Satisfaction guitar distortion became the sound masses wanted to copy or expand on. Sounds were created and enjoyed it seems.
Seems to me thats when a lot of the "distortion" chasing started. I was probably 7yrs old so I refer to books.
My own DIY comparisons on microphone vocal preamps = nothing-result as I couldnt hear a gnat fart difference between a Rane MS1 and a $1700 preamp in clean mode. What I did stumble into was a "crunched" Compressor offered the distortion-FX.
1176,LA2A overdriven.
But then when it came to FX box's for pop-culture stuff and low-fi, non clean, distortion a fuzz plugin or a ART TPSII $215 does the FX/Fuzz better than the old classics clones like the KT2A or 1176 distortion which is totally subjective what "sounds good" and thats mainly referring to vocal mic/dist or clean. My KT2A can crunch and some light distrtion but its not like running into a high distortion guitar fuzz type box, that seems to get used on a lot of recordings these days.
Clean or FuzzDirt....to each their own. Now a days we can have both easily, with plug-ins in HR land. Today Im leaning towards plug-ins as they are cheaper, no cable noises, can be slapped on 100 tracks.....imagine having 100qty LA2A $$$$$ with no recall?