Messiah:Are we not aiming to recreate what they have mastered as faithfully as possible??
Possibly not.
'They' might be mastering for something that is an acceptable compromise - in playback quality - on portable radios, TVs, iPods, PC speakers, cheap dock systems and in cars, rather than an exercise in recording something "as faithfully as possible".
Sounding good on a traditional seperates hifi could be the last (and least) priority of the recording 'studio'. (The small size of active monitors, relatively lower cost and lack of big amps could be as much - or more - of a factor than outright quality. Especially when every square foot of recording space is expensive to rent.)
These considerations are not a million miles away from the domestic considerations of the hifi consumer now...
Space. If I were to buy a decent pair of small active speakers fed with computer sourced material (and if I got my telly on the wall) I would gain 3 square metres of living room. (4 square metres if I put the speakers on wall brackets.)
Cost savings. Does not need explaining.
An acceptably high quality with a range of material across a spectrum of recording quality - from the apalling to the sublime - and bitrates ranging from Internet radio and compressed download standard, to 24/192 'Studio Master' FLAC files. Too many 'traditional' systems are a bit 'precious' about anything but the finest recordings.