Studio monitors are tools of trade. Specialized ones.
NS-10, for instance, has ludicrously good transient response, allowing mixing engineer to hear minute nuances in critical midrange, where vocals and instruments tend to crowd out each other in initial versions of a mix. Relative lack of bass and treble is a feature too, as it allows the engineer to focus on the midrange.
Auratone/Avanton cubes are single-driver tiny studio monitors, intended to consistently emulate cheap consumer electronics such as lower-end boomboxes and lower-end car audio. Checking a mix on them has obvious benefits for certain genres of music, such as pop songs.
Then there are studio monitors that are flat, yet relatively highly distorting. Popular KRK models come to mind. Those are good for checking distortion levels. If a certain area in a mix is too distorted, it will jump out at mixing engineer. If a mix sounds good on KRKs, it will likely sound well enough on highly-distorting consumer gear too.
And then we come to studio monitors that are both flat and low distorting. Larger ATC and Neumann models are of that variety. Those are good for mixing and mastering music supposed to play very well on highly resolving consumer systems. Also on professionally designed and calibrated systems at concert venues and movie theaters.
ATC is obsessive about ultra-low distortion levels, yet doesn’t care much about radiation pattern, and thus ATCs are better suited for heavily dampened studio rooms. Neumanns radiation patterns tend to be close to perfectly desirable, and thus Neumanns work well in reflective rooms too.
Other studio monitors of that variety excel in other parameters while paying less attention to some others, and studio engineers understand very well these tradeoffs. For instance, Barefoot sacrifices directivity in upper bass, yet gains compactness with vibration-free operation, and is thus very convenient for smaller project studios.
So, this is one factor in the studio monitors confusion. They are professional tools, wildly varied in their area of focus and corresponding engineering tradeoffs. For audiophile duties, I’d only consider the ruler-flat low-distorting variety. Yet some audiophiles keep taking for comparison highly specialized varieties.
Second factor is confusion regarding artists intent. Almost invariably, a given composition sounds sparser, simpler, smoother on a high-spec mastering studio monitor than on a consumer-grade speaker. Yet sometimes with surprising details that are getting blurred out or drowned out on consumer-grade speakers.
I recall listening to large ATC speakers - essentially veneered versions of their large studio monitors - at one of audiophile shows. I asked ATC rep to play a Pink Floyd song that I knew was mastered on that very ATC studio monitor model, which changed very little since those older times.
A gentleman sitting next to me didn’t like it. He cringed, said something about it not sounding right, and left before the song was over. To me though, it sounded majestic. Sparse and definitive. Inducing very dark, very lonely feeling, precisely in tune with the lyrics. Not at all enjoyable at certain verses, yet making me strongly feel what the artists were conveying.
Another example was hearing copy of studio master of Fields of Gold by Sting, on large Focals in an impeccably treated professional mastering studio. For long, I considered this composition a rather unremarkable pop song with catchy melody. Yet when the distortions were removed, a deeper layer became more prominent. That layer of music felt granulated, moving around like wheat stalks on a wind. I was floored.
I guess some audiophiles may not quite expect, or quite like, the familiar compositions when they are rendered like the mastering engineers heard them. Music tends to become less "entertaining" and more "feeling inducing", not necessarily a joyous one at that. Perhaps this is what some listeners call "too analytical"?