Should music critics also be audiophiles?


Now that I’m into audio, I’d much rather read a music review that can discuss the technicalities of the recordings in addition to musical context and achievement.  
redwoodaudio
It's because they get more than their fill at work.  They get to be professional musicians because they practice way more than they feel like.  
The quality of the recording, at least in modern music made with modern means, should be more of a factor in music criticism. Compression, for instance, should be discussed as ain important factor that enhances or diminishes the enjoyment of a recording.
It should still be secondary to the actual performance and writing. A great sounding performance doesn't overcome the issues of terrible writing and playing.No amount of shining can disguise crap and some great songs have been destroyed by too much shining
Most audiophile magazines give recordings they review a grade for sound and performance and often discuss the sound in their review.  Many music magazines don't because people who care about sound are a tiny minority of their readers.

Paul McGowan of PS Audio posted about how he recently recorded a string quartet and had this experience:

What a great experience and I can’t wait to share with you the recording in a future Octave Records release. This particular recording will be on the upcoming Audiophile’s Guide setup SACD.

What caught my attention for the subject of today’s post was the little introductory speech I gave to the ladies before they began to play. Our producer, Giselle Collazo, asked me to brief them on what we were hoping to achieve with this recording. Soon I found myself explaining who audiophiles were and what makes us different than someone with a Sonos speaker or a Bose radio. Their blank stares were really telling.   

 Our world of high-end audio is so far removed from what people consider good home music reproduction as to be mind-boggling.

https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/relative-better/
When films are screened for film critics, I imagine that they are good quality renditions (used to call them "prints") on good/big screens with proper sound, etc. If a director or composer has made an effort to include something in the film, the playback should not obscure it. And a good film critic would know the optimal playback conditions for a film.

I see no reason the above argument doesn’t transfer without loss to the music critic. Now, whether an article of music criticism *should* discuss the audiophile technicalities is an interesting one. I’d love to see it, but I could imagine that for reviews with word-limits (i.e., all of them) it could displace important critical remarks about more central considerations.