No disagreement here, however it's useful to isolate the schools of thought. If the aim is superlative, musical sound, I think the evidence confirms one over the other.
The cluster of beliefs that includes amplitude or frequency sovereignty, mostly inaudible sources and electronics, and rooms or spaces as the virtually sole remaining contributor doesn't have a strong track record. This school fancies itself the objective camp but its results tie erratically to that superlative, musical sound. Beliefs are not uncommonly like that.
The more open-minded school that allows for the audibility of virtually everything and that explores no end of influences, including sources, electronics, tuning, and all-domain behavior, tends to admit that surprisingly or even shockingly real playback sound. In loosely correlating long experience with the standing record of high-end reviewing this becomes obviously clear.
This is also the rational expectation. However it's the aggressive denialism of the first upstart camp against the latter long-standing camp that clinches the deal. Here again studies among professionals confirms the connection between best practice and best sound, while as far as I can see the objectivist movement hasn't that follow-on repeatability and correlation.
The good news is that progress continues and that the best sound is only a matter of finding it by ear. We don't have to always arrive at unreliable predictions that this sounds like that. We can and should go listen.