Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why audio monitors ... don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. I've never understood this, myself. If it was mixed on monitors, and made to sound good on monitors, then shouldn't it sound best when replayed on monitors?
I think the idea is that taste can be developed. A musician probably will like the sound best from a monitor, but someone who doesn't pay as much attention to sound has a less nuanced appreciation and taste. Cheaper speakers are often biased to exaggerate the qualities that are appealing to the majority (whose tastes are less refined), hence the scare quotes acknowledging the subjective interpretation of goodness.
As you note, consumer speakers (at most price points under the obscenely expensive mark) tend to hype certain frequencies: bass and highs in particular. Folks hear it and think, "Wow, so bright and clear! And dig that bass! You can really feel it." Studio monitors do none of those things, on purpose. The job of studio monitors is not to lure a consumer at Best Buy into thinking this set of speakers is better because it is louder and brighter in a room full of noise. Their job is to accurately reflect what is on tape.
So, engineers very rarely talk about whether monitors sound "good". The word engineers use as praise is "accurate". And, when they do use the word "good" in this context, they usually mean "accurate", where someone else probably means "hyped".