I disagree. I prefer the cleanest possible representation of audio or visual; what you would call sterile is what I call excellent.
Audio is a bad analogy here since the ear is literally billions of time more resolute than the eyes...
However with both film and digital they both have their weaknesses. Currently (unless you spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars) digital does not look as good as film. The weaknesses in film are easier on the eyes than digital.
In both (audio and visual) usually whichever format brings to the listener/viewer the most accurate representation of "being there" wins. There never can be a perfect score.
Unfortunately in audio the consumer format is the CD with 16bits and 44,100 Hz sampling rate. Its resolution is simply far too low to compare with analog. When you factor in the junk mastering/production of today it gets harder and harder to understand this too.