Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?

Doctor, I'm not sure how imaging can fit into a preference camp. Imaging is more to do with factors like driver spacing, crossover point, size and number of drivers, and baffle size/shape.

High dynamic range speakers that can pressurize a room and look like coffins are typically weakest in the imaging department, whereas smaller point source type speakers tend to be imaging champs. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just don't understand where you are coming from.  

If you are in the more musical camp, imaging may not necessarily be as inportant than by having a very smooth sound, dyanmic range may also not be as important as perhaps this listener plays very softly or plays music like small ensembles.

Sounds like the Doctor is more interested in drumming up business by oversimplifying the exercise of system building by creating the impression that systems are best designed by only targeting original sound expectations, and that anything falling outside that should be carefully rejected (adding an unrealistic degree of technical difficulty)...and naturally thereby creating the dependence on a dealer for ’expert’ advice on a topic that could just as easily be left on its own since much of the fun of the hobby is in the discovery of the unexpected surprises, even in the midst of what we might otherwise think of as a purchasing mistake - like how much we didn’t realize we might like, say, imaging...until we heard it in, say, a new amp we were trying out for ourselves, even if the component was for us a no go for other reasons and we returned it. But, what would the next move then be having run across something that made us rethink our sound priorities? I think it unnecessarily constrictive to suggest that the only valid expectations are those we originally start with. And if it’s going to be a given that our expectations are subject to change as we go, what then do we really need the advice of others for? Particularly in advance of the question. I fail to see the need for any of it.

Going by OP's first post I would say Naim Audio gear is a little bit of Type  1 and Type 2.  Their reputation I think was created out of Type 2 sound - the full PRAT without soundstage and super resolution But through the years the Naim sound has changed (without losing the PRAT) but gaining soundstage.  I would imagine that if goung through their gear at different stages from entry system to high (Statement) more of Type 1 sound would appear in the 'Niaim' sound.

for me it´s more a matter of what I´m trying to obtain;
to recreate an exact reproduction of a recording I have no clue what sounded like in the first place
or
create a credible realistic reproduction of a performance in my living room

I´m in the last category
to make that happen I need
controlled, but not dead acoustics in large volume rooom
harmonics
dynamics and proper headroom
no postcard size soundstage
absolute quiet at 112db system, even at full volume open phono

after having been a dedicated audiophile and music lover for 45 years
an all out custom hornsystem driven by se electronics and NO DSP is what cuts it for me...

Senheis1,  I've never heard Vidar amp, but I bet you never heard AHB2 otherwise you wouldn't post this opinion.  Stating that AHB2 lacks microdynamics, texture, layering or has poor soundstage sounds like a joke.  Please notice that all professional reviews of AHB2 claim exactly the opposite, and there were dozens. 

Since you only posted negative user opinions, that you can always find for any amp, I suspect that you just like colored sound, but I don't understand why you feel defensive about it.  There is nothing wrong with it - it is only a matter of taste. 

You also called AHB2 sound "colored to the analytical/detailed side" and it shows that you have some agenda.  There is no such coloring, but there is a coloring on a side of warm sounding "musical" amps that can be easily shown in the presence of even harmonics they produce.