I can accept your criticism that his choice of verbiage of “should be avoided “can be improved with either:
” should be cautious” substituted or something similar, or
Included an express qualifier that adverse …or better still: “non-optimal” audio performance results MIGHT be invoked if ignored …. I.e. make it caution worthy rather than predictable) He arguably kinda did that in a wordy way already , but point taken !
to the op
you have several competing good options to consider and polar opposite arguments presented . The Royal “We” have collectively done our jobs .., hopefully you compare them in good form for YOUR system.